Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dl
February 13, 2002 - March 03, 2002
for enclosed trailer (mobile hanger) driveway storage.
I have the Firefly kit half built which is to say the bare fuselage
is on the heavy duty wheels option and the 4130 welded fuselage is
painted
in white epoxy primer with the rudder and elevator finished and
controls
hooked up.
I am splitting out the engine and instruments and helmet and BRS chute.
Whole kit $6000 without Rotax 447 engine
( missing paint and instrument panel and assembly instructions )
New 447 engine with break-in time on engine only and instrument panel
full of instruments $2000. no prop ( already gone )
Brand New Size large White Comptronics helmet with earphones never worn
in flight $150. Helmet has minor scratches on helmet due to getting
banged around and has name painted on helmet with butterfly.
New complete BRS chute with brackets in 18 inch long white round metal
canister of 7 inch diameter. $1,200
This was a plane owned and built by Guy Leese of Douglasville, GA
who suffered a fatal stroke midway through building it.
I helped him the whole way and am selling for family.
Whole package negotiable.
location Atlanta, GA.. Pics available
call for discussion at 678 290-0507
Scott Perkins Marietta, GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Help with Flight Plan to Sun-n-Fun |
Hello list,
I am seriously thinking of making the trip to Sun-n-Fun in my Mark III. Due
to work, this will be my big vacation/flying trip this year. No fly-ins this
coming fall. I'm hangared at Omni (LA46), which is just west of Baton Rouge,
LA. I plan on making it a two day trip. I'm not hardcore like JH. It is
close to 11 hours of flying time, not counting wind and fuel stops.
Plan on stopping around Quincy, FL to overnight. This field showed camping.
ARE there any good places to land/camp (RON) south of Quincy? It would cut
a few miles off if I would turn more south after Defuniak Springs.
Second question - Are there arrival procedures for "light planes" going to
Paradise City? I've seen the arrival procedures for GA. I'm not sure how to
best approach form the North with all those GA planes around.
I haven't been to Sun-n-Fun since I purchased Kit 1 of my Mark III from the
OLD Kolb in 98.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
Mark III Classic - 912
N308JB - 105 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com> |
What is your procedure for deburring the inside of the hole?
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Bourne [mailto:biglar(at)gogittum.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: pop rivets
I have to agree with Bob. If you look in the A/C Spruce catalog, they give
the shear strength of the different sizes, and in the stainless ones
especially, it's really impressive.............and most of the loads on ours
are in shear. They're not as good in tension, but in our application, and
with as many as are used, that's not a problem. In areas of high stress,
it's quite often possible to put a stainless washer on the inside, for the
rivet to seat against. That's REALLY strong. A very common cause of rivet
loosening is caused by not de-burring the holes you drill. The drill leaves
a burr on the inside, and the rivet will tighten against it. A little
movement, the burr flattens out, and you've got a loose rivet. On a scrap
of flat aluminum, drill a 1/8" hole, using quite a bit of pressure. Notice
how big of a burr it leaves, then pop a rivet in there and take a close look
at it. It'll make a believer out of you...........real quick. De-burring
the inside of thousands of holes in the tubing is tedious, but it pays off
big time in the long run.
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: pop rivets
>
> Kolbers, I too was a little dubious about pop rivets and checked into
> using a/c blind rivets instead. Turns out the shear strength of those
> stainless jobs is pretty hard to beat. --and a whole bunch of 'em in a
> row....?? Remember, a preflight insp. sure helps returning to the
> ground in a coordinated assemblage of tubes, rivets and fabric.
> The only place I chose to use bolts instead of those big horse rivets
> was securing the tail tube into the cage ring. --Makes it a lot easier
> to
> take apart if/when I booger things up. -BB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
On page 485 of the 2001-2002 Aircraft Spruce catalog, top left, is a
deburring tool, p.n. 12-00700 for $10.95. If I remember right, it's the #10
deburring blade, p.n. 12-0800 for $2.00 ea. that I use. Make sure of the
blade size, then buy lots of them.....................I tried the cheap
Harbor Freight ones, and they break even easier. Get the good ones, take
your time, hold your tongue just right.............watch your
language...............works real good. Seems like they work best going
clockwise, but maybe that's just me. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: pop rivets
>
> What is your procedure for deburring the inside of the hole?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Bourne [mailto:biglar(at)gogittum.com]
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: pop rivets
>
>
> I have to agree with Bob. If you look in the A/C Spruce catalog, they
give
> the shear strength of the different sizes, and in the stainless ones
> especially, it's really impressive.............and most of the loads on
ours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
> In areas of high stress,
>it's quite often possible to put a stainless washer on the inside, for the
>rivet to seat against. That's REALLY strong.
Putting stainless against aluminum is worse than using a pencil on
aluminum. Those 2 metals don't like each other. The Kolb rivits must not
react as bad but I was told some manufacturers used stainless steel rivits
on the firewalls and they rotted out the firewall. Check compatibility
before you use stainless against aluminum.
I think Homer told me the shear strength of the old steel rivits were
180 lbs. You put a row of 5 of them somewhere and that is 1000 lbs of shear
strength.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with Flight Plan to Sun-n-Fun |
John B/Gang:
Great!
No, I would probably make your flight in two days, weather
permitting. :-)
> Plan on stopping around Quincy, FL to overnight.
Quincy is a good place to RON. I do not know how far it is
to the nearest food source, but you should always have
provisions on board to tide you over until you can find some
hot chow and water. There is a tree line near the FBO on
the east side of the field that is used for camping. Nice
level grassy area. Mayber Duane Mitchell will come up and
take you to dinner. He keeps his airplane there.
An alternate would be Tallahassee Commercial near Lake
Jackson. Don't know if they have fuel there now, but you
would be within walking distance of some places to eat.
For the remainder of the flight to Lakeland I would fly
north of TLH to Perry, down the highway to Cross City. The
airport at Cross City had a resturant in the FBO for years,
but heard recently that it had been closed down.
From Cross City fly Hwy 98 to Crystal River, then cross
country to Zephyrhills. From Zephyrhills, if you fly the
highway to Plant City, you will fly right over Blackwater
Creek Ultralight Park on the east side of the highway just
south of the big phosphate plant. There is also a microwave
tower on the west side of the road near Blackwater Creek.
From here on would stay well under 500 feet ASL, fly to
power plant east side of Plant City, continue south, you
will be on the west side of Lakeland AP. After you clear
Lakeland AP on the east, start a slow turn east and south of
Lakeland AP. Approach the UL strip from the south. Stay
well below 500 feet and away from the remainder of the
airport. Approach directly from the south and you will be
in the UL corridor. If you arrive after Sun and Fun begins,
be sure and arrive prior to the airshow that usually starts
at 1400, I think, or after about 1800 when the airshow is
over. The airport is closed to all traffic during that time
period. There will be a NOTAM to that effect, but the
airshow could run over when the big boys are playing with
their war birds.
I haven't decided whether I will fly to Sun and Fun this
year. If I go I will fly.
Sounds like fun.
john h
This field showed camping.
> ARE there any good places to land/camp (RON) south of Quincy? It would cut
> a few miles off if I would turn more south after Defuniak Springs.
>
> Second question - Are there arrival procedures for "light planes" going to
> Paradise City? I've seen the arrival procedures for GA. I'm not sure how to
> best approach form the North with all those GA planes around.
>
> I haven't been to Sun-n-Fun since I purchased Kit 1 of my Mark III from the
> OLD Kolb in 98.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Bickham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I was flying in NC mostly. I built a Pitts S1S with an O320. When I got
bored with that I built an S2B with a Lycoming IO540. I didn't really fly
airshows for a living. It was more of a hobby. I think I did more freebies
than anything else, but occasionally I made a few bucks.
I never really did much as far as airshows in the S2B which was too bad.
The performance was unreal. By the time I finished building the S2, I had
also got mixed up in off shore power boats. My focus sort of shifted to
that for a few years. I sold the S2 in 1991 and just got back into flying 3
years ago.
This time around I decided to stick with ultralights. I do some aerobatics
in my Phantom. I'm thinking about putting Mikuni pumpers on it this spring
so the engine wont quit when inverted of pulling negative G's.
I don't really have any cool airshow stories. like I said, it was more of a
hobby than a business.
Ross
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:05:04 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: INSURANCE
>
>
>
>> After 40 hours, I started flying a Pitts and couldn't afford to insure the
>> plane. Now that I have tons of flight time and can afford to insure them, I
>> can't see the point in paying the unreasonable premiums...So I still self
>> insure.
>>
>> I did carry liability on both of the Pitts because I was flying airshows.
>> It was required by most clients (Incase you fly into the grand stands).
>> Liability on the Pitts was less than the Cherokee premium. Around $300 I
>> think...And they knew I was doing low level aerobatics.
>
>> Ross
>
> Ross/Gang:
>
> Wow! I musta missed this email when it came through the
> other day. Did not know we had a real "air show" performer
> in our midst.
>
> When and where were you flying airshows?
>
> What model Pitts were you flying?
>
> As long as I have been hanging out at air ports, flyins, and
> air shows all over the country, I bet I have seen you
> perform.
>
> How about sharing some of your air show experience with us?
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help with Flight Plan to Sun-n-Fun |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I'm thinking of flying down this year from New Hampshire. It all depends on
whether or not I can get it finished by then.
Ross
> From: BICUM(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:57:14 EST
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Help with Flight Plan to Sun-n-Fun
>
>
> Hello list,
>
> I am seriously thinking of making the trip to Sun-n-Fun in my Mark III. Due
> to work, this will be my big vacation/flying trip this year. No fly-ins this
> coming fall. I'm hangared at Omni (LA46), which is just west of Baton Rouge,
> LA. I plan on making it a two day trip. I'm not hardcore like JH. It is
> close to 11 hours of flying time, not counting wind and fuel stops.
>
> Plan on stopping around Quincy, FL to overnight. This field showed camping.
> ARE there any good places to land/camp (RON) south of Quincy? It would cut
> a few miles off if I would turn more south after Defuniak Springs.
>
> Second question - Are there arrival procedures for "light planes" going to
> Paradise City? I've seen the arrival procedures for GA. I'm not sure how to
> best approach form the North with all those GA planes around.
>
> I haven't been to Sun-n-Fun since I purchased Kit 1 of my Mark III from the
> OLD Kolb in 98.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Bickham
> St. Francisville, LA
> Mark III Classic - 912
> N308JB - 105 hrs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
..... what's
> the dollar limit on that liability insurance? ....... tim
Tim/Gang:
Liability is 50,000 ea person, 100,000 property damage,
300,000 ea accident.........$275.00.
Aircraft Damage (including In Flight) for $30,000, not in
motion/in motion (looks like $1,000
deductible)....$1,406.00.
I have been so pissed at AVEMCO for raising their already
high premiums on me this year that I have not talked to
them. I believe, though, that the $1,000 is the deductible,
which was raised from about $200 or $250 from last year.
I will drop hull coverage and gamble on tearing up the MK
III, but the liability is to insure I can survive if I do
something dumb and tear up someone else's property.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Putting stainless against aluminum is worse than using a pencil on
> aluminum. Those 2 metals don't like each other. The Kolb rivits must not
> react as bad but I was told some manufacturers used stainless steel rivits
> on the firewalls and they rotted out the firewall.
Woody
Woody/Gang:
I believe I have thoroughly tested SS pop rivets and
aluminum compatibility over the years. My old MK III is
testimony that I have no problem with dissimilar metals.
Last year during inspection and rebuild of the left wing and
aileron, there was no indication of corrosion after aprx 10
yrs, even though the wing had gotten a considedrable amount
of rain water in it during the two weeks it was stored
outside at Muncho Lake, BC.
Where I did find corossion was on the aluminum lift strut
where I had the Kolhsman nickle plated brass pitot/static
tube attached with SS rivets.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electric start for 503 |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Does anyone had an electric start set-up that they want to unload cheap?
I'm not a big fan of electric start because of the weight....and I'm not so
lazy that I cant pull the started rope once or twice.
Since I have to have a battery anyway for all the electric gizmos on the
plane, I told myself if I could find a cheap electric start set-up, Id do
it.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
I'm not a metalurgist (plumbing and refrig for my past income) but the
offending metal has to be a decent conductor to cause corrosion. Most
stainless, and there are several different blends, conduct very poorly.
-That is why they shouldn't be a problem.
The dumbest thing the aluminum airplane owners used to do was to
polish them to a shine. The old Alclad was an alloy sandwiched between
very thin outer layers of pure aluminum for corrosion protection.Once
that pure stuff is polished off you better paint it. --BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I sold the S2 in 1991 and just got back into flying 3
> years ago.
>
> This time around I decided to stick with ultralights. I do some aerobatics
> in my Phantom. I'm thinking about putting Mikuni pumpers on it this spring
> so the engine wont quit when inverted of pulling negative G's.
>
> I don't really have any cool airshow stories. like I said, it was more of a
> hobby than a business.
>
> Ross
Ross/Gang:
Was wondering if you kept your pilot's license current or
not?
Do you still remember the "N" numbers of your two Pitts?
What kind of aerobatic maneuvers do you perform with your
Phantom?
Did not realize the Phantom was an aerobatic aircraft. What
airspeeds do you use to fly your aerobatics?
Was wondering how the Phantom performance compared to the
Firestar?
You said you lived in New Hampshire? What city? I have
flown through New Hampshire in my Firestar in 1989.
What is required to get a low level waiver for performing
aerobatics at air shows? Must be tough getting that?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Sport Pilot arguement infects Kolb ... |
| From: | William George <WGeorge(at)macrev.com> |
on 2/12/02 9:50 PM, Kolb-List Digest Server at
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote:
> Tim/Gang:
>
> My liability insurance, which also covers passengers, is
> $275 for the year 2002.
>
> Hull coverage on the ground and in the air went out of
> sight. At this point in time it looks like I will drop hull
> coverage on an airplane that is worth at least $30,000. It
> is a gamble to fly without hull coverage, but between 1,400
> and 1,500 dollars is too much to dish out for this
> protection.
>
> I will keep my liability. If I dropped the passenger
> clause, I could probably cut that in half. Even though I
> don't haul passengers that often, all it would take is one
> accident and a passenger with a sore thumb could ruin me.
>
> john h
>
Thanks John,
Who is your insurer?
Bill George
Mk-3 Verner1400 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Sport Pilot arguement infects Kolb ... |
> Who is your insurer?
>
> Bill George
Hi Bill/Gang:
AVEMCO
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
>
> Ross/Gang:
>
> Was wondering if you kept your pilot's license current or
> not?
I have been keeping it current. My medical is now expired and there is some
question as to whether I'll pass another one (possible blood sugar issue),
hence, all the talk about sport pilot.
>
> Do you still remember the "N" numbers of your two Pitts?
I can barely remember my phone number. The only N number I remember is my
first airplane...A Cherokee 140. N6768J. I remember that one because I was
constantly repeating it on the radio. I didn't use the radio much in the
aerobatic planes.
>
> What kind of aerobatic maneuvers do you perform with your
> Phantom?
Loops, rolls, spins, lazy 8's, just basic maneuvers. I tried a hammerhead
once but the engine quit when it went vertical and 0 G. Also tried a point
roll, but the engine quit on that one too. Inverted for too long.
Rolls in the Phantom look more like barrel rolls than aileron rolls. You
have to maintain positive G or the engine will quit. Time for some pumper
carbs.
>
> Did not realize the Phantom was an aerobatic aircraft. What
> airspeeds do you use to fly your aerobatics?
I pretty much enter everything at 90. That is essential for a loop. Rolls
can be done at less airspeed, but the faster you go the better the plane
responds.
>
> Was wondering how the Phantom performance compared to the
> Firestar?
Never flown a Firestar. To do a roll in the Phantom you pull the nose up
about 30 degrees, stick left (or right) about 4", slight forward pressure
when inverted then slight back pressure as you roll out.
I've never flown any UL that handles as good as the Phantom. My Twinstar
handled so poorly in comparison, I though that I had some sort of flight
control failure on the first flight. If you get the chance, I highly
recommend that you try one. If you find yourself up this way in the spring,
you can fly mine.
>
> You said you lived in New Hampshire? What city? I have
> flown through New Hampshire in my Firestar in 1989.
I'm in Sunapee...Southern NH. Our airport is Parlin Field in Newport. I
built the airport web site. Check it out.
http://www.newportnh.net/airport
>
> What is required to get a low level waiver for performing
> aerobatics at air shows? Must be tough getting that?
you have to take the appropriate training and get signed off by an aerobatic
instructor (I think). I never actually did it. I intended to get my low
level in the S2. I took some instruction, but lost interest. There is an
outfit in Nashua, NH that does it. The same outfit that does the
maintenance on Patty Wagstaffs Extra 300L.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | I did it Again-Insurance |
I can't remember to disable that Incredimail when I post to the list. It
causes all those OD's. What I was trying to comment on was my insurance. My
premium is $380.00 a year for $500,000 liability with $15,000 not in motion
hull coverage with $250 deductable. Since I am building this FireStar as a
single place plane, no passenger coverage is included.
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | polished aluminum |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
writes:
> The dumbest thing the aluminum airplane owners used to do was to
> polish them to a shine. The old Alclad was an alloy sandwiched
> between
> very thin outer layers of pure aluminum for corrosion
> protection.Once
> that pure stuff is polished off you better paint it. --BB
Bob and others,
If you look at my Firestar pics, the wing struts and fuselage tube are
polished. They have been this way for 15 years without any problems.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: polished aluminum |
Ralph, no problem, they aren't alclad --BB
ul15rhb(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> writes:
> > The dumbest thing the aluminum airplane owners used to do was to
> > polish them to a shine. The old Alclad was an alloy sandwiched
> > between
> > very thin outer layers of pure aluminum for corrosion
> > protection.Once
> > that pure stuff is polished off you better paint it. --BB
>
> Bob and others,
>
> If you look at my Firestar pics, the wing struts and fuselage tube are
> polished. They have been this way for 15 years without any problems.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
A
>I believe I have thoroughly tested SS pop rivets and
>aluminum compatibility over the years. My old MK III is
>testimony that I have no problem with dissimilar metals.
I've been thinking about my last letter. I don't think it was the
rivits that were the problem. It was a stainless firewall that was rivited
to the aluminum airframe. These words of wisdom were from Chris Heintz and
he should know. S/S comes in many alloys. I think the rivits we use are a
monel alloy and may have different characteristics that a standard grade of
s/s sheets and washers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: YOUR FIRST FLIGHT |
Woody wrote:
> My favourite technique is observe the speed I lift off and add 5 - 10 on
> approach.
***************************************
> >Check your stall speed, then approach at 1.3 to 1.4 times the stall speed.
> >Indicated airspeed in these machines is all over the map and rarely accurat.
> >
> >Bill George
***************************************
Woody/Bill/Gang:
I'll have to go with Bill on this one.
Way back in the Ultrastar days, 1984, Homer Kolb's manual
recommended climbing to 1,000 feet after the first take
off. Slow down in level flight and see where the US
stalled. The add 5 or 10 mph to that for approach speed.
Probably works out close to what Bill stated. The stall
speed on my US was right on the mark at 25 mph.
The calculator says to use approach speed of 32.5 to 37.5
mph. 10 mph over stall would be 35 mph. In my own mind I
drilled myself to hold 40 mph, since this was my first fixed
wing landing and there was not a IP (that's what we called
our CFI's in Army Flight School) on board. I did not want
to take any chance of stalling this weird flying machine on
my first landing.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: seldom is heard... |
Bob & List,
Beauford is still
around . The last I heard he was working a overwhelming number of hours,
Since the 9-11 tragedy. He dosent get much chance to check the list. Im sure
we will here from him If he gets the chance.
Ed Diebel
Do Not Arch.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | John H and gang......Ultrastar stall speed |
I have an Ultrastar that I have been thoroughly enjoying for a
year and need some advice. Seems the last owner shortened the ailerons
to the same lenght as the Firestar's. WHY? The aileron authority is OK
but not spectacular and in a steep turn does not want to respond without
almost full opposite deflection (read scary). Is this due to the 0
dihedral .? My stall speed is 35mph and is this caused by the shortened
ailerons which in turn decreases the area of the wing causing the high
stall speed.I also have a higher than advertised cruise speed and
verified by GPS (tach is also correct) I will be changing the ailerons
back to full length but have been wondering about this since buying the
Ultrastar.......Although I am used to the aileron response of a Grumman
Agcat that I have been spraying with for the last 25 years , I believe
this may be a problem peculiar to this particular Ultrastar.....One last
statement...If any of you "lurkers" are thinking about getting into
ultralights,.... do it.! ! It's by far the most fun type of flying
that I have experienced. ..... Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: YOUR FIRST FLIGHT |
I do not believe the GA formula applies well to ultra lights and very light
planes. The thing you need to remember is that an ultra light has very
little mass and even less momentum. As result the ultra light will
decelerate in an eye blink, and if you are not aware of your air speed, it
would be very easy to drop or stall it.
In the FireFly, I never make a final approach at less than 40 (a zero wind
day) and most are made at 50 mphi. There are several reasons for this. I
fly out of an airport, and so I want to keep my speed up so that I do not
delay others, but the most important reason is flight stability. If one
flies slower, the flight controls are less effective and thermals and cross
winds close to the ground seem to wallow you around much more. I make
fairly steep low throttle approaches, so that if the engine quits, I still
have the field made. By flying on down at 50 mphi and flairing in ground
effect, one just has to worry about keeping it straight and holding it off
until it quits flying. The FireFly touches down at about 25 mphi. Flairing
at 50 mphi gives one sufficient time to get the plane on down close to the
ground before it quits fling. Most of my flights begin and end in gusty
cross winds that are caused by large buildings on each side of a center
taxiway that I use as a runway.
My first flight was on a no wind day, and I climbed to 2000 AGL and flew
slow flight, stalls, and then I practiced low throttle descents. It was
very exciting sitting up front and bringing the throttle back and flying
descents at 40, 50, and 60 mphi. At sixty it felt like I was standing on
my feet, as the world came up to meet me.
I refuse to fly slower than 40 mphi close to the ground because I put a lot
of effort into building the FireFly, and I am not going to bang it up due
to rotor off the ridge, an unseen dust devil or a lull in the wind.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: John H and gang......Ultrastar stall speed |
Ed,
Lack of aileron effectiveness may be caused by a thick boundary layer
forming over the back portion of the wing. You can improve on what you have
by installing vortex generators on the wings. They will improve aileron
effectiveness by reducing the boundary layer thickness and lower stall
speed. Vortex generators require much less effort and expense than building
new ailerons.
See: http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly17.html
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
> I have an Ultrastar that I have been thoroughly enjoying for a
>year and need some advice. Seems the last owner shortened the ailerons
>to the same lenght as the Firestar's. WHY? The aileron authority is OK
>but not spectacular and in a steep turn does not want to respond without
>almost full opposite deflection (read scary). Is this due to the 0
>dihedral .? My stall speed is 35mph and is this caused by the shortened
>ailerons which in turn decreases the area of the wing causing the high
>stall speed.I also have a higher than advertised cruise speed and
>verified by GPS (tach is also correct) I will be changing the ailerons
>back to full length but have been wondering about this since buying the
>Ultrastar.......Although I am used to the aileron response of a Grumman
>Agcat that I have been spraying with for the last 25 years , I believe
>this may be a problem peculiar to this particular Ultrastar.....One last
>statement...If any of you "lurkers" are thinking about getting into
>ultralights,.... do it.! ! It's by far the most fun type of flying
>that I have experienced. ..... Ed in Western NY
>
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: John H and gang......Ultrastar stall speed |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: John H and gang......Ultrastar stall speed
>
> I have an Ultrastar that I have been thoroughly enjoying for a
> year and need some advice. Seems the last owner shortened the ailerons
> to the same lenght as the Firestar's. WHY? The aileron authority is OK
> but not spectacular and in a steep turn does not want to respond without
> almost full opposite deflection (read scary). Is this due to the 0
> dihedral .? My stall speed is 35mph and is this caused by the shortened
Ed,
Search the list archive for "stall characteristics" - I did some quick
performance numbers on my ultrastar. My stall was also about 35, not
verifed by GPS.
Can't understand why anyone would cut the full span ailerons. My roll
responce is quite good, in a slip I run out of rudder before I run out of
ailerons.
John Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: John H and gang......Ultrastar stall speed |
Ed/Gang:
Been a long time since I have flown an Ultrastar, about 15
years. So, my memory is a little rusty on some of its
characteristics in flight.
My buddy and I both built Ultrastars, mine in 1984 and his
in 1985. They were both built identical, but his had a
little different feel than mine. I suspect this could have
been the way it was rigged, built, etc. However, both had
Winter venturi activated ASI's which are extremely acurate
at the bottom of the scale and right on up to top speed.
Both our birds stalled at 25 mph indicated. Both would fly
85 mph indicated straight and level WOT. They were both
built standard to plans.
Maneuvering, the Ultrastar handled best around 40 to 50
mph. Anything over that and the big ailerons loaded up so
much that one had to be very gentle/patient to get the
aircraft righted after getting into a highspeed turn/steep
bank.
I don't know how reducing the length of the ailerons would
affect the Ultrastar. I would think that reducing cord
would have been a better way to reduce area to lighten them
up a bit. Homer loves the realm of slow flight, to be able
to control the aircraft right through mush/stall. His
design of the Ultrastar did just that.
As a kid I would dream of being able to fly with no
aircraft, just extending my arms. Flying the Ultrastar came
about as close to that configuration as one could get.
There was an imense feeling of freedom sitting out front
with nothing in front or beside you. I liked to climb to
5,000 feet, slow down to 25-30 mph, feel the sensation of
sitting in a chair without moving at that altitude. Quite a
little airplane. :-)
Take care,
john h
> I have an Ultrastar that I have been thoroughly enjoying for a
> year and need some advice. Seems the last owner shortened the ailerons
> to the same lenght as the Firestar's. WHY? The aileron authority is OK
> but not spectacular and in a steep turn does not want to respond without
> almost full opposite deflection (read scary). Is this due to the 0
> dihedral .? My stall speed is 35mph and is this caused by the shortened
> ailerons which in turn decreases the area of the wing causing the high
> stall speed.I also have a higher than advertised cruise speed and
> verified by GPS (tach is also correct) I will be changing the ailerons
> back to full length but have been wondering about this since buying the
> Ultrastar.......Although I am used to the aileron response of a Grumman
> Agcat that I have been spraying with for the last 25 years , I believe
> this may be a problem peculiar to this particular Ultrastar.....One last
> statement...If any of you "lurkers" are thinking about getting into
> ultralights,.... do it.! ! It's by far the most fun type of flying
> that I have experienced. ..... Ed in Western NY
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
It also depends on the environment. That setup might be fine for years in
Arizona, but might show signs of corrosion only after a year near the coast.
Salt acts as a catalyst for corrosion.
Ross
> From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:50:40 -0500
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: pop rivets
>
>
> A
>> I believe I have thoroughly tested SS pop rivets and
>> aluminum compatibility over the years. My old MK III is
>> testimony that I have no problem with dissimilar metals.
>
> I've been thinking about my last letter. I don't think it was the
> rivits that were the problem. It was a stainless firewall that was rivited
> to the aluminum airframe. These words of wisdom were from Chris Heintz and
> he should know. S/S comes in many alloys. I think the rivits we use are a
> monel alloy and may have different characteristics that a standard grade of
> s/s sheets and washers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Steel Gear Legs for Firestar |
> The reason I ask is because I was thinking of buying a set for the TS...But
> not if there is a known problem with them.
>
> Ross
Ross/Gang:
Factory steel legs available only for MK III and MK III
Extra.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sport pilot- flight in congested areas |
| From: | erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com |
02/14/2002 12:41:23 PM
Vic W. and others:
Pg. 37 of the NPRM states:
"Unlike ultralight vehicles, light-sport aircraft could operate in
congested areas and controlled airspace."
Sounds good to me. The rule later states that while FAA would allow you to
fly over congested areas, a particular light-sport aircraft may have
operating limitations that prohibit such operations. By this I believe
they mean that the manufacturer of the plane could conceivably say in their
operating manual that the plane should not be flown over congested areas.
I still think you are in good shape, especially for a plane that already
exists, and likely does not have a true "operating manual", or at least not
one that says the plane is not fit for flying in congested areas.
Erich Weaver
erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91 Welding Steel Gear legs |
My question is would
> there be a noticeable difference in the .095 wall tubing versus the .120
> wall distortion from the treating. Ben, do you have your legs back and if so
> how much distortion did you get?
> John Cooley
John/Ben/Gang:
I designed and fabricated the original 4130 gear for the
Firestar 1987. Upgraded it in 1989. What I came up with
worked then and will work now.
.120 wall 4130 X 1 1/8 X 35.5 inches
Heat treated to RC 48.
I have used three different companies for heat treating.
Never had a problem with any of them. The one I used for
the MK III parts was in Anniston, AL. Don't have the name
and number handy, but willing to look it up if someone is
interested. Can ups parts to them and they will return
likewise. Check the archives. I have written about most
all this stuff.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
Concerning the Sport Pilot proposal, the misconceptions seem to be as
numerous as the people who read it. Everybody seems to get something
different out of it. I suppose even the 16 hour maintenance course has
it's benefits (may help to reaffirm what needs to be done on a
continuous basis to fly a "safe" aircraft) but how can they possibly
cram into 16 hours what a "professional" inspector will need to know
considering how many different types of aircraft there are with
different engines and built out of different materials. It would seem
to me that the annual inspection would be something that the "builder"
would know the most about. It also appears to me that the feds are
aiming this at the commercial aspect. I don't want to fix your airplane
or anybody else's for profit. I have 14 years invested in building,
maintaining and flying my own aircraft unmolested and I would like to be
allowed to continue to do that until I (and some of the pilots closest
to me) conclude that I am no longer fit. Personally I feel that a
limited self-regulation is a much more workable plan.
It also seems unrealistic to cram everybody under the same umbrella.
Some people simply buy aircraft and fly them. Probably a lot of people
in this category don't know squat about the airplane itself. Others
(myself included) buy construction kits or plans and spend a
considerable amount of time building them, actually enjoying the process
of learning what it's all about. By the time we're through (usually
years) we know every nut and bolt and rivet by heart and truly
appreciate the structural complexities. There is a HUGE difference
between these people and the first group. In the people that put this
proposal together, however, there doesn't seem to have been anybody that
can actually see the difference. I know that any law has to cover the
weakest link but it would seem that it also punishes those of us who are
higher on the gradient. If the feds are going to pass a law that is
supposed to cover all of us, there ought to be some distinction made
between builder/pilots and simply pilots as it pertains to maintenance
and inspections.
It really does appear to me that federal income generation was the
number one objective in this proposal. I will, however, continue to
study it in an effort to discover the "gold" that others seem to see
inside.
Steve Kroll PP (glider) and single occupant (by choice) of an
unregistered "fat" ultralight (MK-2)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Steel Gear Legs for Firestar |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Hmmm...I thought they were all the same...Wonder why they don't sell them
for other models. Seems like there is a market.
Ross
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:05:56 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Steel Gear Legs for Firestar
>
>
>
>> The reason I ask is because I was thinking of buying a set for the TS...But
>> not if there is a known problem with them.
>>
>> Ross
>
> Ross/Gang:
>
> Factory steel legs available only for MK III and MK III
> Extra.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 91 Welding Steel Gear legs |
John,
What did your steel legs weigh?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>John/Ben/Gang:
>
>I designed and fabricated the original 4130 gear for the
>Firestar 1987. Upgraded it in 1989. What I came up with
>worked then and will work now.
>
>.120 wall 4130 X 1 1/8 X 35.5 inches
>
>Heat treated to RC 48.
>
>I have used three different companies for heat treating.
>Never had a problem with any of them. The one I used for
>the MK III parts was in Anniston, AL. Don't have the name
>and number handy, but willing to look it up if someone is
>interested. Can ups parts to them and they will return
>likewise. Check the archives. I have written about most
>all this stuff.
>
>john h
>
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
>. I suppose even the 16 hour maintenance course has
> it's benefits (may help to reaffirm what needs to be done on a
> continuous basis to fly a "safe" aircraft) but how can they possibly
> cram into 16 hours what a "professional" inspector will need to know
> considering how many different types of aircraft there are with
> different engines and built out of different materials. It would seem
> to me that the annual inspection would be something that the "builder"
> would know the most about. It also appears to me that the feds are
> aiming this at the commercial aspect. I don't want to fix your airplane
> or anybody else's for profit. I have 14 years invested in building,
> maintaining and flying my own aircraft unmolested and I would like to be
> allowed to continue to do that until I (and some of the pilots closest
> to me) conclude that I am no longer fit. Personally I feel that a
> limited self-regulation is a much more workable plan.
Steve the 16 hr. course to get the inspectors rating is make/model specific.
In your case you would go to the Kolb school
and be given 16 hrs. training to maintain/inspect the Kolb Mark II. This would
allow you to do the annual condition
inspection on your Mark II ONLY. You could not perform the condition inspection
on someone else's Mark II. Should you later
trade for a Mark III then you would have to go back to Kolb and get 6 more hours
training on the Mark III.
>
> It also seems unrealistic to cram everybody under the same umbrella.
> Some people simply buy aircraft and fly them. Probably a lot of people
> in this category don't know squat about the airplane itself. Others
> (myself included) buy construction kits or plans and spend a
> considerable amount of time building them, actually enjoying the process
> of learning what it's all about. By the time we're through (usually
> years) we know every nut and bolt and rivet by heart and truly
> appreciate the structural complexities. There is a HUGE difference
> between these people and the first group. In the people that put this
> proposal together, however, there doesn't seem to have been anybody that
> can actually see the difference. I know that any law has to cover the
> weakest link but it would seem that it also punishes those of us who are
> higher on the gradient. If the feds are going to pass a law that is
> supposed to cover all of us, there ought to be some distinction made
> between builder/pilots and simply pilots as it pertains to maintenance
> and inspections.
I agree they do not acknowledge those who build a kit on the 51% list. They wrote
the proposal for the person who buys a
used flying airplane. This is something that needs commenting on.
> It really does appear to me that federal income generation was the
> number one objective in this proposal. I will, however, continue to
> study it in an effort to discover the "gold" that others seem to see
> inside.
>
> Steve Kroll PP (glider) and single occupant (by choice) of an
> unregistered "fat" ultralight (MK-2)
It was written by J. Reid Howell to generate income for the manufacturers. All
the Gold is seen from the GA side. From the
UL side it looks like a money pit.
Sam Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Thacker" <gbthacker(at)hotmail.com> |
fly-ul(at)majordomo.hughes.net
| Subject: | Virginia fields........thumbs |
I realize this is short notice but...........
I am heading to the northern neck tomorrow to a place called Kilmarnock.
Well not really there but very close. Are there any ultralight fields close
by. I thought there was one south across the Corrotoman river. I would
like to vist if there is one reasonabley close. I am plannin to retire this
year and am lookin for a place to fly my Firestar II.
Thanks for the help guy's
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Virginia fields........thumbs |
Gary
Check out USUA club 6. They have a website and are located on
(almost) the Pianketank River. Good luck
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs Wiring Question |
I'm forgetful too. Which is why I put a windswitch in line with my Hobbs.
It only runs when the airplane is flying. There is a picture of it on my
webpage at
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
There are more sophisticated electronic ways to do it: this is simple.
That's why I did it this way.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
I'm the kind of forgetful type who would
>leave the master switch on and rack up tons of bogus Hobbs hours. Need to
>have the Hobbs run only when the engine is operating.
>
>Many thanks for any advice!
>
>Dennis Kirby
>Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin-72, not flying yet in
>Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Experimental Restrictions |
I found the FAR I was referring to earlier.
Steven
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/CurrentFAR
Part/4F759CF74E90B50B852566CF0067C4A2?OpenDocument
Sec. 91.319
Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate--
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate
outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is shown that--
(1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and
throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and
(2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design
features.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating
limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The
Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft
to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area
or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified
in the authorization in the interest of safety in air commerce.
(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate
shall--
(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft;
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by
the Administrator; and
(3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when
operating the aircraft into or out of airports with operating control towers.
(e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the
Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the persons that
may be carried in the aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SP airworthiness |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Sam (Cox) or Jon,
From the NPRM:
>The FAA may issue special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness
certificates to aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the
rule. These aircraft would be required to meet the consensus standard in
effect at the time of manufacture. To get the certificate you would have
to make application for registration not later than 24 months after the
effective date of the rule. You would also have to present the required
information (as above) to the FAA and make the statements concerning any
prior or future modifications. This would require the manufacturer of
your aircraft to be in a position to issue a Retroactive Statement of
Compliance for your specific aircraft serial number.>
Ralph writes:
I'm sure this would apply to my Original Firestar that was manufactured
in 1986 by the original Kolb Company. How would I get a "Statement of
Compliance" from them? TNK does not support them. What about a
plans-built ultralight? Without a Statement of Compliance, would I be
grounded eventually under SP?
From the NPRM:
>Proposed 21.186(c)(5) would require the Statement of Compliance to
include full identification of the following:
1.The Pilot Operating Handbook describing the proper methods and
procedures for safely operating the aircraft.
2.The manufacturers inspection and maintenance program for the continued
airworthiness of the aircraft. This would require the MANUFACTURER to
establish and make available the technical information necessary to
inspect and maintain the aircraft.
3.The pilot flight training providing information on the model-specific
features and characteristics of the aircraft, because the sport pilot
certificate would
require specific training by make and model. (Without such a manual, a
sport pilot would not be able to receive a make and model logbook
endorsement
and thus could not operate the aircraft.)>
Ralph writes:
There, that last line says it right there. There is no manufacturer or
manual, so I could not operate the aircraft.
Am I reading this right or jumping to conclusions again?
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91 Welding Steel Gear legs |
> What did your steel legs weigh?
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
I don't remember the exact weight, but they were aprx the
same as the solid 7075 alum legs.
My first set of legs bent, made of .090 X 1" and longer than
the original legs. A friend at Max Air gave me their secret
RC number, I believe of 42. I tried these and they were not
stout enough. We turned down the old alum legs to slip
inside the upper ends to give additional beef to the area
where the leg exited the socket. That helped. Maybe if we
had heat treated to 48 RC they may have made the grade.
I had an engine failure between Grand Island and Buffalo,
NY, over the Niagra River, 5 minutes after I left Niagra
Falls. Hard landing cut the gear leg socket at the end of
the gear leg in the stock position. Also tore out the
entire tube cluster at the bottom around the gear leg
socket.
That winter 88 and 89, we completely overhauled the
fuselage. Took it down to bare metal and started over.
This time I went to 1.125X.120X35.5" heat treated to 46 RC,
but they came out of the furnace at 48 RC, which turned out
to be the best hardness. I still have those legs in the
basement.
I use the same material and RC for my MK III legs.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SP airworthiness |
Why would any company take on the liability of issuing a Statement of
Compiance for an airplane they have no knowledge of its once it was out of
there possession. To me it would be corporate suicide and leave them wide
open for law suits.
jerryb
>
>Sam (Cox) or Jon,
>
> >From the NPRM:
> >The FAA may issue special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness
>certificates to aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the
>rule. These aircraft would be required to meet the consensus standard in
>effect at the time of manufacture. To get the certificate you would have
>to make application for registration not later than 24 months after the
>effective date of the rule. You would also have to present the required
>information (as above) to the FAA and make the statements concerning any
>prior or future modifications. This would require the manufacturer of
>your aircraft to be in a position to issue a Retroactive Statement of
>Compliance for your specific aircraft serial number.>
>
>Ralph writes:
>I'm sure this would apply to my Original Firestar that was manufactured
>in 1986 by the original Kolb Company. How would I get a "Statement of
>Compliance" from them? TNK does not support them. What about a
>plans-built ultralight? Without a Statement of Compliance, would I be
>grounded eventually under SP?
>
> >From the NPRM:
> >Proposed 21.186(c)(5) would require the Statement of Compliance to
>include full identification of the following:
>
>1.The Pilot Operating Handbook describing the proper methods and
>procedures for safely operating the aircraft.
>2.The manufacturers inspection and maintenance program for the continued
>airworthiness of the aircraft. This would require the MANUFACTURER to
>establish and make available the technical information necessary to
>inspect and maintain the aircraft.
>3.The pilot flight training providing information on the model-specific
>features and characteristics of the aircraft, because the sport pilot
>certificate would
>require specific training by make and model. (Without such a manual, a
>sport pilot would not be able to receive a make and model logbook
>endorsement
>and thus could not operate the aircraft.)>
>
>Ralph writes:
>There, that last line says it right there. There is no manufacturer or
>manual, so I could not operate the aircraft.
>
>Am I reading this right or jumping to conclusions again?
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original Firestar
>15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SP airworthiness |
When you build the plane, are you not the manufacturer? Kolb just provides
parts and plans.
Jim
Mark III
Charlotte, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: SP airworthiness
>
> Sam (Cox) or Jon,
>
> From the NPRM:
> >The FAA may issue special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness
> certificates to aircraft manufactured before the effective date of the
> rule. These aircraft would be required to meet the consensus standard in
> effect at the time of manufacture. To get the certificate you would have
> to make application for registration not later than 24 months after the
> effective date of the rule. You would also have to present the required
> information (as above) to the FAA and make the statements concerning any
> prior or future modifications. This would require the manufacturer of
> your aircraft to be in a position to issue a Retroactive Statement of
> Compliance for your specific aircraft serial number.>
>
> Ralph writes:
> I'm sure this would apply to my Original Firestar that was manufactured
> in 1986 by the original Kolb Company. How would I get a "Statement of
> Compliance" from them? TNK does not support them. What about a
> plans-built ultralight? Without a Statement of Compliance, would I be
> grounded eventually under SP?
>
> From the NPRM:
> >Proposed 21.186(c)(5) would require the Statement of Compliance to
> include full identification of the following:
>
> 1.The Pilot Operating Handbook describing the proper methods and
> procedures for safely operating the aircraft.
> 2.The manufacturers inspection and maintenance program for the continued
> airworthiness of the aircraft. This would require the MANUFACTURER to
> establish and make available the technical information necessary to
> inspect and maintain the aircraft.
> 3.The pilot flight training providing information on the model-specific
> features and characteristics of the aircraft, because the sport pilot
> certificate would
> require specific training by make and model. (Without such a manual, a
> sport pilot would not be able to receive a make and model logbook
> endorsement
> and thus could not operate the aircraft.)>
>
> Ralph writes:
> There, that last line says it right there. There is no manufacturer or
> manual, so I could not operate the aircraft.
>
> Am I reading this right or jumping to conclusions again?
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: YOUR FIRST FLIGHT |
In a message dated 2/14/02 8:58:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net
writes:
> I refuse to fly slower than 40 mphi close to the ground because I put a lot
> of effort into building the FireFly, and I am not going to bang it up due
> to rotor off the ridge, an unseen dust devil or a lull in the wind.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
Hear, hear....I agree entirely....why not assure that you are controlling
your plane instead of giving it away to mother nature! Besides, turbulence
is really hard to see.
GeoR38
ps...it sure is hard to land short at such speeds though
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 02/14/02 |
I guess I finally have to say something. Look, if any of you or all of you,
which would be better, do not agree with the new proposed rules, why dont we
start a MASS call-up or write-in campaign. Isnt that what the public thingee
is for? Air your beefs and griefs now, not later. Call your congressperson,
governer, the white house for that matter. Stop it NOW. These rules are
insane and are meant, (I am sure I am going to get heat on this one) TO CUT
UP AND DESTROY THE KNOWN ULTRALITE INDUSTRY in order to persuade us to go to
bigger EAA (herein lies the key) type craft. EAA is a dying entity and
needs new or old heads back in so they sponsored this crap and we MUST STOP
IT. Our free and happy days are over unless we stop some of these rules or
get them modified. One thing I havent heard of before: Are we going to be
permitted to fly 'on the deck' as we do now after we comply with 'big
brother' and jump through the hoops or are we going to have to fly in the
'hard deck' with our big brothers. I cannot imagine all of our little toys
playing up there at four to seven thousand feet with the jets and the twins.
Am I the only one who sees a great bog boondogle here? You people claim to
be smart and have all the answers. Why are you airing your laundry here on
the list. Tell the people who count!!!!! If you dont do it now, you will be
regretting it for life. my three cents. There is only one way to go. LEAD,
FOLLOW, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY! Ted Cowan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 02/14/02 |
gotta add one thing here. I am very very disturbed and upset here because
our keepers, the USUA is NOT trying to help with this stuff. no answers.
They should be our protectors, the leaders we look up to for answers. end.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce n' Kathy" <n3nrr(at)erols.com> |
You summed it up quite well. USUA will have something on their web in
the next couple days. 301-695-9100 But Everyone, even the lurkers,
need to air their opinion directly to the places that count. Every thing
you don't like should be written about, even stuff you do like.
It sure would be a disaster if every one waited for someone else to
do it. Its just like voting.
My opinion is, It about 90% Crap, very little to no training instead of
puttin the "EYE" on traning, its going into maint.
My impression is that the largest # of accidents came from lack of
training. This proposal looks like it will make traning nearly
impossible or impractical.
Speak now!
I will go back to lurking.
New UL Pilot, Sabre trike
Ultra Star- wating on traning
Bruce n' Kathy
www.frugalbee.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | SP airworthiness |
> Ralph writes:
> There, that last line says it right there. There is no manufacturer or
> manual, so I could not operate the aircraft.
>
> Am I reading this right or jumping to conclusions again?
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
Short answer Ralph is that all existing airplanes will be grandfathered in as "experimental
light-sport" aircraft so you can
continue to fly the Firestar under Sport Pilot rule.
But as it is a single seat plane, is there some reason you would not continue to
fly it under part 103? FAA has stated that
they do not expect to have any more resources or interest in enforcing part 103,
as far as the single seat planes are
concerned, than they do now. It's the two place planes that concern the FAA.
Sam Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Kearbey" <kearbey(at)jps.net> |
Well said!!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Sport Pilot
>
> Concerning the Sport Pilot proposal, the misconceptions seem to be as
> numerous as the people who read it. Everybody seems to get something
> different out of it. I suppose even the 16 hour maintenance course has
> it's benefits (may help to reaffirm what needs to be done on a
> continuous basis to fly a "safe" aircraft) but how can they possibly
> cram into 16 hours what a "professional" inspector will need to know
> considering how many different types of aircraft there are with
> different engines and built out of different materials. It would seem
> to me that the annual inspection would be something that the "builder"
> would know the most about. It also appears to me that the feds are
> aiming this at the commercial aspect. I don't want to fix your airplane
> or anybody else's for profit. I have 14 years invested in building,
> maintaining and flying my own aircraft unmolested and I would like to be
> allowed to continue to do that until I (and some of the pilots closest
> to me) conclude that I am no longer fit. Personally I feel that a
> limited self-regulation is a much more workable plan.
>
> It also seems unrealistic to cram everybody under the same umbrella.
> Some people simply buy aircraft and fly them. Probably a lot of people
> in this category don't know squat about the airplane itself. Others
> (myself included) buy construction kits or plans and spend a
> considerable amount of time building them, actually enjoying the process
> of learning what it's all about. By the time we're through (usually
> years) we know every nut and bolt and rivet by heart and truly
> appreciate the structural complexities. There is a HUGE difference
> between these people and the first group. In the people that put this
> proposal together, however, there doesn't seem to have been anybody that
> can actually see the difference. I know that any law has to cover the
> weakest link but it would seem that it also punishes those of us who are
> higher on the gradient. If the feds are going to pass a law that is
> supposed to cover all of us, there ought to be some distinction made
> between builder/pilots and simply pilots as it pertains to maintenance
> and inspections.
> It really does appear to me that federal income generation was the
> number one objective in this proposal. I will, however, continue to
> study it in an effort to discover the "gold" that others seem to see
> inside.
>
> Steve Kroll PP (glider) and single occupant (by choice) of an
> unregistered "fat" ultralight (MK-2)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: YOUR FIRST FLIGHT |
GeoR38,
The FBO at K02 asked me to fly a 700 feet agl pattern and a tight pattern
so that others could see me. A tight pattern puts me at 500 feet after
turning final. This means that I have to make steep descents to the
runway. I have little or no problem putting it on the mark. It just takes
practice. When I was first trying this approach, I didn't like it because
I could not get it down the last two feet without dropping it. And then
one day I did not drop it and now it is rare that I don't kiss it in.
While holding it off sometimes the tail wheel hits first but it settles in
without dropping.
Once the field is made, the throttle goes closed, and the nose is pushed
down to maintain 50 mphi. When it is time to flair, you have about 2
seconds of float in which to get the plane close to the ground in ground
effect, because it is not going to fly after that. During this time the
FireFly is decelerating from 50 to 25 mphi, you will have travelled about
110 feet. Roll out on grass will be less than 100 feet. I never land with
the throttle partly open because the plane will not land nicely in the
three point stance. All it will do is bounce and it will keep bouncing
until you close the throttle and you suffer through longer exposure to
cross winds.
This is a high energy approach, that ends in a low energy minimum speed
landing which reduces the chance for bending gear legs. The FireFly has
suffered through 218 landing with out a bent gear leg.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>In a message dated 2/14/02 8:58:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net
>writes:
>
>
>> I refuse to fly slower than 40 mphi close to the ground because I put a lot
>> of effort into building the FireFly, and I am not going to bang it up due
>> to rotor off the ridge, an unseen dust devil or a lull in the wind.
>>
>> Jack B. Hart FF004
>> Jackson, MO
>>
>
>Hear, hear....I agree entirely....why not assure that you are controlling
>your plane instead of giving it away to mother nature! Besides, turbulence
>is really hard to see.
>GeoR38
>ps...it sure is hard to land short at such speeds though
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Vickery" <h2opilot(at)cwo.com> |
I am a long time pilot (50 years) with nearly 4,000 hours in a variety
of single-engine certified aircraft. I presently own and fly a pretty
Lake Amphibian which is for sale. I have never flown ultralights but am
thinking I would like to get into this new facet of aviation by building
something like the New Kolb Mark III Extra or Mark III Classic with a
Rotax 912 or the Jabiru engine. I have not looked into the FAA
registration matter in depth but would imagine the Mark III would have
to be registered as an ultralight trainer or as an experimental. Either
way the liberty allowed the builder to make modifications is a wonderful
freedom.
For this reason I have watched this site and found it quite informative.
I am especially impressed with contributors like Jack B. Hart of
Jackson, MO. Jack's web site
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly17.html is excellent. He
is very innovative in the improvements he has made on his flying machine
and his discussions and photos are outstanding. I am impressed with his
innovative use of bicycle cables (and mixer assembly) for mechanical
brakes, and his trim systems using guitar string adjusters. He shows he
has an exceptional engineering ability and is very good at adapting
suitable parts from other systems for use on his flying machine. His
design and construction for an angle of attack instrument is further
proof of his abilities. Any experienced pilot understands the value of
an AOA meter especially in the area of air speeds approaching stalls.
Properly calibrated they give pilot input to slow flight just above
stall speed in any configuration. They are used in many complex
high-performance aircraft such as jet fighters, large passenger planes,
and in many bizjets.
I want to extend my appreciation to Jack for the effort to which he goes
to share his knowledge and experience with the readers. If you haven't
visited his web site yet, I highly recommend you do. Thank you Jack.
Gene Vickery
Tehachapi, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
Hey Jack! I did'nt know your brother in law lived in California!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | borderline Firestar |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
> Short answer Ralph is that all existing airplanes will be
> grandfathered in as "experimental light-sport" aircraft so you can
> continue to fly the Firestar under Sport Pilot rule.
>
> But as it is a single seat plane, is there some reason you would not
> continue to fly it under part 103? FAA has stated that
> they do not expect to have any more resources or interest in
> enforcing part 103, as far as the single seat planes are
> concerned, than they do now. It's the two place planes that concern
> the FAA.
>
> Sam Cox
Sam and others,
I've been thinking about flying my Original Kolb Firestar under 103. It's
one of those ultralights that is borderline on weight. I have added more
things on it in the last few years like the lexan gap seal and new wing
struts. This, of course, adds weight. I estimate (because I have never
accurately weighed it) to be about 270 lbs. I don't have a parachute on
board and this might cover it, but again it would be borderline.
The other reason I should go the SP route would be the cross country
trips that I like to take. I need to carry the extra fuel tanks to get me
there (and back). Like most ultralight pilots, I want our sport to be
reasonably affordable. When it becomes to costly to fly, then many of us
will sell our machines and find something else that is less expensive to
operate. I'm hoping the authors of this SP proposal have taken this into
consideration and learned that too much regulation can kill off certain
types of aviation. I'm also hoping this is not the plan the FAA has
intended. SP sounds good for trained pilots like myself, but I cannot
imagine how new instructors are going to jump through the hoops to become
CFI's as proposed under SP. How will the sport grow if there are few new
pilots? Is this the plan?
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
Following are the answers to two questions that I pulled off of the EAA site
concerning the sport pilot rules. I don't see how these rules are going to
have any negative affect on the ultralight group. Ultralights would still be
covered under part 103 just as they are now. No changes. If your aircraft
does not meet part 103 standards then you would have to register it with the
FAA and get an airworthiness certificate just as we have to do now for
experimental aircraft.
Ron Payne
What if I own or plan to purchase an ultralight vehicle? How would this
proposal effect me?
If you have or plan to purchase an ultralight vehicle that meets the
definition of 14 CFR part 103, this proposal will not have any impact on
you.
I own or plan to purchase a light-sport aircraft within 24 months after the
rule is effective. How would this proposal affect me? (NPRM 21.191(i))
If your aircraft or the aircraft you plan to purchase doesnt meet the
definition of ultralight vehicle in 14 CFR part 103, you would have to:
Apply to register your aircraft with the FAA not later than 24 months after
the effective date of the final rule
Have your aircraft inspected by the FAA (or representative of the FAA)
Be issued an experimental, light-sport airworthiness certificate not later than
36 months after the effective date of the final rule
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 02/14/02 |
Not another conspiracy theorist! Don't understand your logic. Nobody is
going to take away your UL. This proposal will be a great benefit to me,
and I hope many others. It provides me with a means of registering my
existing planes, gives me credit for my USUA ticket and hours flown toward
a sport ticket, and should help bridge the "us and them" gap between
general aviation and UL pilots. AND, USUA has been instrumental in
protecting 103 for you!
Dave Rains
El Paso,
Kolb Alpha Pilot
-----Original Message-----
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com [SMTP:TCowan1917(at)aol.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 02/14/02
gotta add one thing here. I am very very disturbed and upset here because
our keepers, the USUA is NOT trying to help with this stuff. no answers.
They should be our protectors, the leaders we look up to for answers. end.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest:(Ross" Phantom) |
I've never flown any UL that handles as good as the Phantom. My
Twinstar
handled so poorly in comparison, I though that I had some sort of flight
control failure on the first flight. I (snip)
let somebody else build it next time.
Steve Mk-2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Guys, there are things I can do now that would be completely
inappropriate for N-numbered aircraft. I like to fly very low and skim
the ice out here on Lake Minnetonka. I fly within 200' of houses between
channels and over the top of snowmobiles and ice fishermen. They all love
it. People in the houses are waving to me as I fly by. I can make a 180
turn at 50' feet in the air and land before the turn is completed. Try
this in your GA plane and see how it goes over! The minute I slap an
N-number on that ultralight it automatically becomes an aircraft and an
ultralight no longer. I will then subject myself to all kinds of
restrictions that I can get around now.
The SP is more restrictive and all of us are being funneled into it.
Sure, I will be able to bring a passenger if I decide to build a
2-seater, but for now I enjoy flying low occasionally for the thrill of
it. This is what ultralighting is all about. Let's not confuse this kind
of flying with the bigger stuff because they are not the same and never
will be.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Guys, there are things I can do now that would be completely
> inappropriate for N-numbered aircraft. I like to fly very low and skim
> the ice out here on Lake Minnetonka. I fly within 200' of houses between
> channels and over the top of snowmobiles and ice fishermen. They all love
> it. People in the houses are waving to me as I fly by. I can make a 180
> turn at 50' feet in the air and land before the turn is completed. Try
> this in your GA plane and see how it goes over! The minute I slap an
> N-number on that ultralight it automatically becomes an aircraft and an
> ultralight no longer. I will then subject myself to all kinds of
> restrictions that I can get around now.
> Ralph
Ralph/Gang:
Check out Part 103:
**************************************************************
103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any
congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons.
**************************************************************
However, if your aircraft does not comply with Part 103,
then you are an unregistered airplane. If you do not have a
license, then you are flying an unregistered airplane
without a license.
Most of us are not/were not flying legal ultralight
vehicles. I certainly wasn't in any of my ULs. My
Ultrastar was much quicker than 63 mph.
You either comply or you don't. I think this is the reason
for Sport Pilot. To help those that are illegal become
legal. Part 103 is almost complete freedom to fly, with a
few restrictions as to weight, speed, fuel, passengers,
etc. We are the ones that went over the edge on most of
these. That is the reason I registered my MK III
experimental, so that I will be legal/comfortable to fly in
the US and Canada.
Not picking on Ralph, but flying low over people, towns,
villages, houses, is only one violation of Part 103, which
you do not come under, if you have an aircraft that does not
comply with that part. Now you have the same restrictions
for minimum altitude that I do in my experimental or if I am
flying a 152.
I think you need to quit crying and get legal. :-) You can
not have it entirely your way. Neither can I.
Take care,
john h
PS: I flew illegal ultralights for 6 years. The entire
time I flew them, I was uncomfortable for the simple reason
that I was not in compliance with the reg. Flying my legal
MK III ultralight registered in the experimental category
with a private ticket eliminated that "guilty" feeling. The
feeling that I was being watched, that someone was gonna rat
on me. Would feel the same way if I was driving on the
highway with no drivers license. Which reminds me. Not
legal in the air, no liability or hull coverage. Big risk
flying without liability insurance. Off my soap box.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Gang:
Forgot to mention in the last post. Here is the url for
online accessible regs for aviation:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14tab_00.html
Here's the url for all the regs you wanted to read, but
didn't know where to find them:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/ecfr/
I do not know how many on the List have actually fought for
the right to be free in America. I don't know how many of
you have spent time/lived in a foreign country. If you
have, then you will realize the tremendous freedoms that we
as Americans experience and enjoy. Other countries don't
come close and never will.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
I am with John on this one. I have checked and re-checked the SP proposed
rules and they specifically state that any one operating an ultra light
legally under part 103 will not be affected in any way. The only exception
to that is the two place so called ultra light trainer air craft. The big
majority of these are being flown illegally any way. There is no reason to
put an N-number on anyones legal ultra light. Just keep doing it now as you
have been doing it in the past.
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2002 10:57:44
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: low flying
> Guys, there are things I can do now that would be completely
> inappropriate for N-numbered aircraft. I like to fly very low and skim
> the ice out here on Lake Minnetonka. I fly within 200' of houses between
> channels and over the top of snowmobiles and ice fishermen. They all love
> it. People in the houses are waving to me as I fly by. I can make a 180
> turn at 50' feet in the air and land before the turn is completed. Try
> this in your GA plane and see how it goes over! The minute I slap an
> N-number on that ultralight it automatically becomes an aircraft and an
Ralph/Gang:
Check out Part 103:
**************************************************************
103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any
congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons.
**************************************************************
However, if your aircraft does not comply with Part 103,
then you are an unregistered airplane. If you do not have a
license, then you are flying an unregistered airplane
without a license.
Most of us are not/were not flying legal ultralight
vehicles. I certainly wasn't in any of my ULs. My
Ultrastar was much quicker than 63 mph.
You either comply or you don't. I think this is the reason
for Sport Pilot. To help those that are illegal become
legal. Part 103 is almost complete freedom to fly, with a
few restrictions as to weight, speed, fuel, passengers,
etc. We are the ones that went over the edge on most of
these. That is the reason I registered my MK III
experimental, so that I will be legal/comfortable to fly in
the US and Canada.
Not picking on Ralph, but flying low over people, towns,
villages, houses, is only one violation of Part 103, which
you do not come under, if you have an aircraft that does not
comply with that part. Now you have the same restrictions
for minimum altitude that I do in my experimental or if I am
flying a 152.
I think you need to quit crying and get legal. :-) You can
not have it entirely your way. Neither can I.
Take care,
john h
_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
I like to fly low too... but the N-numbers won't change a thing...even under
part 103 your restricted from buzzing houses and people...just ain't
smart...and it gives the sport a bad name...
Now personally I don't have frozen lakes, here in Alabama we have fields
though, and yes getting down 10' or less and flying to the next tree line
and popping up and over is great fun. But if there are people in the field
then you are actually "bended" the regs a little...buuuuuttttt for myself, I
feel them out. I make a pass at a respectable distance and wave, or wait
and see if they wave. If they give the cold shoulder then I go somewhere
else...if they wave like your in a parade then go have your fun.
Point being there is no more altitude restrictions on part 103 then on
N-numbered experimentals. So if your over 254, then lighten up or register.
I think there are a lot of people complaining about SP who really have not
read it...they are waiting for someone to explain it to them...and granted
alot of guys who haven't had to learn FAA jargon don't have the "vocabulary"
for it...(I don't mean that as a slap...it's like me and anything
electrical...it sounds like Greek to me.)
Before bashing this proposal and crying foul, read it for yourself. I
haven't finished it myself, cause it's about the size of "War and Peace" but
so far the only "concern" I have with it is PARTS of the requirements for
training. But frankly the whole BFI system was too lax as it was...if you
could fog a mirror, you could get a "BFI" certificate and I had seen guys
that were BFI's do some pretty scary stuff. You hate to see less
instructors, but I do want to see BETTER instructors.
My $.02 worth...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
Proud as punch to have been signed off to take my private pilots exam by my
83 year old CFI who knew his stuff...
Guys, there are things I can do now that would be completely
inappropriate for N-numbered aircraft. I like to fly very low and skim
the ice out here on Lake Minnetonka. I fly within 200' of houses between
channels and over the top of snowmobiles and ice fishermen. They all love
it. People in the houses are waving to me as I fly by. I can make a 180
turn at 50' feet in the air and land before the turn is completed. Try
this in your GA plane and see how it goes over! The minute I slap an
N-number on that ultralight it automatically becomes an aircraft and an
ultralight no longer. I will then subject myself to all kinds of
restrictions that I can get around now.
The SP is more restrictive and all of us are being funneled into it.
Sure, I will be able to bring a passenger if I decide to build a
2-seater, but for now I enjoy flying low occasionally for the thrill of
it. This is what ultralighting is all about. Let's not confuse this kind
of flying with the bigger stuff because they are not the same and never
will be.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com |
| Subject: | Re: comments to FAA on sport pilot |
02/16/2002 01:30:33 PM
I don?t agree with everything Ted wrote, but I certainly do agree that if
you don?t like some of the proposed rule, then SUBMIT COMMENTS. In my
opinion however, comments that address one or more specific undesirable
aspects of rule will be far more meaningful to FAA then generalized
complaints that sport pilot will "cut up and destroy the ultralight
industry" and are meant to force us all into joining EAA. That just isn?t
going to have much weight. No offense meant to Ted here - I know your heart
is in the right place. Ted, I can tell that you dont like the proposed
rule, but I still dont have a clue as to what parts are bothering you.
While it is still very early, I continue to see many comments on our List
that indicate misconceptions and a lack of understanding regarding the
proposed rule. Most notably concerning maintenance of your own plane.
Once again: you WILL be able to work on (maintain) your own existing
plane. The annul inspection that will be required must be done by a
qualified repairman. You can be such a qualified repairman for the cost of
taking a 16-hr course. Still don?t like that? Fair enough - tell FAA in a
comment why you don?t like it, what you propose as an alternative, and why
that is better.
Those that say there will in short order not be enough instructors around
may have a point, Im not sure. Under the rule, it will be very easy for
existing BFIs to become sport pilot instructors, but within three years, if
they use their own plane for instruction, it must be a special light-sport
aircraft,meaning that it was bought ready to fly (not a kit plane). There
is an out here however: If a student were to buy an experimental light
sport aircraft, they could still pay an instructor to teach them in their
own plane. That may not make everything right with the world for you all,
but it is an option. A logical consequence of sport pilot is that it will
encourage people to buy two-place kit planes, and those people are likely
to still have access to instructors, provided our existing BFIs make the
conversion to sport pilot instructor, which again, is a relatively easy
change according to the proposed rule. Looking at it from the FAA side, its
clear that they want student pilots to be trained in either
planes known to be safe (manufactured to a standard) or alternatively, in
planes that the student himself owns and is responsible for (as opposed to
a plane the instructor built himself or bought from someone else who built
it).
My main point here is really to just to make sure we all understand the
rule before making comments. An informed, unified voice making
intelligent, well-reasoned arguments can be a very effective tool for
getting what we want. A good summary of the rule can be found at
www.sportpilot.org. This site also indicates how to make comments to FAA
on the proposed rule. If you still have questions regarding the rule, they
can be directed to Sue Gardener at FAA
for pilot issues (phone:202-267-5008) or Steve Flanagan for plane issues
(202-267-5008).
Fly Safe,
Erich Waver
erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 02/13/02 |
I will be in the Sarasota area in March, is there someone in that area in the
ultralight field I could visit? My email is cppjh(at)aol.com Thanks, Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest:(Ross" Phantom) |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
Someone else did build it. That's the problem....
on 2/15/02 10:07 AM, Steve Kroll at skroll(at)dellepro.com wrote:
>
> I've never flown any UL that handles as good as the Phantom. My
> Twinstar
> handled so poorly in comparison, I though that I had some sort of flight
> control failure on the first flight. I (snip)
>
> let somebody else build it next time.
> Steve Mk-2
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
Yeah, I knew some of you guys were going to tear me up for my comments, but,
that is what they were, my comments. Some of the proposals are sounding
good, real good to the bad ticker guys who should not be training anyone
anyway but, it appears the faa will STILL let them train someone, only legal
this time. My main comments were directed to the people who grieve but do
not let their problems be heard by the right people. Telling all of us will
not change anything. You must tell the right people. I want to stay low and
slow. I will stay low and slow but I will probably still have to get my sp
to fly the two place for fun just around my airfield. I dont want -- as Hawk
says - to feel guilty. There just MUST be some provisions out there for us
to build, check and maintain our own craft. That goes for someone buying a
used challenger also. GA maintenance just aint the same for us. I supposed
the infra-structure will organize itself somehow and mostly the faa will turn
its back on us to somehow self regulate the new sp rules. Will wait and see.
Was not trying to sound out like a cry baby. Just have some of my own views
on things. Gov red tape has NEVER made anything easier and usually does not
make anything better. Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | comments from another ultralight pilot |
> Ray writes:
>
> Ted and Sam you are so right. Once SP is up and running, part 103 flyers
> (if there are any left) will be vigorously enforced out of existence. We
> all thought SP was for the UL community. Not so. Read the following and
> you will see who are the real winners. Even though the comment period is
> for SP, I don't think it is to late to recommend weight increases in Part
> 103. I suggest 350 lbs.
>
> ******************************************************
>
I'm not sure that I'm the Sam being quoted or if I was misunderstood, but I will
disagree with the statement above. The FAA
has told the organizations that if/when Sport pilot passes they will not have anymore
resources or interest in enforcing the
limits of part 103 on single seat vehicles. In the pre-amble to FAR part 103 the
FAA stated their responsibility as "to
protect the public who don't fly from those of us that do." In the twenty some
odd years that there have been ultralights,
there is no record of us ever killing someone on the ground. If you chose to put
yourself at risk as the pilot of a single
seat vehicle the FAA doesn't complain. The purpose of the Sport Pilot proposed
rule is to deal with the proliferation of two
seat "ultralights" being flown for recreation by non-licensed pilots with a passenger.
In my opinion the single seat "Fat" ultralight pilot will not face any different
FAA enforcement than they do right now. You
cause a problem and they will come looking for you. You fly responsibly and you
won't see the FAA and they won't care about
you.
The USUA petitions to the FAA in 1988 and 1992 asked for 360# weight limit and
10 gal. of fuel for the single place birds.
That would put us in line with the microlights flown in much of the rest of the
world.
Sam Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: this is the way it should be |
> > I plan to get my SP
> > certificate and leave my Firestar N-number free.
ul15rhb(at)juno.com wrote:
> I like your proposal Sam much better than SP! If only it could be this
> way for ultralights. I guess I'm still crying ......
Sam/Ralph/Gang:
We don't have an ultralight unless it complies with Part
103. It is an unlicensed airplane.
It remains our choice to gamble on whether we will have
attention drawn to ourselves and get busted for flying an
unregistered airplane, not a fat ultralight. But there are
other ramifications.
Can we get insurance, especially liability, for an
unlicensed aircraft? I am dropping $30,000 hull coverage on
my MK III this year, because of the extreme increase in
premiums since last year, but you can bet your butt I am
going to have liability insurance. No matter how good we
are, eventually the odds will gang up on us. A fender
bender with a Citation, King Air, C-172, or any airplane on
the ground or in the air, while flying a unlicensed
aircraft, legal UL, experimental, or GA aircraft, would be
enough to ruin me without liability coverage. Doesn't take
much imagination to come up with a lot of circumstances
where our little airplanes could create havoc, i.e., engine
out, no place to go but the Interstate, 5 o'clock traffic,
major pileup. That may be extreme, but possible. Ask
anyone who has experienced an engine failure or catastrophic
failure. It never happens when and where you think it
will. For the most part, it is a complete surprise.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Belated List of Contributors #2... |
Dear Listers,
I'd like to apologize for the delay in posting the 2001 List of
Contributors Number 2, as well as getting behind in the List Photo
Shares. Here's my sad story... Over the Christmas holidays, I was working
out in the shop on a rotating drum sander. I was sanding out the woofer
hole in a speaker enclosure and, long story short, the part got away from
me and started spinning like a Hula hoop on the drum. Rather than just
turning the machine off like I should have done, I tried to grab the part
and in the process badly broke the ring fingers on *both* my right and left
hands!! I had to go in for surgery on the left hand because of the joint
damage and was stuck in a thing called an "external fixator" for almost 4
weeks. The right hand has healed up well, but the left one is very stiff
and I'm currently only getting about 70 degrees of bend. The doctor says
that I will get 80-90% of the moment back with a great deal of therapy and
I'm going to hold them to that...
The moral of the story is that even a sander can be a dangerous tool. I
had been working with a table saw, drill press, scroll saw, and high power
routers all day long and afforded them all the respect they deserved. But
with the sander, I never even thought about how things could go bad. It
just didn't seem like a dangerous tool. Be careful out there in the
shop. In a moment you can hurt yourself; hurt yourself in such a way that
you will have to live with the damage the rest of your life. Nothing is
worth that.
I'm finally back working on the computer and getting back to email and
other stuff. Later today I will be processing the mound of Photo Shares
that have backed up while I was out. I also just finished up the 2001 List
Contributions and have included the List Number 2 below.
I want to thank everyone that has so generously contributed to the List
this past year! It is your Contributions that make these Lists possible.
I understand that the Van's Videos from the Builder's Bookstore should be
shipping very soon if not already, and the discount coupons from Brown
Tools should already have arrived. Thanks again to Andy Gold and Michael
Brown for their generous support of the Lists this year with these giveaways!
Oh, and now that my fingers are working pretty well again, I've decided to
go ahead and finish my RV-4!! I had a LOT of guilt over wanting to sell
it... :-)
Happy Building and Flying!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Alexander, Don
Alexander, George
Andrews, Jim
Anonymous
Blake, James
Bowman, John
Buryl, Hill
Butler, Sherman
Cantrell, Jimmy
DeRuiter, Marcel
Deffner, David
Graumlich, Tom
Griffin, Randy
Harbour, Keith
Hunt, Robin
Jannon, Terence
Johnson, Jackie
Kahn, Steve
Labhart, Norm
Laird, David
Larson, Joe
Licking, Larry
Maynard, Brad
Navratil, Richard
Noonan, Thomas
Petersen, Paul
Reed, Gary
Rogers, Ken
Salter, Phillip
Schmit, John
Schultz, David
Sheffield, Ray
Smith, Edmond
Staley, Dick
Utterback, Tom
Uvanni, Bruce
Williams, Henry
Wilson, Robert
Woodward, Don
Worthington, Victor
Zirges, Malcom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Ragnar Axelsson ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Ragnar Axelsson
Subject: Icelandic Avaition Photos
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/myndir@mbl.is.02.17.2002/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
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Larry Bourne ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Larry Bourne
Subject: Oil Leaking Aluminum Weld
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/biglar@gogittum.com.02.17.2002/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
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Larry Bourne ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Larry Bourne
Subject: Input Shaft
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/biglar@gogittum.com.02.17.2002/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
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Anonymous ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Anonymous
Subject: BOM for the Zodiac XL
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/ZodiacXL2B@aol.com.02.17.2002/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
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Gary R. Voigt ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Gary R. Voigt
Subject: Winter Flying - January 2002
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/johndeereantique@uswest.net.02.17.2002/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: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Hey mkIII drivers, what is the recommended never-exceed-speed so
I can decide what to placard at (and most desirable ASI range)
thanks, -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: this is the way it should be |
One thing we all need to come to grips with: the innocent on the ground
should never be affected adversely by anything we choose to do when flying.
If you are over a freeway at 5 o'clock and the engine quits, you stuff it
into a vacent lot, a pile of timber, or anything else uninhabited or
unlikely to get anybody else hurt, but you don't allow your misfortune to
become some SUV driving soccer mom's doom.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> Doesn't take
>much imagination to come up with a lot of circumstances
>where our little airplanes could create havoc, i.e., engine
>out, no place to go but the Interstate, 5 o'clock traffic,
>major pileup. That may be extreme, but possible. Ask
>anyone who has experienced an engine failure or catastrophic
>failure. It never happens when and where you think it
>will. For the most part, it is a complete surprise.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
"Kolb-List Digest List"
This clip comes from the EAA summary of Sport Pilot under :
111 The effects of the Proposal on the Public and Industry
If your aircraft does not meet 14 CFR part 103 and you are not
authorized to operate under a training exemption, you would not be
allowed to operate under 14 CFR part 91 until you register your aircraft
with the FAA and receive an airworthiness certificate for your
aircraft.
So, now what I don't understand is what's with all the hoopla about the
2 and 3 year periods to get your pilot and aircraft registered after the
rule goes into effect??? Why would they specify a grace period for
becomming legal if in fact, you were prohibited under law from operating
your "other than FAR 103 legal craft" the moment the law goes into
effect? Am I missing something here?
I expect that most of you guys who are touting this law already have
your private tickets (for a fee) and are already operating under 91
which means you are annually inspected, (for a fee) registered your
aircraft, (for a fee) check-ridden (for a fee) got flight instruction,
(for a fee) repaired by certified aircraft type mechanics (for a fee)
insured (for a fee).......I'm sure I'm missing a few fees here
someplace....oh yeah...there's the one that those of us who have spent
literally years building our craft are going to have to pay to take the
course that lets us keep doing what we've been doing to our "fat
ultralight" for years already....the same course we could probably teach
better ourselves...certainly on our own airplanes...yup..we're going to
pay a fee for that too. And then there's the "new" factories turning
out federally "certified" sport pilot type aircraft for "certified"
instructors...all of them paying fees also. This could probably go on ad
nauseum. It all amounts to mo money...mo money...mo money.
Recently somebody told me this wasn't about money. It sure as heck
looks like it to me...It's all smoke and mirrors! And they timed it
really nicely too....right after 9/11....when almost everybody is
singing Stars and Stripes Forever at the top of their lungs. Those of
you who like this law either have something to gain financially by it
(venture capitolists)or just want the rest of us free-loaders to fall in
line and pay our dues too...a kind of "misery loves company" thing.
One very ironic thing about this law is the fact that this is going to
be a boon for those that are already in place and tooled up to produce
FAR 103 "street" legal ultralights. What's ironic about it is the fact
that most of us moved to slightly heavier craft because of the
increased safety margin that can be built in with the extra weight.
It's also ironic that the "hairiest" thing in the world to fly in any
kind of conditions, is the airplane that has the lightest wing loading.
That would be a FAR 103 ultralight. And yet, the feds in all their
infinite wisdom have chosen that particular animal as the one and the
only aircraft that they are not regulating. Their concern about our
safety is heart-warming huh?
The only thing the feds are giving away is the medical. And the only
ones that are benefiting from that are those pilots that are already
certified PPs flying light (under 1232 gross) and "require" medicals
now. That and maybe the older gaffers who are thinking
"wow...Martha..I'm gonna get out the old T-Craft and go flying" Those
guys got the money for the fees but probably the vast majority of them
shouldn't be in the air for some physical reason that they will now be
able to get around. These two types and the venture capitolists are the
guys I'm hearing pushing Sport Pilot as a good deal. For the rest of
us, it looks for all the world like the shaft...and a very costly shaft
at that. You can thank your Uncle Sammy for it. He seems to have our
best interests at heart.......NOT!!!
Steve Kroll
Mk-2 (and trying to figure out how to shave 126 lbs off it)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncan.mcbride(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: this is the way it should be |
Well said. One of the reasons we're building airplanes that can land at
less than 40mph in a vacant lot is so we can do it if we have to. If you
have in mind aiming yourself at the biggest open space around, no matter if
it's filled with pedestrians or little leaguers, or motorists on the way
home from work, you shouldn't be whining about the price of insurance. Fair
is fair. John and Richard are both right on the mark - buy the liability
insurance to replace the tomatoes you smash or the horses you scare to
death - but it's not an excuse to land on the interstate. I remember a
beginner hanggliding pilot going cross-country for the first time - she
landed on I-4 just south of Disneyworld. She thought it was a funny story
to tell on the mailing list how traffic backed up and the sherrif's
department had to cope with the jam - then she caught the heat of the pilots
who knew better. She knows better now.
I fly lightplanes like I do a glider - I always know where I will land when
the engine quits, or if I don't find another thermal. It's less stressful
that way. I'm actually looking forward to setting down my Mark III in some
of the fields I've landed my hang glider in. Some of them, anyway...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: this is the way it should be
>
> One thing we all need to come to grips with: the innocent on the ground
> should never be affected adversely by anything we choose to do when
flying.
> If you are over a freeway at 5 o'clock and the engine quits, you stuff it
> into a vacent lot, a pile of timber, or anything else uninhabited or
> unlikely to get anybody else hurt, but you don't allow your misfortune to
> become some SUV driving soccer mom's doom.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> > Doesn't take
> >much imagination to come up with a lot of circumstances
> >where our little airplanes could create havoc, i.e., engine
> >out, no place to go but the Interstate, 5 o'clock traffic,
> >major pileup. That may be extreme, but possible. Ask
> >anyone who has experienced an engine failure or catastrophic
> >failure. It never happens when and where you think it
> >will. For the most part, it is a complete surprise.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: this is the way it should be |
> One thing we all need to come to grips with: the innocent on the ground
> should never be affected adversely by anything we choose to do when flying.
> Richard Pike
Old Poops/Gents:
I understand and agree wholeheartedly. But, what we are
supposed to do and what actually takes place in an emergency
are two different things. I think this is where experience
and training can pay off.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncan.mcbride(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: this is the way it should be |
If in my previous post it sounded as if I was being critical of John's
observations, then and now, I want to clarify - John is saying there will be
times when the best we can do will still be a choice between evils - and we
can only hope to have the skill and judgment to minimize the harm. And
because we are fallible, and circumstances can be merciless, insurance is a
proper precaution. I was just echoing Richard's statement, that insurance
is not an excuse to avoid the responsibility to maintain our proficiency and
keep up our skills, and to make tough decisions if the need should arise.
Sorry if I got too opinionated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: this is the way it should be
>
>
> > One thing we all need to come to grips with: the innocent on the ground
> > should never be affected adversely by anything we choose to do when
flying.
>
> > Richard Pike
>
> Old Poops/Gents:
>
> I understand and agree wholeheartedly. But, what we are
> supposed to do and what actually takes place in an emergency
> are two different things. I think this is where experience
> and training can pay off.
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
I agree with you Jeremy. Buzzing people & Houses not only gives our sport a
bad name but It could put your life at risk. It also has caused more than
one flying area to be lost. Buzzing cattle is also dangerous. Imagine the
outcome If your engine quit 5 feet above a herd of cows. It would be like a
brick wall if you hit a cow. The rules are about the same for all aircraft
numbered or not, in reguards to buzzing. Its just more difficult to track
down a plane with no N number.
Nuff said
Ed Diebel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Ive been pondering the possibilities of fabricating a landing gear out
of an automotive leaf spring. Just wondered If any ones ever tried anything
like that or has any thoughts.
Ed Diebel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot - caution: Rant Mode On |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Sport Pilot
>
> This clip comes from the EAA summary of Sport Pilot under :
>
> 111 The effects of the Proposal on the Public and Industry
>
> If your aircraft does not meet 14 CFR part 103 and you are not
> authorized to operate under a training exemption, you would not be
> allowed to operate under 14 CFR part 91 until you register your aircraft
> with the FAA and receive an airworthiness certificate for your
> aircraft.
>
> So, now what I don't understand is what's with all the hoopla about the
> 2 and 3 year periods to get your pilot and aircraft registered after the
> rule goes into effect??? Why would they specify a grace period for
> becomming legal if in fact, you were prohibited under law from operating
> your "other than FAR 103 legal craft" the moment the law goes into
> effect? Am I missing something here?
>
Yea you are missing the fact that the FAA recognizes that there are "Fat"
ultralights flying and they are being very gracious about giving you time to
find a way to make the $ to get yourself some training and your aircraft
inspected to make sure it is airworthy.....DUH!
Have you ever heard the expression "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free
Lunch"
Flying is a privilage not a right. You want the rest of society to just
Trust You that you are a safe pilot even though you haven't had any training
or any way for us to know that you are smart enough that you won't go buzz
some kids soccer game and stall/spin your plane right onto the field....You
want the privilage to take someone up for a ride but don't want to take the
responsibility of proving that you are a safe pilot....safe to at least some
minimum standards. You sound like my 14 yr. old stepson who gets huffy when
I won't let him drive the family back from the grocery store. Sorry but he
won't be driving the family till he can show some maturity and adopts a
better attitude towards learing to operate machinery in a safe manner.
> One very ironic thing about this law is the fact that this is going to
> be a boon for those that are already in place and tooled up to produce
> FAR 103 "street" legal ultralights. What's ironic about it is the fact
> that most of us moved to slightly heavier craft because of the
> increased safety margin that can be built in with the extra weight.
> It's also ironic that the "hairiest" thing in the world to fly in any
> kind of conditions, is the airplane that has the lightest wing loading.
> That would be a FAR 103 ultralight. And yet, the feds in all their
> infinite wisdom have chosen that particular animal as the one and the
> only aircraft that they are not regulating. Their concern about our
> safety is heart-warming huh?
>
No the Feds "in all their infinite wisdom" did figure that if you're dumb
enough to go flying in an aircraft with very light wing loading in bad
weather then the only person you are likely to kill is yourself......plus
the fact if something only weights 254 lbs it is less likely to do a whole
lot of damage to property on the ground, the cleasing of the gene pool is
just a plus. The Quicksilver is one tough little plane and if built and
maintained properly it is everybit as strong as a Cessna. If your want to
fly without any license then get yourself one and go have a ball. But if you
want to be able to take up a passenger and fly an aircraft that can do some
damage falling from the sky then smarten yourself up and get yourself a
license
> The only thing the feds are giving away is the medical.
Better go read the proposal again if this is what you think.
>And the only
> ones that are benefiting from that are those pilots that are already
> certified PPs flying light (under 1232 gross) and "require" medicals
> now. That and maybe the older gaffers who are thinking
> "wow...Martha..I'm gonna get out the old T-Craft and go flying"
I have an uncle that has grounded himself even though he could probubly pass
the medical just because he knows that he is getting forgetful now and
wouldn't want to endanger anyone. He was a P-51 pilot in WW2(POW) and a crop
duster(A&P also) for over 30 years and has more stick time than anyone I
know. I think most of the "old gaffers" may just be smarter than some of the
whiners that I see posting about how the Feds have it in for them because
they(the Feds) want some sort of proof that said whiners won't just go take
some kid for a ride in his "ultralight" and get him killed.
>Those
> guys got the money for the fees but probably the vast majority of them
> shouldn't be in the air for some physical reason that they will now be
> able to get around. These two types and the venture capitolists are the
> guys I'm hearing pushing Sport Pilot as a good deal. For the rest of
> us, it looks for all the world like the shaft...and a very costly shaft
> at that. You can thank your Uncle Sammy for it. He seems to have our
> best interests at heart.......NOT!!!
Uncle Sammy doesn't give a rat's ass for YOUR best interests...He does
however feel that the rest of society should get some safeguards from idiots
in aircraft. Not to mention the rest of us flyers that don't want to deal
with the fallout of some fool who "knows how to fly so I don't need to take
any training".
>
> Steve Kroll
> Mk-2 (and trying to figure out how to shave 126 lbs off it)
>
Well the cost of getting a PP is a good deal LESS THAN HALF what it cost to
build a MK 3 kit(of course you have to do some self study to pass the
written) and if you were smart you took a lot of pictures of your building
which you could put together in a book and fairly easily get your Mk-2
registered in the Experimental Homebuilt catagory which would have the added
benefit of lowering your insurance cost as well.
But no, better to just whine to everyone 'bout how the Feds are taking away
your freedom(right) to fly. Or you could sell the Mk-2 and get one of
several Part 103 single seat aircraft and go fly all you want.....
This proposal can be a shaft or a boon depending upon how you want to view
it. It's really all in your attitude and outlook. Sure, there are things in
this proposal that I don't agree with and I think it will be very hard to
implement with all of the different classes of Ultralights out there. And
the training is gonna be a real headache to sort out. But it just may lead
to more people flying safer aircraft and that may be a good thing.
Oh well....Rant mode Off
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot - caution: Rant Mode On |
A pattern seems to be developing here. It seems to me that reading between
the lines, those that are opposed to the sport pilot rules are flying two
place ultra lights. They are bending or breaking the rules by saying they
are ultralight trainer planes. Before if an FAA person saw a two place ultra
light setting on the ramp with a sign on it that said "for instruction
purposes only" he would just leave it along. Under the new rules if it is
two place, it better have an N number on it. These people that have been
breaking the rules have brought this on them selves. Don't try to ruin what
will be a good thing for all pilots that live within the rules. If the only
complaint concerns the two place ultralights, then take one seat out and go
ahead and fly under part 103. Let the rest of us enjoy the benefits that the
sport pilot rules will bring.
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, February 18, 2002 05:54:43
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Sport Pilot - caution: Rant Mode On
geoffthis(at)charter.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kroll" skroll(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Sport Pilot
>
> This clip comes from the EAA summary of Sport Pilot under :
>
> 111 The effects of the Proposal on the Public and Industry
>
> If your aircraft does not meet 14 CFR part 103 and you are not
> authorized to operate under a training exemption, you would not be
> allowed to operate under 14 CFR part 91 until you register your aircraft
> with the FAA and receive an airworthiness certificate for your
> aircraft.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
I am getting tired of hearing about all this safety related
discussion about how we need to have a license to work on these light
aircraft that most of you built.I do understand the need to protect a
passenger from someones poor judgement but lets talk about the different
standard used on your vehicle everyone has parked in their driveways.
ANYONE can work on it and it carries multiple passengers at the same
speeds and within inches of other like maintained vehicles going in the
opposite direction.........GET REAL ! This whole problem with 'Fat '
ultralights is ridiculous....just expand the 103 exemptions and forget
all this nonsense. ........I am an A&P with an IA (and maybe an attitude
to boot )............It's all about freedom . ! NPRM is crap too .but
that doesn't mean we should sit by and not comment...I have been living
in the highly regulated business of cropdusting for 30 years and when
the government has asked me what I thought, they had already decided
what the outcome would be....welcome to the NEW WORLD ORDER.......
Ed in Liberal
Heaven
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 02/17/02alabama here I come |
In a message dated 2/18/02 2:50:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
John, interesting to hear how you need to dodge the cow piles and are
designing a way to flatten them out on you landing strip. Now, my question
is, what if one of them piles are in the manufacturing prossess and are being
deposited onto the strip as you are landing? Don't you then have a larger
problem to deal with? I know "Mrs. P-Fer" sits a little higher than most
MK3's but I don't think you can strattle a cow. I suppose if you fly early
morn and evening, you'll be ok. (milking time)
Fly Safe
Bob G
Albany NY
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
Try a leaf spring from a newer model Corvette. They are fiberglass and a
lot lighter than steel.
Ross
on 2/18/02 2:02 AM, DAquaNut(at)aol.com at DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Ive been pondering the possibilities of fabricating a landing gear out
> of an automotive leaf spring. Just wondered If any ones ever tried anything
> like that or has any thoughts.
>
> Ed Diebel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com> |
You may also consider using a fiberglass limb off of a compound archery
bow.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)nhvt.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Landing gear
Try a leaf spring from a newer model Corvette. They are fiberglass and a
lot lighter than steel.
Ross
on 2/18/02 2:02 AM, DAquaNut(at)aol.com at DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Ive been pondering the possibilities of fabricating a landing gear out
> of an automotive leaf spring. Just wondered If any ones ever tried
anything
> like that or has any thoughts.
>
> Ed Diebel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Woody
Subject: Modified Mk III
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/duesouth@iname.com.02.18.2002/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: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | FireStar Seat Belts |
My drawings call for the pilot's seat belt to be fastened to the gear leg
sockets. This is a long way back and with battery, hot box etc. mounted in
the rear seat compartment (am building a single seat so no passenger seat)
it is going to be hard to route the belts through all this equipment. I have
some pictures of the factory FireStar and although I didn't get a good
picture of the inside of the cockpit, it does not appear that the belts are
attached to the gear leg sockets. I also have some pictures of a FireStar
that was in the Kolb factory when I was there. It is the reverse color
scheme from the factory plane. Red with yellow trim instead of yellow with
red trim. It also does not appear to have the belts attached to the gear leg
sockets. Where do most of you attach your belts?
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
>
>
>A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Woody
>
>
> Subject: Modified Mk III
Them wing ribs sure do look funny.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
I've been enjoying my ignorance, keeping out of the details of
SportPilot NPRM -- don't even know when it might become a real
category. However, after catching up reading some of the comments here
in the last week or two, I felt compelled to comment on one aspect of
flying low.
There are regulations, and there are people's perceptions. The regs
put forth the same limitations for low flight, regardless of part 103
or 91. (I used to be under the false impression that ultralights had
greater freedom here.) An important point, however, is that the public
is generally receptive to seeing an ultralight flying low or landing in
an open field. That is perceived as a fair weather flyer enjoying his
Sunday afternoon buzz around the patch. But something that looks more
like a Cessna, or even an Avid or Kitfox coming in very low, and the
perception is that the pilot is either in trouble, or reckless and
dangerous. There is even good logic in this. The FARS allow 500'
minimums in uncongested or sparsely populated areas. In my mind, an
uncongested or sparsely populated area is much smaller for a slow
ultralight than it is for a C-172.
I've done a fair amount of low flying in my FS, and in my experience,
it is easy to get somewhat close to people and property while staying
legal, and get some sense whether you are appreciated or not. I
believe this is what Ralph and Bill are referring to in their skimming
around the lakes in MN. I think we will still be able to do that with
an N number on whatever looks like an ultralight, so long as we
continue to exercise caution and good manners.
-Ben Ransom
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
http://sports.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
-------Original Message-------
The 500 foot minimum is stated as 500 feet away. Not 500 feet above for
uncongested or sparsely populated areas. You would be completely legal
flying 2 feet over the ice as long as you don't come within 500 feet of
people or property (structures I think it says). There is a clause that says
that you cannot put yourself in jeopardy in the case of an unexpected
occurrence. This may have some baring if you have an engine failure flying 2
feet above open water in a land aircraft. These regulations apply to
experimental as well as GA aircraft and I feel they apply to ultra lights as
well.
Ron Payne
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:57:44
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: low flying
The FARS allow 500'
minimums in uncongested or sparsely populated areas.
_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DMe5430944(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: Flying a Plane |
From: "Woody & Karen McElroy" <okiamo(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Flying a Plane
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:49:51 -0600
Thought you might enjoy this.
Mac
"Rules of the Air (from Australian Aviation Magazine)"
If you push the stick forward, the houses get bigger. If you
pull the stick back, they get smaller. That is, unless you keep
pulling the stick all the way back; then they get bigger again.
It's always a good idea to keep the pointy end going forward.
A good landing is one from which you can walk away. A great
landing is one after which they can use the plane again.
The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above,
the runway behind, and a tenth of a second ago.
Thought you might enjoy this.
Mac
=20"Rules of the Air (from Australian Aviation
Magazine)"
If you push the stick forward, the houses get
bigger. If you
pull the stick back, they get smaller. That is, unless you
keep
pulling the stick all the way back; then they get bigger
again.
It's always a good idea to keep the pointy end going
forward.
A good landing is one from which you can walk away. A
great
landing is one after which they can use the plane again.
The
three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above,
the runway
behind, and a tenth of a second ago.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
>
>What is that airfoil shape you got on that thing?
>Have you taken the idea I have been toying with of putting a Taylorcraft
>airfoil on a Kolb design? I was dreaming of doing it on a Firefly and seeing
>how good it would do acro. Just kidding sorta.
>Hope to start/finish the rebuild on my Firstar this summer.
>Let us know to what and why you make the airfoil change. Also how it flies
>once you get it going.
I know what it is! It's so he can fly upsidedown.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/18/02 9:08:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
> Wonder how thick it is? Probably take a C-130 to haul it.
>
> john h
>
>
We use the Lexan BR in banks as bandit barriers. As I recall, if it's 1/4"
thick it will stop a ..45 ACP bullet.
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Seat Belts |
In a message dated 2/18/02 1:16:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ronormar(at)apex.net writes:
> . It also does not appear to have the belts attached to the gear leg
> sockets. Where do most of you attach your belts?
>
>
Gear leg sockets.
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | more on low flying |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Ben, Ron and others,
My low flying out on an open frozen lake, in the winter, thousands of
feet away from houses and congestion is not bothering anyone. There is no
law against low flight over frozen lakes in Minnesota during the winter.
Many of these lakes are many miles across. What's odd is that I've been
doing this for 15 years and noticed the GA crowd getting in on the act.
Since I will fly right down on the deck for miles on end at 40-50 mph,
Cessnas or other planes look completely out of place doing the same
thing. Most of the law enforcement people have seen me out there and
accept this as normal for "ultralights". I have been asked many times
about my machine and have explained to them the basics. I asked one of
the local policemen if they have received any calls or complaints about
my flying activities and he said, "No, not at all".
Now mind you folks, summer flying is completely different for me and my
Firestar. I fly a minimum of 1000' agl and most of the time up around
2000'. No, I am not a red-neck hot-dogger as some of you may think. This
is a winter activity only, and most of you guys would be doing the same
thing if you were here.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans van Alphen" <HVA(at)bellsouth.net> |
Best selection and service I have seen for prop bolts up to M8 x 1.25 x 200
mm long.
www.mcmaster.com
see page 2893 in search.
Hans van Alphen
Mark III Xtra.
BMW powered.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
>
>
>Them wing ribs sure do look funny.
>
>
>_-
I think they look slick. There are more construction photos available if
there is interest.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more on low flying |
> My low flying out on an open frozen lake, in the winter, thousands of
> feet away from houses and congestion is not bothering anyone. There is no
> law against low flight over frozen lakes in Minnesota during the winter.
> Many of these lakes are many miles across.
> Ralph Burlingame
********************************************************
Ralph/Gang:
Your last msg has changed somewhat since you wrote, a few
days ago, about low flying on frozen lakes.
******************************************************
> Guys, there are things I can do now that would be completely
> inappropriate for N-numbered aircraft. I like to fly very low and
skim
> the ice out here on Lake Minnetonka. I fly within 200' of houses
between
> channels and over the top of snowmobiles and ice fishermen. They
all love
> it. People in the houses are waving to me as I fly by. I can make
a 180
> turn at 50' feet in the air and land before the turn is
completed. Try
> this in your GA plane and see how it goes over! The minute I slap
an
> N-number on that ultralight it automatically becomes an aircraft
and an
> ultralight no longer. I will then subject myself to all kinds of
> restrictions that I can get around now.
> Ralph
********************************************************
Could be I missed something in the messages or maybe you
forgot what you said previously.
Anyhow, could you enlighten us on these two posts.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
Of course there is interest. I would much rather look at pictures of
somebody else's airplane than wade through all the wailing and hand
wringing we have had lately.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
There are more construction photos available if
>there is interest.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net> |
on PBS in your area:
The Colditz Glider
by Rick Groleau
"Of all the prisoner of war escapes that almost were, the one involving the
Colditz glider is certainly among the most ingenious. Built secretly in an
attic of Colditz castle, the glider was an airworthy craft, as clearly
demonstrated by the replica featured in the NOVA program "Nazi Prison
Escape." Many believe that, had the war not ended when it did, two POWs
would have stood a decent chance at making a successful flight."
Here is the link for more information:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/naziprison/glider.html
To quote one interesting point:
"Constructing the glider's parts was tedious, to say the least. For the
wings alone the builders had to craft over 6,000 hand-fashioned pieces. To
make just one rib, they had to shape a piece of wood, steam it to render it
pliable, bend and pin it, then finally glue it into place. And the glider
required hundreds of these." Wingspan was over 30 feet, length 20 feet.
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
From the looks of it, Woody will have the fastest Kolb in the air.
-Very creative thinking, not to mention ambition! -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Woody's wing |
A
> >From the looks of it, Woody will have the fastest Kolb in the air.
>-Very creative thinking, not to mention ambition! -BB
Don't confuse ambition with cheapness :) I needed all new ribs so I
decided to build my own and while I was at it I changed the airfoil (don't
tell Homer) Building the ribs was not such a daunting process as I
thought. After I made the first rib and the jig it went pretty quick.
I really am hoping for the fastest Kolb off the ground.
I will add a couple more pictures to show other modifications I have
made that others might like to incorporate, including the retractable wind
tip handles.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VIC" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 02/16/02 |
How many intake and exhaust gaskets are supposed to be used on the 503? The
picture in the CPS catalog shows 4 intake (two each intake) and 4
exhaust(two each exhaust).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VIC" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 02/16/02 |
In defense of USUA, I think they have been fighting the good fight for us.
It was USUA that got the two place exemption and it was USUA that
partitioned FAA for more weight and more fuel in order to solve the fat
problem. I have been involved actively with USUA for the past 10 years and
Tom Gunnarson of USUA led the fight that kept 103 from being eliminated when
ARAC came up with the sport pilot proposal that is before us now. Tom has
been there fighting for us since the beginning.
Vic Worthington
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Seat Belts |
No other structure has enough strength for the possible loads.Unless Kolb has
changed their seat belt selection in the last couple of years,I would spend a
little extra and buy the five point harness from Hooker which installed
easily in my Firestar.G.Aman FS2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ban 2 cycle engines? |
One of the best advances in 2 stroke pollution control is oil
injection.Catalyic converters are now on some small gas engines but not 2
strokes as far as I know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Maribeltim(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re automotive leaf spring landing gear |
I made a landing gear out of an an old truck leaf spring for my Ritz
Standard. It was a bit heavier than the laminated wood gear which I broke. I
went to the local junk yard and found a spring that had the length I wanted.
I had one of the guys help by cutting the individual leaf free with a torch.
I had to bend the ends down by heating them cherry red with a torch. the
hardest part was drilling the 5/8" holes for the axles, I used several
carbide masonry bits. It worked great. Indestructabe and the spring ratae was
perfect for the plane. The spring was shaped like a continuos shallow arc, so
I made hardwood wedges to fit it to the flat botom of my plane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guillermo Uribe" <WillUribe(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Removing tar of my FireStar |
Greetings Kolb fans;
Last Tuesday I landed on the freshly sealed runway and got tar on the
FireStar's tail, Lexan and under the wings. I asked around the airport but
no one knew how to remove it without removing the finish. I tried rubbing
off the tar with a cloth but all I did was smear it on some more. It was
enough to make a grown man cry.
Then I remembered that when I was covering my Kolb I had Jim and Dondi's
phone number on my cell phone's quick dial and still did.
So I called them for advice on how to remove the tar. Jim said they had a
paint cleaning solvent from Poly Fiber that would do the trick and sent it
to me that same day.
I received the solvent on Monday and today I was able to remove that ugly
tar, it even cleaned bugs and the soot off the top of the rudder.
I highly recommend keeping a quart of these stuff around for hard to clean
spots on your Kolb.
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/tar/tar01.jpg
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/tar/tar02.jpg
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/tar/tar03.jpg
Thanks Jim and Dondi for the fast service, I really appreciate it.
Now if the high winds slow down tomorrow I'm going flying.
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
> John/Gang:
>
> There is only one place to get the best service and quickest
> delivery of your covering and painting needs:
>
> That is Jim and Dondi Miller:
>
> CALL TOLL FREE 1-877-877-3334
>
> http://www.aircrafttechsupport.com/
>
> Aircraft Technical Support, Inc
>
> john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for taking
road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol' WD-40 !
! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40, wait
a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working on an
old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump spray
jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about lexan..............try it
on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillermo Uribe" <WillUribe(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
> Greetings Kolb fans;
> Last Tuesday I landed on the freshly sealed runway and got tar on the
> FireStar's tail, Lexan and under the wings. I asked around the airport
but
> no one knew how to remove it without removing the finish. I tried rubbing
> off the tar with a cloth but all I did was smear it on some more. It was
> enough to make a grown man cry.
> Then I remembered that when I was covering my Kolb I had Jim and Dondi's
> phone number on my cell phone's quick dial and still did.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
I think mineral spirts will work on Lexan without hurting it. (Try it on a
small spot out of the way or on a scrap piece.) Do not use Acetone or
MEK. They use that to glue melt pieces together.
Thanks for the tip on the solution for the fabric.
jerryb
>
>Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for taking
>road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol' WD-40 !
>! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40, wait
>a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working on an
>old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
>clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
>needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
>degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump spray
>jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about lexan..............try it
>on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum Lar.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, Ca.
>Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
>http://www.gogittum.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Guillermo Uribe" <WillUribe(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
>
> >
> > Greetings Kolb fans;
> > Last Tuesday I landed on the freshly sealed runway and got tar on the
> > FireStar's tail, Lexan and under the wings. I asked around the airport
>but
> > no one knew how to remove it without removing the finish. I tried rubbing
> > off the tar with a cloth but all I did was smear it on some more. It was
> > enough to make a grown man cry.
> > Then I remembered that when I was covering my Kolb I had Jim and Dondi's
> > phone number on my cell phone's quick dial and still did.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 02/16/02 |
Right! You need four each on a dual carb model, (intake) and four for the
exhaust side. The reason is the fan shroud must be sealed from both in and
outside.
Dave.
-----Original Message-----
From: VIC [SMTP:vicw(at)vcn.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 02/16/02
How many intake and exhaust gaskets are supposed to be used on the 503?
The
picture in the CPS catalog shows 4 intake (two each intake) and 4
exhaust(two each exhaust).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | kolbs near sarasota |
Hello Gang
Any Kolb flyers near Sarasota FL??
Duane Zollinger
fs2 OH.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kolbs near sarasota |
In a message dated 2/20/02 8:28:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, EnaudZ(at)aol.com
writes:
>
>
> Hello Gang
> Any Kolb flyers near Sarasota FL??
>
> Duane Zollinger
> fs2 OH.
>
Duane ...what part of Ohio are you from?
george randolph...Akron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | EAA answers SP questions |
I sent a list of four questions to the EAA. I was having trouble finding the
answers by reading the proposed rules. My questions are at the bottom of the
EAA responce. This may clear up some of the questions that have been brought
up on this list.
Ron Payne
Ron
There is much confusion as the the inter-relationship of the sport pilot
certificate and the light-sport aircraft certification categories. In fact,
the two items are completely separate, even though they're covered under the
same NPRM. First, let's look at the pilot issue:
As you already hold a commercial pilot certificate, you will be able to
operate as a sport pilot without the need for any other license. This is no
different than the current situation, where you can exercise the private
pilot privileges of your commercial certificate. You can exercise the
privileges of a "lower" license, including sport pilot.
Your Kolb is an experimental/amateur-built aircraft. This will remain the
same regardless of what license privileges you wish to operate under. Your
repairman certificate will not be effected by the new rule, as the
regulations concerning amateur-built aircraft are not changed in any way by
the sport pilot/light sport aircraft (LSA) proposal.
Further, the category in which a particular aircraft is certificated has no
bearing on whether a sport pilot may or may not fly it. So long as the
aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft (1232 lb gross
weight, 39 knot stall in landing configuration, Vh of no greater than 115
knots, two seats or less, etc.) a sport pilot can fly it, regardless of what
category it's certificated in. It can be a standard category aircraft (J-3
Cub, Aeronca Champion, Taylorcraft BC12D, etc.), it can be an
experimental/amateur-built such as your own airplane, or it can be a new
special/LSA or experimental/LSA. All these aircraft are available for
operation by sport pilots, so long as they meet the definition of a
light-sport aircraft.
The only additional requirement you'd need to meet in order to fly your Kolb
as a sport pilot is a make/model logbook endorsement from a qualified
instructor. Note that this does NOT require dual instruction in the aircraft
for which you are seeking the endorsement. It only requires that the
instructor satisfies him/herself that you can safely operate the aircraft.
If you have logged PIC time in the aircraft as a private pilot or higher,
this should satisfy the instructor that you can safely fly it.
One possible hang-up in the make/model endorsement scheme is that the
instructor is required to have at least 5 hours of PIC time in a particular
make/model before he/she can issue logbook endorsements for same. We are
working with the FAA to smooth the "wrinkles" out of this make/model
endorsement situation, so there may be changes to the process over time. We
ll keep members (and everyone else) posted on the evolution of the sport
pilot/LSA proposal via the sport pilot web site (www.sportpilot.org), so
keep an eye on that site for updates.
I think I've covered all of your questions in the above commentary. If not,
let me know. Also, thank you for your patience. As you might guess, we have
been deluged with questions on the proposal, and we're doing our best to get
everyone the answers they seek.
Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Information Services
EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
888-322-4636, extension 6806
jnorris(at)eaa.org
We are pleased to provide this information as an EAA membership benefit. To
insure that this service continues, renew your membership or join EAA today
by calling 800-843-3612 or 920-426-5912.
Visit EAA on the web at http://www.eaa.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron or Mary [mailto:ronormar(at)apex.net]
Subject: Sport Pilot
I have tried reading the regulations regarding sport pilots and light sport
aircraft but they are so long that I forget what I have read. A couple of
questions.
1-I am building a Kolb FireStar that is just outside the limits of an
ultralight. I already have registered it and have an N number. It will be a
single place aircraft so no dual instruction is possible. I have a
commercial license and can fly this as an experimental. Can I fly it under
the sport pilot thing without getting certified by an instructor?
2-Can I fly under the rules of a sport pilot with my commercial license
without getting a new license?
3-Will my repairman certificate, that will be issued for this plane as an
experimental, allow me to do my own inspections and maintenance if the plane
is considered a light sport aircraft?
4-If an airworthiness certificate is issued for this plane as an
experimental, can the plane be flown as a light sport aircraft, if it meets
all the requirements of that category, without getting another certification
as a light sport aircraft?
John "Ron". Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kolbs near sarasota |
Geo 3miles south of wadsworth airport
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guillermo Uribe" <WillUribe(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
I tried WD-40 on the hinges but sand sticks to it and thats not good during
one of our sand storms.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
> Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for
taking
> road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol' WD-40
!
> ! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40,
wait
> a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working on
an
> old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
> clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
> needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
> degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump
spray
> jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about lexan..............try
it
> on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
I'm surprised sand sticking is the case. WD-40 is not a good long term
lubricant, it evaporates away.
LPS has a grease/oil less lubricant in there product line, I've also seen a
oil less Teflon content product that seems to be very good. Gun people use
it. Try them on couple of scrap hinge pieces.
jerryb
>
>I tried WD-40 on the hinges but sand sticks to it and thats not good during
>one of our sand storms.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
>
> >
> > Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for
>taking
> > road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol' WD-40
>!
> > ! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40,
>wait
> > a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working on
>an
> > old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
> > clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
> > needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
> > degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump
>spray
> > jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about lexan..............try
>it
> > on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, Ca.
> > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> > http://www.gogittum.com
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Woods" <kolbpilot(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Slingshot for sale |
Hi gang,
If anyone's interested in a very nice Slingshot, I'm thinking about letting mine
go. I own a Super Cub and planning on starting an RV project before long. It
has a 912S, EIS, Microair com, BRS, dual caliper Matco brakes, very nice paint,
has brought home 2 Sun-N-Fun awards. This SS is loaded. Would probably sell
it less engine and engine accessories if your interested.
Bill Woods
912S Slingshot
N62BW
wnload : http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Blane Cox" <coxhb(at)hotmail.com> |
Before I take my Firefly up in the spring I will sand and revarnish the prop. Is
there any one who will let me borrow their prop balancer soI can make sure the
prop is back in balance?
I'm also looking for a used intake silencer (single carb) and a after-muffler kit
for the Rotax 447.
I live in Johnson City, TN. Thanks.
Blane
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tony webster <caw(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slingshot for sale |
tell me more and would like some pics
Bill Woods wrote:
>
> Hi gang,
> If anyone's interested in a very nice Slingshot, I'm thinking about lett> ing
mine go. I own a Super Cub and planning on starting an RV project bef> ore long.
It has a 912S, EIS, Microair com, BRS, dual caliper Matco brake> s, very
nice paint, has brought home 2 Sun-N-Fun awards. This SS is loade> d. Would probably
sell it less engine and engine accessories if your inte> rested.
>
> Bill Woods
> 912S Slingshot
> N62BW
>
> wnload : http://explorer.msn.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
Wash it afterwards with soap & water. WD-40 comes right off, tho' it will
displace plain water.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillermo Uribe" <WillUribe(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
> I tried WD-40 on the hinges but sand sticks to it and thats not good
during
> one of our sand storms.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
>
> >
> > Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for
> taking
> > road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol'
WD-40
> !
> > ! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40,
> wait
> > a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working
on
> an
> > old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
> > clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
> > needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
> > degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump
> spray
> > jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about
lexan..............try
> it
> > on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum
Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, Ca.
> > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> > http://www.gogittum.com
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: intake silencers |
Was contemplating putting on a single carb intake silencer. Has anyone had
any experience with the 447 single? I am really impressed by a 582 on a
trike with both after muffler (which I use) and an intake silencer on the
dual carb unit. very impressive. Would it work as effectively on my
firestar with that great big ole 66" blade with after muffler. Is it worth
the trouble? Ted Cowan p.s. if it does work for someone standing on the
outside, does it make it quieter for the pilot also?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
| Subject: | Removing tar of my FireStar |
My two cents,
In the Military we were forbidden to use wd40 of our weapons because it is a
penetrating solvent and NOT a lubricant. Which from experience is true WD 40
lifts just about every thing from the surface and when it dries it leaves
the surface dry and not lubricated. To clean with it is great but you need
to come back with a lubricant after it has fully dried. To test this out
clean a piece of steel with it then leave it untouched for a day and see the
surface rust start showing up.
Ps. We used CLP to lubricated our weapons with it has Teflon in it at a
micro level that penetrated into the surface to building up the lubrication.
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: jerryb [mailto:ulflyer(at)airmail.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
I'm surprised sand sticking is the case. WD-40 is not a good long term
lubricant, it evaporates away.
LPS has a grease/oil less lubricant in there product line, I've also seen a
oil less Teflon content product that seems to be very good. Gun people use
it. Try them on couple of scrap hinge pieces.
jerryb
>
>I tried WD-40 on the hinges but sand sticks to it and thats not good during
>one of our sand storms.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
>
> >
> > Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for
>taking
> > road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol'
WD-40
>!
> > ! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40,
>wait
> > a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working
on
>an
> > old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
> > clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
> > needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
> > degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump
>spray
> > jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about
lexan..............try
>it
> > on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum
Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, Ca.
> > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> > http://www.gogittum.com
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: intake silencers |
I tried silencers on the intake and exhaust of my 447. I found that the
intake silencer was very good. I could not detect a noticeable difference
with the exhaust silencer. Part of the reason is that it reverses the flow
and vents the exhaust more toward the front of the plane. I took off the
exhaust silencer to save weight. And finally I took off the intake
silencer because I could not figure out how to keep it on. Every thing I
used of reasonable weight to hold it on and to support it would fatigue
crack and break. I should have used tension links with springs and that
may have worked.
Also, with the intake silencer in place, I could not fold the right wing.
I solved most of the noise problem for me by purchasing a ANR head set.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Was contemplating putting on a single carb intake silencer. Has anyone had
>any experience with the 447 single? I am really impressed by a 582 on a
>trike with both after muffler (which I use) and an intake silencer on the
>dual carb unit. very impressive. Would it work as effectively on my
>firestar with that great big ole 66" blade with after muffler. Is it worth
>the trouble? Ted Cowan p.s. if it does work for someone standing on the
>outside, does it make it quieter for the pilot also?
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Crane <jerry(at)pronet.net> |
| Subject: | Cleaning solution |
There is a cleaning product that I have been using for years that is truly
outstanding. It's called "Grow Super Clean" and it cuts grease and oil and
masking tape residue like magic but won't attack anything that I have ever
tried it on including: plastics, vinyl, paint, rubber, cloth, etc. The
only thing it will attack is you -- so wear gloves as it will penetrate the
pores of your skin. You can find it automotive paint stores.
Question: I'm considering purchasing a Kolb Mark III Extra kit. Has
anyone out there built one of these planes that might offer some insight
into this kit. Thanks, Jerry Crane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
I think there must be a gray area there, Ken. 1st, we're cleaning a painted
surface in our case, so rust wouldn't be a problem. 2nd, 7 or 8 years ago,
Yachting magazine ran a test of several products aimed at the same
market..............salt water boaters. They used a Boeing product, WD-40,
and several others; I forget now. Anyway, for bare steel exposed to the air
at a marina, WD-40 sprayed on, And Left ON, protected better and longer than
most or all of the others. Immersed in the water, it wasn't much good at
all.........just washed away. Seems the Boeing product was better
there.............this old memory fails me. Incidentally, at work I have a
tough time convincing junior engineers not to use WD for lubricating things
such as door hinges, because you're right, it's only a short term
lubricant...........acts more as a solvent. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
> My two cents,
>
> In the Military we were forbidden to use wd40 of our weapons because it is
a
> penetrating solvent and NOT a lubricant. Which from experience is true WD
40
> lifts just about every thing from the surface and when it dries it leaves
> the surface dry and not lubricated. To clean with it is great but you
need
> to come back with a lubricant after it has fully dried. To test this out
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
On 2-18-02, Woody wrote:
< First flight should be before mid summer if I don't get lazy. My goal is
to beat
Vamoose into the air. >
Woody -
That's MY goal, too!
(Sorry, Big Lar - it's just too good of a goal to pass up!)
Dennis Kirby
Mk-3, s/n 300, beginning taxi tests next month (hopefully)
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kolbs near sarasota |
Gary My brother is near Sarasota Look for uls
email przolinger(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: intake silencers |
Had an intake silencer on a Hummer with a Rotax 277. Ran good, no
difference in power, but had to rejet the low speed circuit to keep it from
quitting at idle.
Had one on a Rotax 503 with single carb, ran OK, but had a small loss of
power. Removing it allowed more RPM at full throttle, and required
rejetting of the high speed circuit. Don't remember the details.
Used a mount of welded 3/8" chromoly tubing, rubber mounted to allow it to
flex and flop with the carb. No problems with breakage or coming loose.
Exhaust silencers require no jetting changes, and reduce the noise a little.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Was contemplating putting on a single carb intake silencer. Has anyone had
>any experience with the 447 single? I am really impressed by a 582 on a
>trike with both after muffler (which I use) and an intake silencer on the
>dual carb unit. very impressive. Would it work as effectively on my
>firestar with that great big ole 66" blade with after muffler. Is it worth
>the trouble? Ted Cowan p.s. if it does work for someone standing on the
>outside, does it make it quieter for the pilot also?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com> |
| Subject: | Removing tar of my FireStar |
This topic of lubricants is very interesting. It brings up a very good
question. I fly a Firestar, what area's should I be lubricating?
-----Original Message-----
From: James, Ken [mailto:KDJames(at)berkscareer.com]
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
My two cents,
In the Military we were forbidden to use wd40 of our weapons because it is a
penetrating solvent and NOT a lubricant. Which from experience is true WD 40
lifts just about every thing from the surface and when it dries it leaves
the surface dry and not lubricated. To clean with it is great but you need
to come back with a lubricant after it has fully dried. To test this out
clean a piece of steel with it then leave it untouched for a day and see the
surface rust start showing up.
Ps. We used CLP to lubricated our weapons with it has Teflon in it at a
micro level that penetrated into the surface to building up the lubrication.
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: jerryb [mailto:ulflyer(at)airmail.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
I'm surprised sand sticking is the case. WD-40 is not a good long term
lubricant, it evaporates away.
LPS has a grease/oil less lubricant in there product line, I've also seen a
oil less Teflon content product that seems to be very good. Gun people use
it. Try them on couple of scrap hinge pieces.
jerryb
>
>I tried WD-40 on the hinges but sand sticks to it and thats not good during
>one of our sand storms.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Removing tar of my FireStar
>
>
> >
> > Now that it's too late, there's an old trick that works real well for
>taking
> > road tar off of paint, and absolutely harmless. Try using good ol'
WD-40
>!
> > ! ! Got any petroleum based gunk on a vehicle ?? Spray it with WD-40,
>wait
> > a minute or 2, and wipe it off. Hands black with grease from working
on
>an
> > old tranny or motor, or whatever ?? Spray 'em with WD-40, and wipe 'em
> > clean. Doesn't remove natural oils from your skin, so you don't wind up
> > needing hand lotion for dry, chapped hands caused by too much use of
> > degreasers. I usually buy it by the gallon, and use their squirt pump
>spray
> > jug...............much cheaper. Don't know about
lexan..............try
>it
> > on a scrap 1st, but I think it's prob'ly OK. Gogittum
Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, Ca.
> > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> > http://www.gogittum.com
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
Geoff,
As much as I dislike the "tone" of your comments........
Yea you are missing the fact that the FAA recognizes that there are
"Fat"
ultralights flying and they are being very gracious about giving you
time to
find a way to make the $ to get yourself some training and your aircraft
inspected to make sure it is airworthy.....DUH!
.......I DO appreciate your right to make them. That is the whole idea
behind the 90 day "comment period" that we are now in. However, your
"rebuttal" of my original post was based on a whole bunch of erroneous
presumptions. Rather than subject the list to all of them, I will try
to focus on one area.
I have a Private Pilot Glider (aero tow) and hundreds of hours in type
(no medical required) I also went through a complete course for Private
Pilot Power and passed the written and the check ride. My intention was
to be legal flying my (at that time) recently completed Kolb Mk-2 but
when I took the 3rd class physical, I was excluded because of a
medication I have to take for Rhumatoid Arthritis. The medication is
Coumadin and it is normally associated with heart patients. I don't
have a heart problem but the FAA does not make that distinction and I
was denied the ticket and therefore the right to legally fly my
airplane.
After a lot of soul searching, I decided to fly my Mk-2 without an
N-number and by the ultralight rule (single place only, airspace
restrictions, etc etc.) and I now have 186 hours flying it (solo)
without incident. I've done all my own maintenance and inspections (who
could do it better than the guy that who has 1000 hours building it) and
I am VERY thorough because I have plenty of incentive....my butt is at
stake!!
My point is this: An FAA rule is black and white...there is no grey
area. It doesn't make any special considerations for people like me and
I expect there are thousands of us out there. We either fit under the
umbrella or we don't. Like a lot of pilots who are flying "legally"
today, I could have omitted the information about Coumadin to the
medical examiner but I didn't. I was much more of an idealist then and
I thought the system might accomodate me. It didn't, it won't, and it
never will. I am now hoping (like Sam and a few others) that once the
Sport Pilot rule is final and in place, the FAA will expand the
definition of "ultralights" but I'm not holding my breath.
This list has been oddly quiet since the NPRM was announced. With so
much at stake I really don't understand that. I intend to submit my
comments to the FAA but I was hoping to be able to refine them using
several months of heated discussions in here. Come on guys....we don't
have that much time. More rules means less freedom and more expense.
It's about as simple as that.
Steve Kroll
Mk-2 (flown solo only)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
"Kottke, Dwight" wrote:
I fly a Firestar, what area's should I be lubricating?
>
Dwight/Gents:
Anyplace two pieces of metal rub against each other:
Hinges
Aileron
Elevator
Rudder
Torque tubes and bushings
Tail wheel swivel
Control stick
And on and on and on.............. :-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
>
> Come on guys....we don't
> have that much time. More rules means less freedom and more expense.
> It's about as simple as that.
As I understand it, you will be able to register your MkII as experimental,
do all the inspections and such because you are the builder and fly it under
the sport pilot ticket.
I think there are 2 issues here. The Sport Pilot ticket which is good...and
the light sport category, which for folks like us, is not worth the paper
its printed on.
The light sport category is good for the guy who calls Kitfox and buys an
already built plane. He has to take training to learn how to inspect and
repair it, as he should.
If that same guy built the Kitfox, he would register it experimental instead
of light sport and be able to do all the work on the plane himself as the
builder.
Any experimental can be flown by a Sport Pilot as long as it meets the
criteria.
you are in a pretty good position. You built the plane, so you shouldn't
have any trouble registering it and you already have a PPL. Under sport
pilot you should be able to fly your MMII registered in the experimental
category with your PPL and a drivers license. You shouldn't have to take
any other training at all.
If I'm missing something, I'm sure someone will set me straight. Everything
I know about sport pilot came from this list. (Too lazy to actually read
the FAA documents). The way I've explained it above is the way I understand
it according the posts on the list.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
It looks like I'm NOT doing Sun n Fun this year because of a rash (a good
rash I suppose) of other vacations that my wife has planned this year. She
promises that next year it's all about me. However, if anyone comes by
Atlanta on the way down and are swinging around the East side, stop in and
say hi. I may even haul you to the gas station if need be.
Sincerely,
Kip Laurie
Firestar II
Atlanta
www.springeraviation.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Woody's wing |
Why can't they make a spell check that can read my mind?
I submitted other photos but they are not up yet. It's been a couple
days now, is that normal?
I will add a couple more pictures to show other modifications I have
made that others might like to incorporate, including the retractable wind
tip handles.
From cow tipping to wind tipping, I hope no one else noticed. Build
Woody build. It really looks interesting Bill>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: intake silencers |
Jack
What make did you purchase?
Paul Sasseville
FSII
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: intake silencers
> I solved most of the noise problem for me by purchasing a ANR head set.
>
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: intake silencers |
Paul,
I got the middle one from Lightspeed. They can be found at:
http://www.anrheadsets.com/
I am well pleased with the performance. If I had to do it over I would
investigate a company down in Florida that makes on that fits into the
ears. It has no microphone and uses bone conduction to pick up voice. It
is much lighter and could be worn under a regular soft flight helmet which
would reduce neck strain from flying with your head out.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Jack
>
>What make did you purchase?
>
>Paul Sasseville
>FSII
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: intake silencers
>
>
>> I solved most of the noise problem for me by purchasing a ANR head set.
>>
>>
>> Jack B. Hart FF004
>> Jackson, MO
>>
>
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Crane <jerry(at)pronet.net> |
I live near the coast and need to coat the inside of my C-172 from time to
time to prevent corrosion. Maint facilities that can accomplish this
normally use ACF-50 which can be purchased from aircraft parts suppliers
such as Wag-Aero, Aircraft Spruce, etc. It is a high-tech version of WD-40
and is also a lubricant. My AI recommends using it to lubricate hinges and
other parts. It's available in small spray cans as well as gallon sizes.
Jerry Crane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Kolbers:
Being a cheapskate, I look for ridiculous ways to cut corners... leaves more
money for gin and cigars... Anyway, have had good luck mixing about 4 or 5
ounces of NON-DETERGENT motor oil into a gallon can of WD-40 as a way to get
around the long-term corrosion and lube problems with that product as
outlined here on the list...
Shake it up good... It stays mixed and leaves a durable light film of lube
on stuff without getting gummy or sticky... the WD-40-retains its good
cleaning and penetrating properties... and this is a lot less expensive than
the Boeshield, ACF, etc... although I'm sure it isn't as effective or
durable inside airframes as these concoctions specifically formulated for
that purpose.
I'd hesitate to put the mix on lexan or plexiglass, for fear of long-term
problems with crazing, but it works pretty well on removing grease and bugs
from Stits Poly stuff and nailing down thinning gray comb-overs... and it
also controls those unruly hamster-sized old-guy eyebrows with no
problems... just don't get it on your sunglasses... and the's a bonus in
that the pleasing, yet subtle hint-of-petrochemical fragrance means one can
save a buck or two on the Old Spice...
Regards,
Beauford of Brandon
FF-076
60 hours, big wheels, enlarged prostate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Crane" <jerry(at)pronet.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Lubrication
>
> I live near the coast and need to coat the inside of my C-172 from time to
> time to prevent corrosion. Maint facilities that can accomplish this
> normally use ACF-50 which can be purchased from aircraft parts suppliers
> such as Wag-Aero, Aircraft Spruce, etc. It is a high-tech version of
WD-40
> and is also a lubricant. My AI recommends using it to lubricate hinges
and
> other parts. It's available in small spray cans as well as gallon sizes.
>
> Jerry Crane
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
> Some one should post a sign-up sheet and a meeting time for a photo
> shot....What do you think... Don
Don/Gang:
Sounds good to me.
Why don't you pick up the ball, make contact with Kolb
Aircraft, Danny Mullins, and request Kolb Acft support us
with a little sign, roster to sign up and post where each
are staying, etc.
I will be in the UL parking area where they let us camp with
our planes, Kolb display, or scournging up chow. :-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com |
02/22/2002 08:29:57 PM
Steve K. and List members:
There has been a fair amount of discussion about Sport Pilot on the List.
I suspect there has not been more discussion simply because it seems to
stir up a lot of emotion and gets political. Many find this aspect to just
not be very enjoyable, especially on a List like this, where peoples
intentions and demeanor can be misunderstood.
Having read the rule, I personally feel I can live with it, and welcome the
opporunity to fly a two-place without guilt or funny looks from people I
dont know at airstrips I may fly into. While I dont pretend to speak for
others, I would think that would also be attractive even for the fat single
place pilot, given that he will be able to carry more than five gallons
gas, fly faster with a bigger engine, etc. AND still be able to work on his
own plane. Dont we all want to be welcomed at Sun n' Fun instead of being
shooed off to the side as fringe aviators?
I welcome other view points, and would gladly comment on anyones
suggestions for comments to be submitted to FAA on Sport Pilot. I would
only suggest that the comments be as specific as possible regarding what
aspects of the proposed rule are objectionable. I dont believe simply
stating ones complete displeasure with more rules will have the desired
effect.
respectively,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Dont we all want to be welcomed at Sun n' Fun instead of
being
> shooed off to the side as fringe aviators?
> Erich Weaver
Eric/Gang:
Over the years EAA, USUA, FAA, and all the rest contributed
to the growth and acceptance of the "fat ultralight" and
illegal two place UL trainers.
I don't remember anybody getting busted, especially the
manufactures who boldly came to Sun and Fun and to Oskosh to
display their wares, flying and giving rides in illegal
airplanes.
Kolb Aircraft (old and new) always came to the shows with
two place airplanes registered EXPERIMENTAL. Also the
Firestar II had an N number on it.
I remember the cover of an issue of EAA Experimenter
Magazine which showed God and everybody a Titan Tornado
powered with a Rotax 912S which had won an award at Oskosh.
The Titan had no N number, but did have the USUA number. I
do not think this airplane was being used as an UL trainer.
I see this as a big mistake on EAA's part. To me it says we
accept breaking the regs.
I also point the finger at myself. I flew illegal ULs. I
didn't like it either. Always looking over my shoulder.
Being legal is much more comfortable. The Sport Pilot
proposal should help us get legal.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com> |
| Subject: | Larry goes to Sun-n-Fun |
>
> I'll be wearing my fancy Kolb T-shirt, and my FREE Kolb hat (thanks to
Sue),
> and upon that hat will be fastened my EAA chapter membership badge,
complete
> with my name, in pretty big letters. I understand that this year SnF goes
> from the 7th to the 14th.............Sunday to Sunday. What do you think
> would be the best days to be there ?? I'll only be spending 1 - 1 1/2
days
> there. Lar.
WOW -- Larry is going this year!!!
Its been a long time since Ive seen ya..... I will be there (Sun n Fun)
Sunday thru Tuesday... Look forward to seeing you and as many other Kolbers
that can make it..... I think itll be my fifth time.... If you've never
been, then you dont know what you're missing... (and this from someone who
lives just 50 miles from Osh!!!!) You'd never know that the same
organization puts on both events.... (well *almost* the same organization).
Looking forward to April
Jon
near Green Bay
FS
-----------------------------------
www.joncroke.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Removing tar of my FireStar |
In a message dated 2/22/02 8:35:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
> Anybody else gonna fly down, drive, walk, swim to S&F? Will
> be over in the NE corner of the airstrip in the camp with
> your airplane area. Ya'll come by and visit. To show how
> hospitable I am, I will gladly join you for a trip to town
> and dinner and the UL flying is over for the evening.
>
> john h
>
John,
I am planning on flying down also, probably arrive Sat. evening. I believe
I can be that hospitable too.
Steven G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Lister's Cook-out at Sun-N-Fun |
> What do you think?????
>
> Steven Green
Steven/Gang:
Well, I think it is a good idea.
I can handle hot dogs, hamburgers, pork chops, steaks, you
name it.
Count me in.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Lister's Cook-out at Sun-N-Fun |
I will get to Sun-N-Fun on Monday the 8th.
Unfortunately I will be in a rental car, I will be able to get folks around
if needed.
See you there.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
http://dellepro.dellhost.com/williamson/Kolb/Construction%20Log.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Lister's Cook-out at Sun-N-Fun |
Count me in. Gene Ledbetter (FireFly/447) and I will be there about noon
on Sunday in my truck. We plan to stay at a Red Roof near Tampa. We can
bring a gas grill.
Let me know what else I can do to help.
Duane the plane Tallahassee, Fl
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Lister's Cook-out at Sun-N-Fun
> What do you think?????
>
> Steven Green
Steven/Gang:
Well, I think it is a good idea.
I can handle hot dogs, hamburgers, pork chops, steaks, you
name it.
Count me in.
john h
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | D.R.Cox Insurance |
Several listees have recommended D.R.Cox & Co. insurance. Recent reply
from David Cox: "Thanks. We are not a market for UL Aircraft. Possibly
AVEMCO is a market for certain models."
I had inquired abt premiums for just liability ins. Guess I'll have to
go back to old AVEMCO.
Bob N. the old one
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Crane <jerry(at)pronet.net> |
Has anyone had experience with the Suzuki auto engine on an ultra light? I
have found one for sale but am unsure of the engine. It's supposedly out
of a Geo Metro (1.0 litre 65HP). Any info you can provide would be
sincerely appreciated.
Thanks, Jerry Crane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A1sharpco(at)aol.com |
NOW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A1sharpco(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UNSUSUBCRIBE |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UNSUSUBCRIBE |
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place, such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (any time of year) you can find it here
Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice
And she said we are all just prisoners here of our own device
Relax said the nightman We are programmed to receive
You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 02/23/02Sun and Fun Participants |
Hope to fly my MK3 down. I'll leave upstate NY around 4/1. Not sure if it
will take me 3,5,7,days ? I guess it depends on how the weather is and how
long I can sit in the seat each day. I plan to land at So. Lakeland 1st. and
call the ultralight area to see about coming in there. What I could use the
most is a ride to town to pick up some grub for the week camping in the ul
area. Plane is N528PY. Boston maroon and Diana cream (colors) Hope to meet
you guys on the list and have a great time.
Bob Griffin
Albany NY
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F |
Kolb gang,
The cookout is on for 7pm Sunday Apr. 7 at S&F.
The exact location is yet to be determined.
The following people have volunteered to bring some necessary items:
Duane-D-Plane and Gene L. Grill
Beauford Grill (if Biglar can deliver it)
John Hauck Appetite
Bob Griffin Appetite
Steven Green Appetite
S. Green
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F |
If it'll fit in a rental car, Big Lar can deliver it ! ! ! Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <SGreenpg(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F
>
>
> Kolb gang,
>
> The cookout is on for 7pm Sunday Apr. 7 at S&F.
> The exact location is yet to be determined.
> The following people have volunteered to bring some necessary items:
> Duane-D-Plane and Gene L. Grill
> Beauford Grill (if Biglar can deliver
it)
> John Hauck Appetite
> Bob Griffin Appetite
> Steven Green Appetite
>
>
> S. Green
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
Ralph and others,
You can still fly the way you do now, just lighten up you craft and become
a TRUE PART 103 ULTRALIGHT. sounds simple doesn't it.
Guy S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: low flying
>
>
> Guys, there are things I can do now that would be completely
> inappropriate for N-numbered aircraft. I like to fly very low and skim
> the ice out here on Lake Minnetonka. I fly within 200' of houses between
> channels and over the top of snowmobiles and ice fishermen. They all love
> it. People in the houses are waving to me as I fly by. I can make a 180
> turn at 50' feet in the air and land before the turn is completed. Try
> this in your GA plane and see how it goes over! The minute I slap an
> N-number on that ultralight it automatically becomes an aircraft and an
> ultralight no longer. I will then subject myself to all kinds of
> restrictions that I can get around now.
>
> The SP is more restrictive and all of us are being funneled into it.
> Sure, I will be able to bring a passenger if I decide to build a
> 2-seater, but for now I enjoy flying low occasionally for the thrill of
> it. This is what ultralighting is all about. Let's not confuse this kind
> of flying with the bigger stuff because they are not the same and never
> will be.
>
> Ralph
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Listers Cookout at S |
I will be driving my SUV pulling a motorcycle trailer from West Kentucky.
The motorcycle is for me to ride to the airshow and the SUV is for my wife
to shop while I am at the show. I will be glad to haul anything I can down
there. I am sure my wife will allow me to use the SUV at least one day. I
plan on staying in the Orlando or Ocala area to get away from the normal rip
offs that you get when staying to close to one of these events. Should
arrive in the area around April, 6.
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, February 24, 2002 10:31:25
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F
If it'll fit in a rental car, Big Lar can deliver it ! ! ! Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flying for the fun of it |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Guy and others,
I really don't have a problem with being licensed. We all have licenses
for other aspects of our lives (drivers license included). Why not a fat
ultralight license or in this case, a Sport Pilots license? The problem
is the other things that go along with it. Will the FAA later demand that
I add a transponder flying around the Class B airspace that I'm in? Will
they later require me to have a flight review every other year to stay
current? Will they say that I cannot use the ski configuration that I
have now (I use water skis and have used them for 15 years)? What if I
want to change props or engines? Will that require more paperwork and
inspections by the DAR (another $400) while I'm grounded in the meantime?
We don't know the details on what is to come, but I can guarantee you
that once the FAA gets involved with fat ultralight flying, your freedom
to fly has just taken a back seat.
All I wanted was a weight increase to 360 lbs empty, under 103, with 10
gallons of gas. The BFI exemption was being abused, and all they had to
do was use the recreational license for those pilots that wanted to fly
with a passenger or to get training (with some modifications, of course).
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
>
> Ralph and others,
> You can still fly the way you do now, just lighten up you craft and
> become
> a TRUE PART 103 ULTRALIGHT. sounds simple doesn't it.
> Guy S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UNSUSUBCRIBE |
A
>
> NOW
Hi NOW/Gang:
How about reading the directions on how one unsubscribes
from our List.
Thanks,
john h
PS: Won't get far around here demanding anything. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/Fatal_accidents/FRU_Final.pdf
This accident report raises a question. It looks like the pilot was flying
his MkII in gusting winds from 40 to 60 MPH. Witnesses report that one wing
failed and separated from the plane.
Question is....Has Kolb ever done any formal G testing on thier planes?
Sounds like this guy over G'd the wing in heavy turbulence. The accident
happened back in '99. Did Kolb ever get involved in the accident
investigation?
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F |
Sun & Fun 'ers,
I plan on being there from Sat. the 6th thru at least Wed. I'll be
bringing my trailer without the SlingShot, but with lots of camping
equipment & an extra grill. I'll have extra chairs, lots of water, coffee &
shade (trailer has a 16ft RV awning). I bought a case of Pensoil last year
that I don't need now & will bring it & some gas jugs along as well in case
some pilots need resupplying. If you find yourself needing a tool come on
by or if you need transportation, my '84 Suburban is available. I usually
park/camp in the north-east corner of the UL Trailer parking lot which is
immediately south of the UL camping area. I prefer the parking lot as it is
not a dust bowl or mud bog like the camping area!
You all are welcome to have the cookout at my trailer. If anyone needs
to get hold of me there, I am usually not around base camp much untill
early evening as there's soooo much to see, so we need a plan. Cell ph.
#'s might be a big help, or maybe an agreed upon channel on those little
radios (I always wanted one of those anyway). I'm open to ideas.
Time to start planning!
...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: <SGreenpg(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F
>
>
> Kolb gang,
>
> The cookout is on for 7pm Sunday Apr. 7 at S&F.
> The exact location is yet to be determined.
> The following people have volunteered to bring some necessary items:
> Duane-D-Plane and Gene L. Grill
> Beauford Grill (if Biglar can deliver
it)
> John Hauck Appetite
> Bob Griffin Appetite
> Steven Green Appetite
>
>
> S. Green
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flying for the fun of it |
Being a Canadian I have kept out of the sport plane whining but I would
like to tell you how it is in Canada. Back around 1982 when U/L's were
getting popular and even before 20/20 did a butcher job on our hobby the
Canadian govt instituted new rules for U/L's. We need to have registration
numbers and have to be trained to fly . Yes a for real U/L pilot licence.
Guys like me were grandfathered in but I had my PL anyway. I was given a
weeks training to become a teacher and was given the privilege of teaching
and testing other pilots (this was before there were 2 seat U/L's) for the
past 20 years not much has changed. I am not allowed to teach on a single
seat aircraft and the weight limit is now up to 1200lb but there has been
no problems with heavy gov't action and the doomsayers have been proven
wrong. It may just work the same over there if people keep the sport
responsible to itself. You may have to report the hot doggers but the
registration numbers will help with that. You will not find as many people
buying a kit putting it together and then teaching themselves to fly
anymore. Maybe there will be fewer buyers because of this but I do not
think it would be a great loss to the sport.
Nothing wrong with having numbers on the wing except it messes up the
paint scheme. Nice to know the guy in the air is trained and licensed too.
If there is a way around the builder not needing more training there should
not be much of a problem and safer skys for all.
>The problem
>is the other things that go along with it. Will the FAA later demand that
>I add a transponder flying around the Class B airspace that I'm in? Will
>they later require me to have a flight review every other year to stay
>current?
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Kolbers,
My wife, Katy & I now live out in the country (no cable tv or dsl
telephone lines!) on a 1300ft long north/south ten acre parcel with access
to a 4000ft east/west grass strip. I actually have a real workshop which
for now will also be my hanger. God has given me my life long dream.
My SlingShot is waiting patiently for me to get back to work on her
engine, a 107ft/lb turbocharged 4 stroke 3 cyl engine which I haven't
touched since we started house shopping last Nov. Maybe this by this summer
I'll finish it.
Its good to be back on line.
For anyone wanting to contact me, here are my new numbers:
Richard Swiderski
1710 SE 140th St.
Summerfield, FL 34491
Ph# 1-352-307-9009
swiderski@advanced-connect.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Let's use the SUBJECT BOX Please!! |
Hey Guys,
I've been off line since December. I have 1,714 unread messages to sift
through. It seems like almost half of them have nothing to do with the
Subject Box.
This is a major pain! Let's change the subject box details when we
drift away from the original thread. This will also help in an archive
search.
OK, I feel better now. ...Richard Swiderski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki engines |
I looking for the same. There is supposed to be 3 Hawks in the process
now, one is expected to fly with 2-3 months. So far none have
flown. Waiting to hear the results. To get the power out of the engine
will require some form of reduction drive. There are two outfits know to
be producing these for Geo/Suzuki engines.
Raven Rotorcraft and Redrives http://www.raven-rotor.com/
Powerchutes.com & Japlin Light Aircraft http://www.powerchutes.com/JLA.asp
Yhaoo also has a group list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo/
Hope this helps,
jerryb
>
>Has anyone had experience with the Suzuki auto engine on an ultra light? I
>have found one for sale but am unsure of the engine. It's supposedly out
>of a Geo Metro (1.0 litre 65HP). Any info you can provide would be
>sincerely appreciated.
>Thanks, Jerry Crane
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
Geoff, Erich, John H. and List,
Thanks for all of you who made comments and for all of you who are going
to.
I did misunderstand a few parts of the rule (still not sure about some
of it) but generally feel somewhat better about it with the new
understanding. I guess if it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get legal
(and stay that way) maybe it will be ok. I guess I'll just have to wait
and see....and keep reading a re-reading that thing until the time is up
and I have to make my comment.
Wouldn't you know it....the best flying weather of the year is happening
right now in Texas and I'm down for maintenance and some repairs!!!
Steve K.
Mk-2 (in the shop for a top overhaul at 186 hours)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F |
Are the channels on those little Motorola radios standardized ?? We used a
pair of them between 2 cars on the Baja whale watching trip last week, and
they were great. That idea could work.....................! ! ! Same
with cell phone #'s, tho' I'll hate to see the roaming charges.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F
<swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
>
> early evening as there's soooo much to see, so we need a plan. Cell ph.
> #'s might be a big help, or maybe an agreed upon channel on those little
> radios (I always wanted one of those anyway). I'm open to ideas.
> Time to start planning!
> ...Richard Swiderski
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SGreenpg(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Listers Cookout at S&F
>
>
> >
> >
> > Kolb gang,
> >
> > The cookout is on for 7pm Sunday Apr. 7 at S&F.
> > The exact location is yet to be determined.
> > The following people have volunteered to bring some necessary items:
> > Duane-D-Plane and Gene L. Grill
> > Beauford Grill (if Biglar can deliver
> it)
> > John Hauck Appetite
> > Bob Griffin Appetite
> > Steven Green Appetite
> >
> >
> > S. Green
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tommy & Carolyn" <TommyandCarolyn(at)centurytel.net> |
Hey Group,
I tried to order the rivet gun that is on sale from Harbor Freight but
without an item number they could not process the order. Can anyone help
with this number.
Thanks,
Tommy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Confused about radios |
I'm confused about radios...
The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the most powerful
allowed by the FCC.
Can someone explain that one to me?
Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact that it's $300
more)?
Thanks.
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
I think there is another question worthy of being asked here regarding the
risk in assuming the integrity of the factory welds. This isn't the first
time I've heard of less than acceptable welding on the factory built
sections of the kits.
Maybe QC at the New Kolb is better than it was at the Old Kolb, but being a
firm believer in Murphy's Laws, I feel that a close inspection of all welds
on our planes would be a good investment of our time.
I realize the bigger story here is the fact that this guy pushed the limits
and paid the ultimate price for doing so. Conditions like the ones he was
flying in are a good excuse to spend the day rearranging one's sock drawer
or anything else BUT flying, but... the fact that the failure occurred at a
weld (that was weaker than it should have been), on a design renowned for
its strength - is not exactly insignificant.
Peter Volum
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Carlisle
Subject: Kolb-List: Accident report
http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/Fatal_accidents/FRU_Final.pdf
This accident report raises a question. It looks like the pilot was flying
his MkII in gusting winds from 40 to 60 MPH. Witnesses report that one wing
failed and separated from the plane.
Question is....Has Kolb ever done any formal G testing on thier planes?
Sounds like this guy over G'd the wing in heavy turbulence. The accident
happened back in '99. Did Kolb ever get involved in the accident
investigation?
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)georgesmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: about radios |
You might look at some of the radios on eBay. I bought mine
there a little while ago and paid $300.00 for it (delivered to my
front door). The one I got is the JHP-520 NAV/COM and I love
it. Has FLIP/FLOP channel preset and NAV capability, and I
had excellent customer service from the seller.
George Bass
USUA ID # 80399
USUA Club # 555
USUA Club # 770
==============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Confused about radios
>
> I'm confused about radios...
>
> The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
>
> The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the most powerful
> allowed by the FCC.
>
> Can someone explain that one to me?
>
> Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact that it's $300
> more)?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: about radios |
George --
Thanks for the comments. My brother actually has one of the JHPs and seems
pretty happy with it. But I was still wondering about the claims about
power between the Valcom 760 and the Icom (or JHP, for that matter). If
I'm going to buy a radio, I just want to do it once, even if it's $300
more... but, at the same time, if the $300 doesn't gain me anything, I
don't want to throw away the $$$.
-- Robert
>
>You might look at some of the radios on eBay. I bought mine
>there a little while ago and paid $300.00 for it (delivered to my
>front door). The one I got is the JHP-520 NAV/COM and I love
>it. Has FLIP/FLOP channel preset and NAV capability, and I
>had excellent customer service from the seller.
>
>George Bass
>USUA ID # 80399
>USUA Club # 555
>USUA Club # 770
>
>==============================================
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: Confused about radios
>
>
> >
> > I'm confused about radios...
> >
> > The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
> >
> > The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the most powerful
> > allowed by the FCC.
> >
> > Can someone explain that one to me?
> >
> > Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact that it's $300
> > more)?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
mailto:rlaird(at)cavediver.com
http://www.rlaird.net
Phone: 713-503-2949
Fax: 425-928-3369
------------------------------------------------
There is an exception to every rule! ... er,
except this one...
No generalization is worth a damn, .....including
this one...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: about radios |
I think maybe someone was confusing aircraft radios with CB's, which are
limited in the amount of output they can have. I bought the Narco 810
radio, which has 10 watt advertised output................and got it in good
part because of the power. You may have noticed..............Big Lar likes
to talk. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: about radios
>
> George --
>
> Thanks for the comments. My brother actually has one of the JHPs and
seems
> pretty happy with it. But I was still wondering about the claims about
> power between the Valcom 760 and the Icom (or JHP, for that matter). If
> I'm going to buy a radio, I just want to do it once, even if it's $300
> more... but, at the same time, if the $300 doesn't gain me anything, I
> don't want to throw away the $$$.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> >
> >You might look at some of the radios on eBay. I bought mine
> >there a little while ago and paid $300.00 for it (delivered to my
> >front door). The one I got is the JHP-520 NAV/COM and I love
> >it. Has FLIP/FLOP channel preset and NAV capability, and I
> >had excellent customer service from the seller.
> >
> >George Bass
> >USUA ID # 80399
> >USUA Club # 555
> >USUA Club # 770
> >
> >==============================================
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
> >To:
> >Subject: Kolb-List: Confused about radios
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm confused about radios...
> > >
> > > The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
> > >
> > > The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the most powerful
> > > allowed by the FCC.
> > >
> > > Can someone explain that one to me?
> > >
> > > Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact that it's
$300
> > > more)?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > -- Robert
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> mailto:rlaird(at)cavediver.com
> http://www.rlaird.net
> Phone: 713-503-2949
> Fax: 425-928-3369
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> There is an exception to every rule! ... er,
> except this one...
>
> No generalization is worth a damn, .....including
> this one...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Confused about radios |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Both my Icom handhelds (A22 and A4) are 1 watt. I thought the Valcom put
out more than that...Like around 8 watts. I think the max allowed is 10
watts. There are plenty of manufacturers that advertise 10 watt output. I
doubt they would do that if it were illegal.
I'm going with the Valcom also. Any rack mounted com radio is going to
perform better than any handheld. I've been flying with both for years.
The cheapest rack mounted radio (properly set up) will always outperform the
most expensive handheld. I have a collection of handheld VHF radios to
prove it.
Ross
> From: Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:54:26 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Confused about radios
>
>
> I'm confused about radios...
>
> The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
>
> The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the most powerful
> allowed by the FCC.
>
> Can someone explain that one to me?
>
> Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact that it's $300
> more)?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: about radios |
Robert L/Gang:
I have found, in my travels, that a handheld radio is more
than sufficient for use in a Kolb Firestar and Mark III. I
do not have any problem communicating with anyone. Used a
King KX99 for 12 years in my Firestar and Mark III. In
fact, flew from Smithers, BC, to Oroville, WA, to Oshkosh,
WI, and Titus, AL, with receiver only. Lost my xmit
capability. Only problem was landing at airports in Canada
that had normally scheduled commercial traffic.
Uncontrolled airports in Canada with commercial traffic
require voice communication with the local FSS.
Am using an ICOM A3 now. Good little radio, and I mean
little, once the battery is removed and wired into the
aircraft system. Think I paid a hair over $300 for it at
Tropical Aero in Ft Lauderdale, FL. They have a website and
good service. That included a headset adapter, which has to
be butchered (modified) to hook up to intercom, radio, and
headset. If I can do it, anyone can. :-)
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)georgesmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: about radios |
Power output of the JHC-500 and the JHC-520 radios is
stated to be 5 watts. I have gotten excellent reports from
others, regarding their reception of my signal and I have
no difficulty on receiving. Good luck with your choice.
George Bass
USUA ID # 80399
USUA Club # 555
USUA Club # 770
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: about radios
> I think maybe someone was confusing aircraft radios with CB's, which are
> limited in the amount of output they can have. I bought the Narco 810
> radio, which has 10 watt advertised output................and got it in
good
> part because of the power. You may have noticed..............Big Lar
likes
> to talk. Lar.
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
> > George --
> > Thanks for the comments. My brother actually has one of the JHPs and
> > seems pretty happy with it. But I was still wondering about the claims
> > about power between a Valcom 760 & the Icom (or JHP, for that matter).
> > If I'm going to buy a radio, I just want to do it once, even if it's
$300
> > more... but, at the same time, if the $300 doesn't gain me anything, I
> > don't want to throw away the $$$.
> > Robert
> >
> > >Kolb-List message posted by: "George Bass"
> > >
> > >You might look at some of the radios on eBay. I bought mine
> > >there a little while ago and paid $300.00 for it (delivered to my
> > >front door). The one I got is the JHP-520 NAV/COM and I love
> > >it. Has FLIP/FLOP channel preset and NAV capability, and I
> > >had excellent customer service from the seller.
> > >George Bass
> > >USUA ID # 80399
> > >USUA Club # 555
> > >USUA Club # 770
> > >==============================================
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
> > > >To:
> > > >Subject: Kolb-List: Confused about radios
> > > >Kolb-List message posted by: Robert Laird
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused about radios...
> > > > The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
> > > > The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the most
powerful
> > > > allowed by the FCC. Can someone explain that one to me?
> > > > Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact that
it's
> > > > $300 more)?
> > > > Thanks. Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)nettally.com> |
After reading the investigation report on the break up of the MKII Twin
Star. I strongly feel that the weld was not the failure of the wing. The
report states that the drag strut was broken about midway. I feel the
drag strut let go first due to over loading of the wing. This allowed
the wing to move to the rear enough to get a prop strike. If the
weldment had failed first the chances of the drag strut breaking would
all but be eliminated as there wouldn't be any load on it. The drag
strut and rear wing attachment was under compression any over load of
the wing would increase the compression and the weakest link would go
first and that was the drag strut.
All welds should be inspected when building or rebuilding and if there
is a doubt re- do the welds.
Don't panic and create hysteria among Kolb builders by advocating that
all the welds are questionable. If you locate a questionable weld,
contact TNK and discuss it with them. If there is a problem they will
correct it.
I have been associated with the Old Kolb company and the New Kolb
company for a day or two and both companies have had competent welders.
It hasn't been their habit to slump off on welding. Any welder will get
a bad weld at some point in time.
Jim Hauck
Welder for 53 years.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: about radios |
> Power output of the JHC-500 and the JHC-520 radios is
> stated to be 5 watts.
> George Bass
> USUA ID # 80399
George/Gang:
Type of power is important. My little handheld ICOM puts
out:
5 W (PEP)
1.5 W (Carrier)
I think this is probably typical of a handheld VHF aviation
radio. Again, it is more than adequate to talk to anyone
you find it necessary to communicate with.
Another factor in deciding which type radio you are going to
install is how much space is available, can I see the freqs
and controls, and can I reach those controls to tune the
radio. I am not trying to talk anyone out of any type
radio, but I think it is important to go with the
smallest/lightest package available. I have found in my
experience with building and flying Kolbs, it is easy to add
weight, but extremely difficult to reduce it. Doesn't take
long to end up with a heavy bird. I got one. :-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
My Harbor Freight catalog shows two power rivet guns. One is Item Number
00167-1RRH for $34.99. This is an air hydraulic unit. The other is called
an Aircraft Riveter. The book states that it can be used in any position.
I don't know if that means that the other one cannot be used in any position
This riverter is Item Number 01668-ORRH for $99.99. The pictures of these
look very similar
Hope this helps.
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, February 25, 2002 07:56:39
Subject: Kolb-List: Rivet Gun
TommyandCarolyn(at)centurytel.net>
Hey Group,
I tried to order the rivet gun that is on sale from Harbor Freight but
without an item number they could not process the order. Can anyone help
with this number.
Thanks,
Tommy
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Accident report |
on 2-24-02, Richard Carlisle wrote:
<< Question is....Has Kolb ever done any formal G testing on thier planes?
Sounds like this guy over G'd the wing in heavy turbulence. >>
Ross, and others -
One of the well-known stories from the Old Kolb company was the time Dennis
Souder (company president/chief engineer) tested a factory aircraft to
destruction - just to investigate how much abuse these airplanes would take,
and to find out what part would fail when it finally DID give up. (I don't
recall if it was an Ultrastar or a Firestar ... Dennis S - you out there
listening somewhere?)
His aircraft armed with a parachute, he performed several powered dives of
increasing steepness, ending each dive with full-deflection aft stick to
recover. The last one was about 80 degrees nose down and beyond Vne when he
pulled out. (I forgot how many Gs this imparted on the plane - a bunch, for
sure! More than any of us should EVER pull.) The drag strut in one wing
failed and the wing folded up. Chute deployed, and Dennis is here today
telling the story. Best part is, Kolb discovered what the "weak link" was
(drag strut), beefed that part up, and only then was satisfied that the kit
was good enough to market. This was one of the reasons I bought a Kolb kit
- they did this independently of any FAA-mandated structural test. And it
was a REAL test - not some theoretical analysis-by-numbers. Good marketing,
in my opinion! I, for one, have faith in the structural integrity of these
Kolb airplanes.
Dennis Kirby
Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Kearbey" <kearbey(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Accident report |
where can I find the accident report??
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Accident report
>
> on 2-24-02, Richard Carlisle wrote:
>
> << Question is....Has Kolb ever done any formal G testing on thier planes?
> Sounds like this guy over G'd the wing in heavy turbulence. >>
>
> Ross, and others -
>
> One of the well-known stories from the Old Kolb company was the time
Dennis
> Souder (company president/chief engineer) tested a factory aircraft to
> destruction - just to investigate how much abuse these airplanes would
take,
> and to find out what part would fail when it finally DID give up. (I
don't
> recall if it was an Ultrastar or a Firestar ... Dennis S - you out there
> listening somewhere?)
>
> His aircraft armed with a parachute, he performed several powered dives of
> increasing steepness, ending each dive with full-deflection aft stick to
> recover. The last one was about 80 degrees nose down and beyond Vne when
he
> pulled out. (I forgot how many Gs this imparted on the plane - a bunch,
for
> sure! More than any of us should EVER pull.) The drag strut in one wing
> failed and the wing folded up. Chute deployed, and Dennis is here today
> telling the story. Best part is, Kolb discovered what the "weak link" was
> (drag strut), beefed that part up, and only then was satisfied that the
kit
> was good enough to market. This was one of the reasons I bought a Kolb
kit
> - they did this independently of any FAA-mandated structural test. And it
> was a REAL test - not some theoretical analysis-by-numbers. Good
marketing,
> in my opinion! I, for one, have faith in the structural integrity of
these
> Kolb airplanes.
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
I know that I have caused TNK some problems with my posts about the control
problems with the new FireStar. I was accused of being quilty of slander by
Chestnut. I thought they might hold a grudge so I ordered a brake cable that
I needed from them to see if I could get service from them. I told them that
I didn't need the housing, only the cable. In the mean time I stopped at a
bicycle shop and found the exact cable that I needed. The same one supplied
with the heal brake kit. They had three cables for the price of 98 cents
each. I bought all three. Today I got the cable from TNK with the housing
that I had told them that I didn't need. The cost was $27.91. Makes one
wonder.
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TNK Hates Me |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
>
> I was accused of being quilty of slander by
> Chestnut.
Sounds like maybe they have a hard time accepting constructive criticism...
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rayfield, Don" <drayfiel(at)kcc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Accident report |
I have a copy of the old Kolb reprint of Dennis's adventure in stress
testing the Ultrastar to wing failure.
He was diving the aircraft at full throttle and then pulling full
up elevator. The wing folded back at around 90 -95 mph and he deployed the
parachute.
A recording G meter read a max of over 9 G's and what actually
failed was the drag strut failed in compression. That is when the steel drag
strut brace was designed for the Kolbs. That brace basically attached the
center of the drag strut to the main spar to keep it in line. That airplane
was repaired and was flying again in about a week.
I also have pictures of either Dennis or maybe Hawk 36 doing loops
in an Ultrastar.. They aren't intended for this type of flying but a lot of
people get very comfortable with their good performance and the old
testosterone takes over.
Kolb used to supply the article of the destruction testing with all
of the Old kits, circa 1984.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM [mailto:Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil]
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Accident report
on 2-24-02, Richard Carlisle wrote:
<< Question is....Has Kolb ever done any formal G testing on thier planes?
Sounds like this guy over G'd the wing in heavy turbulence. >>
Ross, and others -
One of the well-known stories from the Old Kolb company was the time Dennis
Souder (company president/chief engineer) tested a factory aircraft to
destruction - just to investigate how much abuse these airplanes would take,
and to find out what part would fail when it finally DID give up. (I don't
recall if it was an Ultrastar or a Firestar ... Dennis S - you out there
listening somewhere?)
His aircraft armed with a parachute, he performed several powered dives of
increasing steepness, ending each dive with full-deflection aft stick to
recover. The last one was about 80 degrees nose down and beyond Vne when he
pulled out. (I forgot how many Gs this imparted on the plane - a bunch, for
sure! More than any of us should EVER pull.) The drag strut in one wing
failed and the wing folded up. Chute deployed, and Dennis is here today
telling the story. Best part is, Kolb discovered what the "weak link" was
(drag strut), beefed that part up, and only then was satisfied that the kit
was good enough to market. This was one of the reasons I bought a Kolb kit
- they did this independently of any FAA-mandated structural test. And it
was a REAL test - not some theoretical analysis-by-numbers. Good marketing,
in my opinion! I, for one, have faith in the structural integrity of these
Kolb airplanes.
Dennis Kirby
Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin
Cedar Crest, NM
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure
under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly
by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Accident report |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/Fatal_accidents/FRU_Final.pdf
> From: "Robert Kearbey" <kearbey(at)jps.net>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:44:57 -0800
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Accident report
>
>
> where can I find the accident report??
> Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Accident report
>
>
>
>>
>> on 2-24-02, Richard Carlisle wrote:
>>
>> << Question is....Has Kolb ever done any formal G testing on thier planes?
>> Sounds like this guy over G'd the wing in heavy turbulence. >>
>>
>> Ross, and others -
>>
>> One of the well-known stories from the Old Kolb company was the time
> Dennis
>> Souder (company president/chief engineer) tested a factory aircraft to
>> destruction - just to investigate how much abuse these airplanes would
> take,
>> and to find out what part would fail when it finally DID give up. (I
> don't
>> recall if it was an Ultrastar or a Firestar ... Dennis S - you out there
>> listening somewhere?)
>>
>> His aircraft armed with a parachute, he performed several powered dives of
>> increasing steepness, ending each dive with full-deflection aft stick to
>> recover. The last one was about 80 degrees nose down and beyond Vne when
> he
>> pulled out. (I forgot how many Gs this imparted on the plane - a bunch,
> for
>> sure! More than any of us should EVER pull.) The drag strut in one wing
>> failed and the wing folded up. Chute deployed, and Dennis is here today
>> telling the story. Best part is, Kolb discovered what the "weak link" was
>> (drag strut), beefed that part up, and only then was satisfied that the
> kit
>> was good enough to market. This was one of the reasons I bought a Kolb
> kit
>> - they did this independently of any FAA-mandated structural test. And it
>> was a REAL test - not some theoretical analysis-by-numbers. Good
> marketing,
>> in my opinion! I, for one, have faith in the structural integrity of
> these
>> Kolb airplanes.
>>
>> Dennis Kirby
>> Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin
>> Cedar Crest, NM
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tommy & Carolyn" <TommyandCarolyn(at)centurytel.net> |
Thanks Ron,
Tommy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
I just hooked up the throttle cable on my 503 in my FireStar. With the
throttle closed, the cable comes out of the housing at the throttle lever in
a straight line which is good. When moving the throttle lever to full open,
there is quite a bit of bend right where the cable comes out. Has anyhone
had any problems here with worn cable or breakage?
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Souza, Mark W" <mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Pump Fittings |
Hi Y'all,
I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a while.
But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump to
quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only able
to engage about half the threads before things started getting very tight. I
realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should see
(about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between the
pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
I also have a comment about dive testing the wing to destruction, I'm glad
Dennis is still around, but that's about the stupidest thing I've ever
heard. What if his wing had folded up into the path of his BRS? I won't hold
anything against Kolb if next time they do all their structural testing on
the ground.
Glad to be a part of the group,
Mark Souza
mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Heritch" <iheritch(at)revelgroup.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Pump Fittings |
Mark, I too have exposed threads on the pump fitting, perfectly normal.
I used that Permatex pipe compound that has Teflon in it, the Teflon
tape bothers me a little bit. Any auto parts place will have this
stuff.
Ian Heritch
912 Slingshot, engine start in two weeks
Hi Y'all,
I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a
while.
But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump
to
quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only
able
to engage about half the threads before things started getting very
tight. I
realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should
see
(about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between
the
pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
I also have a comment about dive testing the wing to destruction, I'm
glad
Dennis is still around, but that's about the stupidest thing I've ever
heard. What if his wing had folded up into the path of his BRS? I won't
hold
anything against Kolb if next time they do all their structural testing
on
the ground.
Glad to be a part of the group,
Mark Souza
mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Crane <jerry(at)pronet.net> |
| Subject: | Panel mount or hand held radio |
I have a King KX-125 Nav/Com radio ($2,000) mounted in my C-172. I also
have a King KX-99 hand held radio mounted on a bracket next to the pilots
yoke. The hand held is my PRIMARY radio and the panel mount is the
backup. The hand held has a 10 frequency memory instead of just two
frequencies on the flip-flop. It also sounds better (according to pilot
friends) than the KX-125 and the receiver is more sensitive than the
KX-125. I can pick up the ATIS a good 10/15 miles further out at 3,000'
with the hand held.
Jerry Crane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Pump Fittings |
I just measured the fitting in my facet pump. I have just about 1/4 inch of
thread sticking out just as you have. I think this is normal. I have heard
both pro and con as to using teflon tape on brass fittings. I always use
some kind of thread sealer even on brass. On this pump, I used teflon paste
that you brush on. I like it a little better than tape. If I didn't have the
paste, I would have used the teflon tape.
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 08:39:39
Subject: Kolb-List: Facet Pump Fittings
com>
Hi Y'all,
I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a while.
But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump to
quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only able
to engage about half the threads before things started getting very tight. I
realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should see
(about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between the
pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Pump Fittings |
Mark, when I installed my Facet Pump the same thing happened. I simply
tightened it and there has been no leaking or problems since.
I don't know if the use of Teflon tape is kosher, but I did use some anyway.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Souza, Mark W
Subject: Kolb-List: Facet Pump Fittings
Hi Y'all,
I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a while.
But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump to
quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only able
to engage about half the threads before things started getting very tight. I
realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should see
(about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between the
pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
I also have a comment about dive testing the wing to destruction, I'm glad
Dennis is still around, but that's about the stupidest thing I've ever
heard. What if his wing had folded up into the path of his BRS? I won't hold
anything against Kolb if next time they do all their structural testing on
the ground.
Glad to be a part of the group,
Mark Souza
mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Facet Pump Fittings |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
You can not accurately stress test an airframe on the ground to destruction
without a defense department budget...Or at least their computers. Simply
hanging a plane and filling it with sandbags tells you nothing. A plane
needs to either be tested in the air or in the computer...Which is very
expensive.
I think you will find that most UL manufacturers do not stress test to
failure. Most of them just do the math and and post the numbers that they
come up with. I know of one manufacturer who claimed to stress test to
failure. They supported the plane by the wings at the wing strut attachment
point and loaded the plane with sandbags. They stopped when they had loaded
10 times the planes advertised gross then claimed that the airframe was
capable of 10G. All that test tell me is that the wing struts are capable
of 10G.
What Dennis did resulted in a safer plane and may have saved a few lives.
How many drag strut failures would have occured over the years if he had not
done what he did? Maybe none...But how can you be sure.
Also...There is no way to accurately static test the drag strut. Ground
testing would not have revealed the problem with the drag strut.
Ross
> From: "Souza, Mark W" <mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:37:19 -0800
> To: "Kolb List (E-mail)"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Facet Pump Fittings
>
>
> Hi Y'all,
>
> I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a while.
> But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
> primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump to
> quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
> brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only able
> to engage about half the threads before things started getting very tight. I
> realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should see
> (about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
> should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between the
> pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
>
> I also have a comment about dive testing the wing to destruction, I'm glad
> Dennis is still around, but that's about the stupidest thing I've ever
> heard. What if his wing had folded up into the path of his BRS? I won't hold
> anything against Kolb if next time they do all their structural testing on
> the ground.
>
> Glad to be a part of the group,
>
> Mark Souza
> mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
| Subject: | The test to destruction... |
This comes up every now and then and I like to go through the archives and
find the email where Dennis Souder (pilot of the test, chief engineer,
former owner of the company) reported what happened...
Everyone knows how a story told through several people starts to get
"distorted"...anyway, I copied this from the archives...
"The second phase of testing consisted of performing basic aerobatic
maneuvers. The UltraStar was tested extensively doing hundreds of loops,
snap rolls, and spins. Whip stalls were preformed at angles up to and
including the vertical (bordering on a tail slide). Typical entry speed for
a loop was 70.75 mph (shallow dive with full power) which produced an
average G-load of 4 1/4 G's at the bottom when exiting the loop. Thus the
limit load of 4 G's was easily substantiated.
Not satisfied by just substantiating our claims, we wanted to determine how
strong the UltraStar really was, and also to determine what speeds would be
required to achieve the higher G-loads. Even having done many loops in the
70-75 mph range, it was a little exciting to achieve the 80 mph + speeds
needed to push the G-meter up to 5 G's (the perceived effect of increasing
speed is not a linear function). To obtain 5 1/2 G's required a full power
dive at approximately a 40 degree angle below the horizon. The 5 1/2 G's
was of much longer duration than typical loops performed at 4 to 4 1/2 G's.
Incidentally, this 90 mph dive and the 5 1/2 G pullout was an exciting ride
even for one accustomed to performing ultralight aerobatics.
At this point, we felt that the UltraStar had been well proven to be as
strong as anything in its class would ever be required to be. There is just
no way that any pilot would ever accidentally get into such a high speed
dive situation (to which would have to be added an abrupt pull out) to get
into such a high G-loading situation. But it was decided to do one more
test to 95 mph. An abrupt and sustained pullout at this speed resulted in
structural failure of the left wing; the drag strut failed and the wing
folded back alongside the fuselage.
The parachute was deployed, and the plane and pilot were brought down
safely. A very gentle (but exciting) landing in a tree resulted in minimal
additional damage to the airplane. The only in-flight damage to the
UltraStar was the left wing which had remained neatly in its folded position
during the decent into the tree. The left wing has since been replaced and
the UltraStar is once more happily looping and rolling its way through the
sky. The failure showed that the weakest link in the wing to be the drag
strut. In the last high G maneuver it appears that the wing rib in the area
of the center of the drag strut deformed slightly, enough to push the drag
strut out of column, which resulted in a buckling of the drag strut. A steel
brace has since been added to reinforce the wing rib in this area, (This is
now included as standard in the UltraStar, FireStar and TwinStar), Since the
UltraStar had proven to be as strong as necessary, we did not feel it
necessary to test beyond that point to see what additional strength the
reinforcement would provide."
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Pump Fittings |
Gotta put my .10 cents worth in here. DON'T use the teflon tape. If you've
already used it, read carefully ! ! ! Wrap the threads with teflon tape,
and when you screw it in, small threads of the tape will be cut off, and can
be carried into metering ports, etc. If you're stuck somewhere, and MUst
use the tape, start wrapping it 1 or 2 threads back from the end. That'll
work fine..........once. On a part that doesn't matter, try using the
tape.............screw the part in, tighten it, then take it back out. Now,
look into the female side, and observe the little threads of tape left
behind. Next time you put a part in there, it'll push those little threads
on into the system. It's almost impossible to properly clean them out on a
small part. Got filters on your system to catch that stuff ?? Fine, but
they can also plug filters, as well as restrict metering orifices. I make
my living as a refrigeration tech/commercial appliance tech, and I can tell
you that most commercial gas appliance manufacturers will void warranties if
they see evidence of teflon tape in their appliances. All that said, on
something like water pipe in a home, or some such, the tape is fine. Even
at that, a paste does a better job, tho' it's messier.
Experienced Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Souza, Mark W" <mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Facet Pump Fittings
>
> Hi Y'all,
>
> I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a while.
> But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
> primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump
to
> quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
> brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only
able
> to engage about half the threads before things started getting very tight.
I
> realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should see
> (about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
> should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between
the
> pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
>
> I also have a comment about dive testing the wing to destruction, I'm glad
> Dennis is still around, but that's about the stupidest thing I've ever
> heard. What if his wing had folded up into the path of his BRS? I won't
hold
> anything against Kolb if next time they do all their structural testing on
> the ground.
>
> Glad to be a part of the group,
>
> Mark Souza
> mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Pump Fittings |
Thanks for the TTL (Teflon Tape Lesson) Lar. Fortunately in my installation
I didn't install the tape to the end of the thread, and I did only install
and tighten "once". If and when I have to remove it, I'll pay close
attention to cleaning the inside surfaces as much as possible.
PV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Bourne
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Facet Pump Fittings
Gotta put my .10 cents worth in here. DON'T use the teflon tape. If you've
already used it, read carefully ! ! ! Wrap the threads with teflon tape,
and when you screw it in, small threads of the tape will be cut off, and can
be carried into metering ports, etc. If you're stuck somewhere, and MUst
use the tape, start wrapping it 1 or 2 threads back from the end. That'll
work fine..........once. On a part that doesn't matter, try using the
tape.............screw the part in, tighten it, then take it back out. Now,
look into the female side, and observe the little threads of tape left
behind. Next time you put a part in there, it'll push those little threads
on into the system. It's almost impossible to properly clean them out on a
small part. Got filters on your system to catch that stuff ?? Fine, but
they can also plug filters, as well as restrict metering orifices. I make
my living as a refrigeration tech/commercial appliance tech, and I can tell
you that most commercial gas appliance manufacturers will void warranties if
they see evidence of teflon tape in their appliances. All that said, on
something like water pipe in a home, or some such, the tape is fine. Even
at that, a paste does a better job, tho' it's messier.
Experienced Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
Kolbers,
Yesterday I started building my wings (port wing panel). Started
sliding ribs on the 5" spar to their destined location when I ran into a
problem. I started sliding in the first rib and all was going fine
until about a foot in when the rib flange started to gull on the spar.
UHHHG!!! Talk about a mess! Pulling the rib off did even more damage.
I spent a large portion of the evening filing and sanding out a gulled
up spar.
I then tried the instruction manual trick of using a brass pin in a vise
and pulled the 5" flange hole around the pin trying to increase the
diameter, with no luck. I finally decided to use some grease, and
lathered up the spar with grease (that's all I lathered up with
grease). Talk about a big difference! All ribs slid on as smooth as
butter.
I found that it does not take much grease to do this, just a light
film(heavier films for other applications).
Just wanted to report my findings and get other ideas from you kolbers
how you dealt with this situation.
There's nothing like seeing a wing starting to form!
Tim
Phx, Az
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Pump Fittings |
Teflon is a lubricant. It should be used in a corrosive environment where
you may want to take things apart in a few years such as water pipes. Most
other applications should be some kind of pipe dope. On the pump fittings
where the tubes go into the squeeze fittings there should be no need for
anything.
Dennis would have been happy with a BRS but all that was available at
that time was hand deployed chest packs.
>
>Hi Y'all,
>
>I'm new to the group and have been watching on the sidelines for a while.
>But now I have a question. I recently bought a Facet pump for use as a
>primer and back-up pump, and a set of brass fittings to go from the pump to
>quarter inch fuel line. There is about half an inch of threading on the
>brass fittings. When I installed the fittings into the pump, I was only able
>to engage about half the threads before things started getting very tight. I
>realize the pump has tapered threads, but is this about what I should see
>(about a quarter inch of exposed threading)? And my second question is
>should I be using something like teflon tape to seal the threads between the
>pump and fitting or is does the tapered threading alone prevent leaks?
>
>I also have a comment about dive testing the wing to destruction, I'm glad
>Dennis is still around, but that's about the stupidest thing I've ever
>heard. What if his wing had folded up into the path of his BRS? I won't hold
>anything against Kolb if next time they do all their structural testing on
>the ground.
>
>Glad to be a part of the group,
>
>Mark Souza
>mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: extra strut? |
| From: | erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com |
02/26/2002 12:07:18 PM
Howdy gang.
My Mrk III is of an older vintage and has what I call an auxiliary lift
strut - a short (around 1.5 ft.) piece of small diameter tubing that goes
from the main lift strut vertically up to the wing spar, where it attaches
with a clevis pin. I believe the later Mrk III models eliminated this
auxiliary strut. Were these eliminated because they were unnecessary, or
were there other design changes that I am not aware of that coincided with
the elimination of the auxiliary strut? Can I remove this auxiliary strut
from my Mrk III and remain safe? No big deal, but might as well get rid of
the drag if I can.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi folks
I need BRS"s new ph. #
TIA DZ FS2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: extra strut? |
> My Mrk III is of an older vintage and has what I call an auxiliary lift
> strut - a short (around 1.5 ft.) piece of small diameter tubing that goes
> from the main lift strut vertically up to the wing spar, where it attaches
> with a clevis pin. I believe the later Mrk III models eliminated this
> auxiliary strut. Were these eliminated because they were unnecessary, or
> were there other design changes that I am not aware of that coincided with
> the elimination of the auxiliary strut? Can I remove this auxiliary strut
> from my Mrk III and remain safe? No big deal, but might as well get rid
of
> the drag if I can.
>
that strut holds the wing strut in column so that it does not buckle as
easily in compression. The newer struts are stiffer so they no longer need
that brace, if you want to gte rid of it, build new struts
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I just called them a minute ago....
651-457-7491
> From: EnaudZ(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:31:23 EST
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: BRS
>
>
> Hi folks
> I need BRS"s new ph. #
> TIA DZ FS2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: extra strut? |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
>
> g strut in column so that it does not buckle as
> easily in compression. The newer struts are stiffer so they no longer need
> that brace,
What about the older Twinstars? Mine has no jury strut, but the lift struts
are a very heavy aluminum streamlined tube with steel inserts.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Hi folks
> I need BRS"s new ph. #
> TIA DZ FS2
DZ/Gang:
I don't have the number handy, but you can do a quick search
and come up with it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: extra strut? |
> that strut holds the wing strut in column so that it does not buckle as
> easily in compression. The newer struts are stiffer so they no longer need
> that brace, if you want to gte rid of it, build new struts
Topher
Topher/Gents:
Jury struts were on the plans when I built my MK III, SN
M3-011. Even though we welded up streamlined 4130 lift
struts, Homer Kolb asked me to install the jury struts.
Even gave me some small streamline 4130 to match the lift
strut. The reason he wanted me to install the jury strut
was so that others would follow suit, even though "Fat
Albert" the factory MK III never got his. If you ever get
caught in extremely violent weather, you may be happy to
have those little jury struts out there.
During the crash landing at Muncho Lake, BC, 1 Jul 01, the
left 800X6 tire and wheel departed the aircraft, the
aircraft came down on the wheel in an area near the jury
strut without bending it. Without the jury strut I would
have had to fabricate a new lift strut.
Doesn't add much weight and is a plus for my safety.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
| Subject: | Re: extra strut? |
Howdy gang.
My Mrk III is of an older vintage and has what I call an auxiliary lift
strut - a short (around 1.5 ft.) piece of small diameter tubing that goes
from the main lift strut vertically up to the wing spar, where it attaches
with a clevis pin. I believe the later Mrk III models eliminated this
auxiliary strut. Were these eliminated because they were unnecessary, or
were there other design changes that I am not aware of that coincided with
the elimination of the auxiliary strut? Can I remove this auxiliary strut
from my Mrk III and remain safe? No big deal, but might as well get rid of
the drag if I can.
Regards,
Erich Weaver
erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com
130 Robin Hill Road, Suite 100
Santa Barbara, California 93117
For what it's worth they are called "Jury struts". The original Mark 3's
had streamlined aluminum extrusions for lift struts, which is somewhat oval
shaped. This shape is very resistant to buckling in compression in the axis
parallel with the wide part of the oval, but is somewhat weaker in the axis
of the narrow part. This is the reason for the jury strut...to brace the
lift strut in the "weak" axis. The lift struts are only in compression
during negative G maneuvers...so the vast majority of the time the jury
strut does nothing...but you need it. The later Mark 3 kits were supplied
with a round tube with a vinyl streamlined cover over it. A circular
section does not have a "weak" axis in regards to buckling under
compression, so no need for the jury strut...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recommendation from Jim Klerks |
A friend sent this to me. Check it out. I imagine he has a bit of
trouble with wing folding
>Jim Klerks recommends the following Barnstormers Classified Ad to you
>(click on link):
>
>http://barnstormers2000.com/show_referred_ad.asp?ID=61003
>
>Dick Have a look at this Kolb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Recommendation from Jim Klerks |
A friend sent this to me. Check it out. I imagine he has a bit of
trouble with wing folding
>Jim Klerks recommends the following Barnstormers Classified Ad to you
>(click on link):
>
>http://barnstormers2000.com/show_referred_ad.asp?ID=61003
>
>Dick Have a look at this Kolb
Calling that thing a "Kolb" is definitely a STRETCH of the term...some of
you folks near him need to get some pictures of that thing...enquiring minds
want to know!!!
Jeremy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 3rd class medical |
Does anybody know if the 3rd classs medical is good for 3 years until the age
of 40. I know it was until the age of 35, but I was told that it is also good
for 3 years until the age of 40.
My doc said that is correct but I should double check with the FAA, tou know
how they change their minds.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rafael Rodriguez <rrfrr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3rd class medical |
yes!
--- Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anybody know if the 3rd classs medical is good
> for 3 years until the age
> of 40. I know it was until the age of 35, but I was
> told that it is also good
> for 3 years until the age of 40.
>
> My doc said that is correct but I should double
> check with the FAA, tou know
> how they change their minds.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>BTW: Possum, are you gonna meet us in Lakeland? If you
>are, let me know so I can pack my possum shirt. I still
>have not christened it. It still remains a virgin possum
>shirt. But boy is it classy.
Pack your shirt! It's a "golf shirt", so I guess you'll have to
pack your putter too.
We'll be coming down - nothing to stop us but the weather
or common sense, and I guess we can't do anything about
the weather.
We'll probably be bringing a batch (a "batch", I think
that's right, ain't it Beauford?) of new Possums with us
We like to call them "yearlings" since they've been flying
about a year and ain't dead yet.
If it was like last year, there's no telling when we might arrive.
These yearlings tend to learn as they go. We generally fly
for about 60 or 70 miles before one of them starts fretting about
his gas supply, of course, they can't see their tanks and their fuel
gages generally stop working after about an hour or so. First big
trip - you see- so nothing is really tested in advance.
You don't really want to fly to close behind one either, as they tend to
have miscellaneous parts fall off their planes all the way to Florida,
- mostly small stuff, like doors and muffler springs - things like that
- nothing that you really need. They're still learning what "safety wire"
is all about, I suppose. I think we left a trail last year.
Oh!! then we have our "Tuning" ritual every other stop. That mostly
evolves the yearling's repitching their props - back & forth - raising needles
up and down in the carburetors - mostly for no good reason, but I guess
it makes them feel better and that's a good thing. I think it
took us about 2 days last year - 500 miles, don't you know.
Sure was fun though, wouldn't swap places with you 912 drivers even
though you can get there in 6 hours with 2 gas stops. It just ain't the
same.
They say the trip's the thing, not the destination. Just like old times.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 02/25/02 |
I'm confused about radios...
The Icom advertisements say it's a 5 watt radio.
The Valcom 760 says it's 4 watts and that 4 watts is the
most powerful
allowed by the FCC.
Can someone explain that one to me?
Any pro's/con's going with the Valcom 760 (besides the fact
that it's $300
more)?
Thanks.
-- Robert>>>>>>
i am not sure about the claims of the indivudial radios but
one explination would be the difference between "carrier"
and "peak to peak" readings. most radios in GA will
transmit between 10 and 15 watts.... handheld radios are
limited to smaller outputs than fixed radios because when in
use a good portion of the rf energy is assorbed in the
head. and that is not a good thing... with a fixed antenna
on the outside of the aircraft there is far less rf energy
absorbed by the body... thus the higher power levels. the
ham radio in my car puts out 50 watts.... but i usually run
it on 5 watts because that is all that is needed.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying Low and Slow |
> In my book an Ultralight is a recreational vehicle that also just
> happens to fly.
>
> William Vincent
William/Gang:
I agree with you 100%.
As long as an ultralight "vehicle" complies with Part 103,
then it is just that, an ultdralight vehicle.
If one builds heavier, faster, etc., then it ain't an
ultralight vehicle any more because it doesn't comply with
the reg. It is now an airplane. If it is being flown as an
ultralight vehicle, then the operator is now flying an
unregister aircraft. If this operator has no license, then
he has busted another reg. And on and on............Part
103, as far as I know, has not changed.
So, if you want to go faster, heavier, with more fuel,
passengers, etc., then ya gotta be an airplane and register
experimental, get yourself a license. Then you are legal.
Folks that keep squawking about the Feds doing them and
their sport in need to wake up and face reality. Time for a
reality check. :-)
Mine is registered experimental. When I get to the point I
can not pass a Class III Flight Physical, then I will get
myself a Sport Pilot thingy and still be legal, if I ain't
too old to fly.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Building |
> I started sliding in the first rib and all was going fine
> until about a foot in when the rib flange started to gull on the spar.
> Tim
Tim/Gang:
Shoulda asked.
Very easy to expand the main spar gusset with a piece or two
of alum tubing. Probably 3/4" or there abouts. Hold the
rib between your legs, roll the tubing around the inside
edge of the 5 inch hole like a rolling pin. If you want to
get fancy, use a couple handles made of larger tubing that
will slip over the roller and allow it to turn freely. A
couple two or three passes around the inside of the hole
will do a lot to increase the inside diameter. Be care,
don't open it up too much.
Took me a long time to come up with that one. I also went
through the heartache of tight main spar gussets, scratched
spars, etc.
Don't ask about shrinking the gussets, cause I don't know
how. :-)
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3rd class medical |
Hmmmm.................I have to renew mine every 2 years. Didn't know there
was a difference with age. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Timandjan(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: 3rd class medical
>
> Does anybody know if the 3rd classs medical is good for 3 years until the
age
> of 40. I know it was until the age of 35, but I was told that it is also
good
> for 3 years until the age of 40.
>
> My doc said that is correct but I should double check with the FAA, tou
know
> how they change their minds.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Olendorf" <solendor(at)nycap.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 377 problems. |
Hello all,
I have been having this weird problem for several months. I have a single
carb Rotax 377. I have two symptoms.
1. It does not want to hold an rpm at all. At about 5500 rpm it will easily
rev right up to 6000 if I just unload it a little bit. But then it will stay
there. Also when running at 6000rpm it will suddenly back down to 5500 and
then stay there. It seems to have a peaky tuned pipe. I have flown this
about 160 hours and this is not normal.
2. At 6000 rpm it runs lean. I get 1200egt and above. From 4000 - 5500 the
temps are between 900 and 1000. I have gone from a 162 main jet to a 165
then a 170 and all 3 times egts go over 1200. Again I run a 162 in summer
and 165 in colder weather like 40-60 degrees.
Other conditions: No oil leaking or soot at all. Very clean. Exhaust looks
good and sounds good, no cracks or weird sounds. Engine has lots of power.
Air filter looks great. Float bowls always stay at proper level. Same prop
for 5 years, in excellent shape, no mods.
Steps in trying to fix this.
-New plugs.
-Decarboned top end. New cylinder gaskets and intake and exhaust gaskets.
-All carb jets and needles checked and cleaned.
-The front seal was replaced and crankcase halves resealed. Gearbox seal
wasn't replaced but looked good and I assume it would suck oil from gearbox
which wasn't happening.
-New carb socket.
-Fuel pump rebuilt. New pulse line.
I would like to try a new carb and possibly a new exhaust if I can find one.
Any ideas?
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 377
Schenectady, NY
http://home.nycap.rr.com/firestar/
"Reality is for those who lack imagination"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3rd class medical |
LAR, WHEN YOU ARE OVER 50......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 3rd class medical
>
> Hmmmm.................I have to renew mine every 2 years. Didn't know
there
> was a difference with age. Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Timandjan(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: 3rd class medical
>
>
> >
> > Does anybody know if the 3rd classs medical is good for 3 years until
the
> age
> > of 40. I know it was until the age of 35, but I was told that it is also
> good
> > for 3 years until the age of 40.
> >
> > My doc said that is correct but I should double check with the FAA, tou
> know
> > how they change their minds.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I renamed this thread, cause we've gotten off the original subject. Woody's
right, teflon IS a lubricant, and a darned good one. For years now, I've
used Ace Hardware's pipe dope with teflon on all plumbing. Years later it
still comes apart fairly easily. I avoid teflon tape for the most part,
just on principle. Just for the record, (not Kolb related) if you come
across an old pipe joint that's put together with the old type of dope, and
can't get it apart; heat it smoking hot, and have at it. Generally softens
things up, and they'll let go. Something else I've found to be extremely
useful is anti-sieze, as I've said before. I'm even getting the others at
work to use it on such things as connectors on outdoor electrical boxes.
They corrode, and freeze together if you don't lubricate them (even with
plain old grease) and can be a nightmare (or impossible) to take apart. I
use the anti-sieze on exhaust manifold bolts, and have never had one break,
and never had one come loose. I'll qualify both of those by saying, "since
I started using the anti-sieze." And, of course, on Vamoose they're all
safety wired as well. Gogittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Woody" <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Facet Pump Fittings
>
> Teflon is a lubricant. It should be used in a corrosive environment where
> you may want to take things apart in a few years such as water pipes. Most
> other applications should be some kind of pipe dope. On the pump fittings
> where the tubes go into the squeeze fittings there should be no need for
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 377 problems. |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have been having this weird problem for several months. I have a
> single
> carb Rotax 377. I have two symptoms.
>
> 1. It does not want to hold an rpm at all. At about 5500 rpm it will
> easily
> rev right up to 6000 if I just unload it a little bit. But then it
> will stay
> there. Also when running at 6000rpm it will suddenly back down to
> 5500 and
> then stay there. It seems to have a peaky tuned pipe. I have flown
> this
> about 160 hours and this is not normal.>
> Any ideas?
>Scott Olendorf
>Original Firestar, Rotax 377
>Schenectady, NY
>http://home.nycap.rr.com/firestar/
Scott, try a known good carb to see if that remedies the problem. If not,
replace the fuel pump. Something may of gone awry during the rebuild of
the pump. You could try a new pump first, then the carb.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 377 problems. |
You did not mention what your max full throttle RPM is.
In full throttle at level flight, what RPM will the engine attain? It is
necessary to know that variable before guessing too much.
Have you checked your fuel for alcohol? Since it just started a few months
ago, perhaps the gas station where you normally buy fuel is getting a
different formula.
A sufficiently large proportion of alcohol/methanol/ethanol in the fuel can
produce symptoms such as you describe. A friend with a Twinstar and a 503
had the same symptoms. It was Gasohol. Went to a normal fuel, engine went
back to normal operation.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Hello all,
>
>I have been having this weird problem for several months. I have a single
>carb Rotax 377. I have two symptoms.
>
>1. It does not want to hold an rpm at all. At about 5500 rpm it will easily
>rev right up to 6000 if I just unload it a little bit. But then it will stay
>there. Also when running at 6000rpm it will suddenly back down to 5500 and
>then stay there. It seems to have a peaky tuned pipe. I have flown this
>about 160 hours and this is not normal.
>
>2. At 6000 rpm it runs lean. I get 1200egt and above. From 4000 - 5500 the
>temps are between 900 and 1000. I have gone from a 162 main jet to a 165
>then a 170 and all 3 times egts go over 1200. Again I run a 162 in summer
>and 165 in colder weather like 40-60 degrees.
>
>Other conditions: No oil leaking or soot at all. Very clean. Exhaust looks
>good and sounds good, no cracks or weird sounds. Engine has lots of power.
>Air filter looks great. Float bowls always stay at proper level. Same prop
>for 5 years, in excellent shape, no mods.
>
>
>Steps in trying to fix this.
>
>-New plugs.
>-Decarboned top end. New cylinder gaskets and intake and exhaust gaskets.
>-All carb jets and needles checked and cleaned.
>-The front seal was replaced and crankcase halves resealed. Gearbox seal
>wasn't replaced but looked good and I assume it would suck oil from gearbox
>which wasn't happening.
>-New carb socket.
>-Fuel pump rebuilt. New pulse line.
>
>I would like to try a new carb and possibly a new exhaust if I can find one.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>
>Scott Olendorf
>Original Firestar, Rotax 377
>Schenectady, NY
>http://home.nycap.rr.com/firestar/
>
>"Reality is for those who lack imagination"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKII Breakup |
Hi Jim and Kolbers,
If you read paragraph 1.12.4 of the report carefully, I think you can take
from the context that they are talking about a failure of the lift strut.
The first sentence says both wing attach points were broken. The second
sentence describes "the wing attachment pin being in the correct position
and positively locked", and then the 3rd sentence talks about the associated
strut. There is no pin for the drag strut - only the main spar attach
fitting.
Jim, I can see why you think it is the drag strut and ... it may be you are
correct.
But I think this is what happened: The wing failure was due to a
compression failure of the lift strut due to negative loads in extreme
turbulence. (High winds over mountains could produce very strong down
drafts and turbulence.) The reasons I think this is what happened are as
follows:
(1) The universal joint is extremely strong, and even if it had some poor
welds on it, there are still 6 linear inches of welding on the one half and
3 linear inches of welding on the other half. This is a very large weld
area for a relatively lightly loaded fitting.
(2) I find it exceedingly difficult to believe the universal joint, even a
poorly welded one, could fail due to flight loads alone.
(3) I think it much more probable the lift strut failed due to negative
loading in turbulence as described. The lift struts as I recall were good
for 2 negative G's with the usual safety factor.
(4) The front main spar wing fitting probably failed first due to the
leveraging of the attach fitting due to the wing folding 90 degrees
downward. Probably the edge of the tang on the wing caught the end of the
square tube on the cage supporting the mating 2 tabs as it rotated, and the
fitting (actually it the square tube that probably failed) probably was torn
apart before the wing had even rotated the 90 degrees.
(5) With the front spar fitting broken, the wing would thrash about until it
tore loose at the rear spar.
(6) The lift strut failed in the center. This is exactly where it would
fail due to a compression failure. If the front or rear wing attach fitting
failed first, it is still possible the strut could have gotten bent in the
process, but it is improbable it would have bent in the center. It would
have bent as it was pulled against some part of the structure and that could
well have been anywhere along its length.
If Jim is correct, the conclusion is still basically the same: a compression
overload due to extreme turbulence, with the results of a broken weld due to
extreme leverage as the wing failed. The failed weld was a consequence of
the wing failure - not the cause. We both agree that a failure due to an
in-flight air load of the universal joint is exceeding unlikely.
This accident occurred after TNK had purchased TOK and while I had heard
about the accident I had not seen this report. Perhaps this was one more
reason why TNK declined to support the older Kolb models.
Best regards,
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)nettally.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: MKII Breakup
>
> After reading the investigation report on the break up of the MKII Twin
> Star. I strongly feel that the weld was not the failure of the wing. The
> report states that the drag strut was broken about midway. I feel the
> drag strut let go first due to over loading of the wing. This allowed
> the wing to move to the rear enough to get a prop strike. If the
> weldment had failed first the chances of the drag strut breaking would
> all but be eliminated as there wouldn't be any load on it. The drag
> strut and rear wing attachment was under compression any over load of
> the wing would increase the compression and the weakest link would go
> first and that was the drag strut.
>
> All welds should be inspected when building or rebuilding and if there
> is a doubt re- do the welds.
>
> Don't panic and create hysteria among Kolb builders by advocating that
> all the welds are questionable. If you locate a questionable weld,
> contact TNK and discuss it with them. If there is a problem they will
> correct it.
>
> I have been associated with the Old Kolb company and the New Kolb
> company for a day or two and both companies have had competent welders.
> It hasn't been their habit to slump off on welding. Any welder will get
> a bad weld at some point in time.
>
> Jim Hauck
>
> Welder for 53 years.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ed mills <edgmills(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 447 idling problems. |
Kolbers
I have an idle issue with a 447.
The engine only has 12 hours of run time and runs very
smooth and temps are all good at high and mid range.
My problem is in the idling. I get a good idle at 2000
rpms. But when I idle down from mid/high speed the rpm
drops below the normal idle setting(below 2k) It will
then slowly come up to the normal setting but runs
very bad while in the "down",17-1800 range.
I have adjusted the idle adjustment screw in 1/16 of a
turn increments from fully closed to 1 1/2 turns out.
The condition does not improve. I can of course set
the idle higher to prevent the dip from going below 2K
but it will then be idling too fast in the normal
range,(2300 apx.)
QUESTION:
Is this drop normal? If not, what might get rid of
it?
I am reluctant to dive into the carb to change jets or
needles without some good advice or recommendations.
Any ideas??
Thanks much
Ed Mills
Dallas Tx.
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)nettally.com> |
Dennis and all;
I agree with you that it was either a lift strut or a anti-drag strut
that failed.
The design of the rear spar attach fitting would not have failed under a
compressive load even if it had just been tacked together. It would take
a twisting action to cause failure. The only way to achieve that would
be the wing braking loose and twisting.
I would like to see pictures of that fitting. In fact all the pictures
of the damaged wing and the attach points.
Jim Hauck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3rd class medical |
Having taken the PP oral last fall, this was one of the bazillion
little facts I tried to memorize. If you take the medical exam before
your 40th birthday, a 3rd class medical will expire on the last day of
the month 36 months after your exam. If you take the exam on or after
your 40th, it is 24 months.
To be exactly sure of these things, check the FARs.
-Ben Ransom
--- Rafael Rodriguez wrote:
>
> yes!
> --- Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody know if the 3rd classs medical is good
> > for 3 years until the age
> > of 40. I know it was until the age of 35, but I was
> > told that it is also good
> > for 3 years until the age of 40.
> >
> > My doc said that is correct but I should double
> > check with the FAA, tou know
> > how they change their minds.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Contributions of
> > any other form
> >
> > latest messages.
> > other List members.
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/search
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann-g(at)tal.is> |
| Subject: | Mark II Twinstar info |
Dear list members.
My friend up here in Iceland has just purchased a Mark II Twinstar,and
is working on a trailer to transport the plane from Italy of all places
to Iceland. Yes this will be an adventure for him, but before he starts
on his journey, he would need your help regarding some measurements of
the Twinstar.
Does anyone have the measurements of the wheel total width, the length
from main gear to the tail, and the height of the tail and wings when
folded.
It would also be nice to know if you have an approximate empty weight of
the aircraft with a Rotax 532/582 engine,
I do appreciate any help in advance,
Best regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3rd class medical |
> To be exactly sure of these things, check the FARs.
> -Ben Ransom
Ben/Gang:
I agree with you 100%. A few days ago I posted a url for an
online copy of all the FARs. If one looks a little further
one might also find the AIM, a very useful document.
Just because we fly ultralight vehicles, fat ultralight
aircraft and experimental aircraft, we are not exempt from
the regs. For me, going back to school 22 years after I
went through Army helicopter training, was quality time
invested, getting back into the regulations. That's where
most of the oral and all of the written come from. Knowing
where to look for answers is a big help. Don't have to
memorize all of them if you know how to find the one(s) you
need.
Here's that url again:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14tab_00.html
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3rd class medical |
Wal, since it's ego-inflation time, lemme give y'all my stats:
Wt nekkid--175 el be ess
Ht full 5'7.23" in thk sox 'cause my imported baaathroom tile is cold
Ah kin lick mah wt in boyzen berry pop cycles
Ahm meenern' cat dirt-an' mah Kat can prove it
An' ah kin go 2, mebe 3 rounds afore the bar closes.
Geez, why we all can't along together in a kinder, gentler vein? This
NPRM seems to have brought out the very worst in us/y'all. We gotta stop
this vile name-calling. I'll wager (gotta wait for SSCD for me to pay
up--SSCD? Social Security Check Day) none--even less than none--would
say what we write to another's face.....maybe to their back?
Bob N. the old one--who almost didn't pass the Bar, and is happy not to
be certified Third Class
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 377 problems. |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
> You did not mention what your max full throttle RPM is.
> In full throttle at level flight, what RPM will the engine attain?
> It is
> necessary to know that variable before guessing too much.
>
> Have you checked your fuel for alcohol? Since it just started a few
> months
> ago, perhaps the gas station where you normally buy fuel is getting
> a
> different formula.
> A sufficiently large proportion of alcohol/methanol/ethanol in the
> fuel can
> produce symptoms such as you describe. A friend with a Twinstar and
> a 503
> had the same symptoms. It was Gasohol. Went to a normal fuel, engine
> went
> back to normal operation.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard,
I disagree that using alcohol (ethanol) fuel will change the engine
performance. Here in Minnesota, the ethanol content is 7% and I've used
both ethanol and ethanol-free with no change that I can detect in the
performance of my 377 or 447 engines. I tried to detect some difference
with 100LL avgas and didn't see any difference either. If the ethanol
fuel contains water that is held in suspension, that will make a
difference. In fact, if there is too much water, it separates out and is
called "phase separation". The ethanol fuel helps soak up water in the
fuel and does not harm the Rotax. If there were a problem with it, I
would have seen it in the 15 years I've been using it.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 447 idling problems. |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
> Kolbers
> I have an idle issue with a 447.
>
> The engine only has 12 hours of run time and runs very
> smooth and temps are all good at high and mid range.
>
> My problem is in the idling. I get a good idle at 2000
> rpms. But when I idle down from mid/high speed the rpm
> drops below the normal idle setting(below 2k) It will
> then slowly come up to the normal setting but runs
> very bad while in the "down",17-1800 range.
> I have adjusted the idle adjustment screw in 1/16 of a
> turn increments from fully closed to 1 1/2 turns out.
> The condition does not improve. I can of course set
> the idle higher to prevent the dip from going below 2K
> but it will then be idling too fast in the normal
> range,(2300 apx.)
> QUESTION:
> Is this drop normal? If not, what might get rid of
> it?
>
> I am reluctant to dive into the carb to change jets or
> needles without some good advice or recommendations.
>
> Any ideas??
> Thanks much
> Ed Mills
> Dallas Tx.
Ed, what you are describing is very normal on 2-cycle engines and they
will not idle well below 2000 rpm. After a normal runup, closing the
throttle will cause the engine to idle below 2000 and get very rough.
After 15 or so seconds, it comes back up to 2000 (if that's where it's
set) and runs fairly smooth. In the winter I purposely set mine to
2300-2500 rpm so it will idle smoother.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Olendorf" <solendor(at)nycap.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 377 problems. |
My full throttle rpm is about 6600-6800rpm depending on air temp. This was
happening all summer through last week I didn't run in from September to
February. I did drain the tank completely after the September run.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rotax 377 problems.
>
> >
> > You did not mention what your max full throttle RPM is.
> > In full throttle at level flight, what RPM will the engine attain?
> > It is
> > necessary to know that variable before guessing too much.
> >
> > Have you checked your fuel for alcohol? Since it just started a few
> > months
> > ago, perhaps the gas station where you normally buy fuel is getting
> > a
> > different formula.
> > A sufficiently large proportion of alcohol/methanol/ethanol in the
> > fuel can
> > produce symptoms such as you describe. A friend with a Twinstar and
> > a 503
> > had the same symptoms. It was Gasohol. Went to a normal fuel, engine
> > went
> > back to normal operation.
> > Richard Pike
> > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Richard,
>
> I disagree that using alcohol (ethanol) fuel will change the engine
> performance. Here in Minnesota, the ethanol content is 7% and I've used
> both ethanol and ethanol-free with no change that I can detect in the
> performance of my 377 or 447 engines. I tried to detect some difference
> with 100LL avgas and didn't see any difference either. If the ethanol
> fuel contains water that is held in suspension, that will make a
> difference. In fact, if there is too much water, it separates out and is
> called "phase separation". The ethanol fuel helps soak up water in the
> fuel and does not harm the Rotax. If there were a problem with it, I
> would have seen it in the 15 years I've been using it.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 377 problems. |
I did drain the tank completely after the September run.
Scott/Gents:
How about the carb float bowl??? If you didn't remove and
dump the fuel from it in Sep 01, that may be part of your
problem. Today's fuel and oil create some terrible gook
after it has evaporated in a float bowl.
I personally do not recommend changing jets, plugs, etc.,
when an engine has been performing good for some time prior
to a problem. Probably some small item is giving you grief.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Happy with ethanol? |
Don't know if it was ethanol/methanol/ or Wild Turkey, but Roy's Twinstar
MKII with a 503 had the EGT go so high on takeoff that he made a
precautionary landing in a pasture off the end of the runway. Trailered it
back and spent the rest of the day playing jets, checking timing, and
generally messing up a good flying day trying to find out why the EGT's at
RPM's above 5500 wouldn't come down to normal. Overjetting did not help.
Late that afternoon, noticed that there was a telltale white snakey film
crawling around the sides of the float bowl, and checked the gas for
alcohol content. It came up at about 10%. Purchased that morning from a
station that had previously never used any alcohol based additives. Went
and bought fresh gas from a different station and the engine resumed normal
EGT's.
I'm glad that ethanol doesn't affect your operations, but whatever it was
that tested positive for alcohol base in our situation caused symptoms very
similar to the misbehaving 377 in the earlier post.
Thanks for your input.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>Richard,
>
>I disagree that using alcohol (ethanol) fuel will change the engine
>performance. Here in Minnesota, the ethanol content is 7% and I've used
>both ethanol and ethanol-free with no change that I can detect in the
>performance of my 377 or 447 engines. I tried to detect some difference
>with 100LL avgas and didn't see any difference either. If the ethanol
>fuel contains water that is held in suspension, that will make a
>difference. In fact, if there is too much water, it separates out and is
>called "phase separation". The ethanol fuel helps soak up water in the
>fuel and does not harm the Rotax. If there were a problem with it, I
>would have seen it in the 15 years I've been using it.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original Firestar
>15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Happy with ethanol? |
It seems some people are having problems with this and some are not.
What brand oil were you using?
Did you mix - mixes containing two different oils together?
What brand and grade fuel?
jerryb
>
>Don't know if it was ethanol/methanol/ or Wild Turkey, but Roy's Twinstar
>MKII with a 503 had the EGT go so high on takeoff that he made a
>precautionary landing in a pasture off the end of the runway. Trailered it
>back and spent the rest of the day playing jets, checking timing, and
>generally messing up a good flying day trying to find out why the EGT's at
>RPM's above 5500 wouldn't come down to normal. Overjetting did not help.
>Late that afternoon, noticed that there was a telltale white snakey film
>crawling around the sides of the float bowl, and checked the gas for
>alcohol content. It came up at about 10%. Purchased that morning from a
>station that had previously never used any alcohol based additives. Went
>and bought fresh gas from a different station and the engine resumed normal
>EGT's.
>I'm glad that ethanol doesn't affect your operations, but whatever it was
>that tested positive for alcohol base in our situation caused symptoms very
>similar to the misbehaving 377 in the earlier post.
>Thanks for your input.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>
> >Richard,
> >
> >I disagree that using alcohol (ethanol) fuel will change the engine
> >performance. Here in Minnesota, the ethanol content is 7% and I've used
> >both ethanol and ethanol-free with no change that I can detect in the
> >performance of my 377 or 447 engines. I tried to detect some difference
> >with 100LL avgas and didn't see any difference either. If the ethanol
> >fuel contains water that is held in suspension, that will make a
> >difference. In fact, if there is too much water, it separates out and is
> >called "phase separation". The ethanol fuel helps soak up water in the
> >fuel and does not harm the Rotax. If there were a problem with it, I
> >would have seen it in the 15 years I've been using it.
> >
> >Ralph Burlingame
> >Original Firestar
> >15 years flying it
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jere kuusinen <jereku(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark II Twinstar info |
--- "Johann G." wrote:
>
> Dear list members.
>
> My friend up here in Iceland has just purchased a Mark II Twinstar,and
> is working on a trailer to transport the plane from Italy of all places
> to Iceland. Yes this will be an adventure for him, but before he starts
> on his journey, he would need your help regarding some measurements of
> the Twinstar.
>
> Does anyone have the measurements of the wheel total width, the length
> from main gear to the tail, and the height of the tail and wings when
> folded.
> It would also be nice to know if you have an approximate empty weight of
> the aircraft with a Rotax 532/582 engine,
Hello !
The approximate empty weight of MK II is about 180 kg.
Jere Kuusinen
Finland
=====
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/jereku/Jerensivu.html
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
Well, I can say that my 447s do the idle dance when the idle jet gets
something in it. I know right away and take it out and clean it. (very fine
wire). It does not take much and after a little bit of playing with it, it
returns to normal but then comes back and bites me if I dont take care of it.
ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Happy with ethanol? |
It's been about 6 or 7 years ago - I think he was using Premium Standard or
Chevron, and had used it for years, it was a station right next to the
Interstate, so it should have been fresh. Premix 50:1 using Phillips Injex.
No other oils added.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>It seems some people are having problems with this and some are not.
>What brand oil were you using?
>Did you mix - mixes containing two different oils together?
>What brand and grade fuel?
>jerryb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Happy with ethanol? |
Oh, it sounded recent. There appears to be something with the right
combination of fuel and oil when mixed together. Chuck from CGS Hawk has
problem about a year ago to one of his demonstrators at Michigan. They
found this milky gel like stuff in there fuel lines after it clogged the
fuel filter. We had Pennzoil in at a safety seminar and they talked about
his occurring when mixing premixed of different oil and let it set for a
while. Some just don't like each other, some are OK. I had no problem
with AV2 and Pennzoil. I think alcohol may have a factor with it happening.
jerryb
>
>It's been about 6 or 7 years ago - I think he was using Premium Standard or
>Chevron, and had used it for years, it was a station right next to the
>Interstate, so it should have been fresh. Premix 50:1 using Phillips Injex.
>No other oils added.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> >
> >It seems some people are having problems with this and some are not.
> >What brand oil were you using?
> >Did you mix - mixes containing two different oils together?
> >What brand and grade fuel?
> >jerryb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 447 idling problems. |
My 503 will idle slower and slightly rougher after taxiing in to park.But as
soon as it is no longer being bounced around it stabilizes.The angles that
the carb sets at will also affect idle.Considering the path that the incoming
mixture has to go through,mainly the crankcase,at low throttle settings it
takes while to unload a slightly flooded crankcase.Rough taxiing always
makes it rich.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Perkins <2scott(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | FireFly Kit w/ engine and BRS |
New Kolb FireFly Kit relisted again
I had two guys who seemed real interested but
never really came through so I have drug my feet
in pursueing this.
Firefly kit half built which is to say the bare fuselage
is on wheels and painted with the rudder and
elevator controls hooked up.
As opposed to the whole package at $9,000
I am splitting out the engine and instruments and BRS and helmet.
Tot new price of all components very close to $15,000 and over if
shipping is included.
Whole kit- $6000. without Rotax 447 including heavy duty wheels and
several options including covering material, doors, and windshield etc.
( missing paint and instrument panel )
New 447 engine with break-in time on engine only and instrument panel
full of instruments professionally installed (no prop -already gone )
$2000.
BRS Chute 750 model in white metal canister with KOLB mounts. $1,200
This was a plane owned and being built by Guy Leese of Douglasville, GA
who suffered a fatal stroke midway through building it.
I helped him most of the way and am selling for family.
location- suburb of Atlanta, GA.. Pics available
call for discussion at 678 290-0507
Scott Perkins Marietta, GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Water Based Paint Systems |
Anybody going to Sun & Fun. I heard of a couple new water based paint
systems that are working well. See if you can learn anything about them
while there.
jerryb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
This is a forwarded message from B. J. Moore about his submittal to the
FAA on the NPRM. If you have not read it, here it is. It's pretty good.
http://152.119.239.10/docimages/pdf79/158440_web.pdf
Ralph,
I'm not on the Kolb list anymore, but if you'd bring Alt 3 to their
attention I would appreciate it.
Thanks for your comment.
The very worst thing I can think of is Sport Pilot coming out like it
currently reads.
I would settle for it if they could make it reasonable.
Alternative 3, however, is in my book, the only real world solution that
would make the aviation world happy.
Problem is, as has been stated "The FAA ain't happy, till you aren't
happy."
Ralph, You've had 15 years of happiness, safety, and freedom flying your
Firestar. They don't want to take flying away from you, just make it more
difficult for you to be happy.
Eeeks! Eh?
Regards.
B.J. Moore, P.E.
Circle Four Farms Development Engineer
ASC Basic Flight Instructor - "The Flyin Moose".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
B.J. Moore's Nprm proposal is absolutely
terrific...outstanding.......BRAVO ! ! !
Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Ed and Kolbers, I would be perfectly content with the enactment of
Mr. Moore's proposal, but what are the realistic chances of our
government raising the single place 103 weight limit to 496 lbs?
-or even continuing to allow a non-governmental agency to regulate?
Unfortunately, we don't have the rights of the AMA and the state
bar associations to write our own rules. -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Woody
Subject: Modified Mk III
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/duesouth@iname.com.03.02.2002/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
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Bill Vincent ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Bill Vincent
Subject: Flying Too Low?
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/emailbill@chartermi.net.03.02.2002/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: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Jack and others,
Even with your 447 engine, your FireFly is not a 103 ultralight because
it cruises too fast (63 mph is the limit).
[Jack says:]
"To stay top speed legal, I have to limit the engine to 38 HP, but I have
discovered that FireFly flies very well limited to 28 HP. Instead of
climbing out at 1000+ fpm, I am now limited to 500 fpm and it will cruise
at about 70 mph true at 5200 rpm
burning 3 gph".
We know well, there are many fat ultralights at the limits of 103 and
this creates a problem with every one of them flying illegally under this
rule. One of the problems I have with the SP proposal is that it's going
to become very difficult for new pilots to get into the sport. Why?
Because all 2-seat trainers will become illegal for training in 3 years
after SP becomes law. What BFI or AFI is going to spend $20-30K for a new
plane to train in. Yes, this is what they will cost after this goes into
effect because they will need a "Certificate of Compliance" to FAA
standards from the manufacturer.
The second thing I have a problem with is the FAA initial inspection. Why
should I have to pay a government employee $300-$400 for an inspection of
my plane? Is this a scam or what?
I don't mind getting the SP license, this is not the problem for me. If
they make this license too expensive for pilots to adhere too, they won't
follow the rule. This will be a screening process for many, myself
included.
There has to be some middle ground here for the fat single-seat
ultralight without the FAA inspections and red tape.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: middle ground |
I asked this question before and received no response. If you build the
plane yourself, are you the manufacturer?
Jim
Mark III
Charlotte, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: middle ground
>
> Jack and others,
>
> Even with your 447 engine, your FireFly is not a 103 ultralight because
> it cruises too fast (63 mph is the limit).
>
> [Jack says:]
> "To stay top speed legal, I have to limit the engine to 38 HP, but I have
> discovered that FireFly flies very well limited to 28 HP. Instead of
> climbing out at 1000+ fpm, I am now limited to 500 fpm and it will cruise
> at about 70 mph true at 5200 rpm
> burning 3 gph".
>
> We know well, there are many fat ultralights at the limits of 103 and
> this creates a problem with every one of them flying illegally under this
> rule. One of the problems I have with the SP proposal is that it's going
> to become very difficult for new pilots to get into the sport. Why?
> Because all 2-seat trainers will become illegal for training in 3 years
> after SP becomes law. What BFI or AFI is going to spend $20-30K for a new
> plane to train in. Yes, this is what they will cost after this goes into
> effect because they will need a "Certificate of Compliance" to FAA
> standards from the manufacturer.
>
> The second thing I have a problem with is the FAA initial inspection. Why
> should I have to pay a government employee $300-$400 for an inspection of
> my plane? Is this a scam or what?
>
> I don't mind getting the SP license, this is not the problem for me. If
> they make this license too expensive for pilots to adhere too, they won't
> follow the rule. This will be a screening process for many, myself
> included.
>
> There has to be some middle ground here for the fat single-seat
> ultralight without the FAA inspections and red tape.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: middle ground |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
> I asked this question before and received no response. If you build
> the
> plane yourself, are you the manufacturer?
>
> Jim
> Mark III
> Charlotte, NC
Jim,
If you were to license the aircraft in the experimental category, then
you are the manufacturer if you can prove that you built at least 51% of
it. Under the SP proposal, there is no 51% rule for light-sport aircraft
so I guess you are not the manufacturer but the company where the kit was
purchased would be the manufacturer. Please correct me if I'm wrong on
this.
This is one good thing about the SP proposal, in that all planes can be
repaired by their owners by taking a 16 hour course. I would like to
amend the SP by saying we can repair our own planes without a 16 hour
course if we can prove 51% build.
This is what I call middle ground.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Builder/Pilot Database |
This is the monthly remainder about the Database that I maintain. This month
I plan to greatly expand the site with more pictures and eventually perhaps
include other folks aircraft.
Kip Laurie
Firestar II
Atlanta
http://www.springeraviation.net/
Please Email me directly for any changes at dama(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | What is a legal ultralight? |
Ralph and others,
Once again, the actual maximum cruise and minimum stall speed of the
ultralight does not necessarily determine whether an unltralight is legal
or not. What is important is the filling out of AC 103-7 Appendices 1
through 4. Appendix 1 determines whether your vehicle meets the maximum
ultralight flight airspeed. In the case of my FireFly with the engine
limited to 38 or less hp, summing up the drag factors for the FireFly and
using the graph provided, the MAXIMUM FULL-POWER LEVEL FLIGHT SPEED is 54
kt. By filling out these appendices the indication is that my FireFly
meets all the legal requirements.
If you would like to see the documentation you can see it at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
Be patient because this is a rather large html and it may take a minute or
two to load.
It was a good exercise filling this document out because it really gave me
an appreciation for what an ultralight could be. There is a tremendous
amount of design flexibility in what can be a legal ultralight vehicle.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Jack and others,
>
>Even with your 447 engine, your FireFly is not a 103 ultralight because
>it cruises too fast (63 mph is the limit).
>
>[Jack says:]
>"To stay top speed legal, I have to limit the engine to 38 HP, but I have
>discovered that FireFly flies very well limited to 28 HP. Instead of
>climbing out at 1000+ fpm, I am now limited to 500 fpm and it will cruise
>at about 70 mph true at 5200 rpm
>burning 3 gph".
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guillermo Uribe" <WillUribe(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Builder/Pilot Database |
Hi Kip,
You have me living in Arizona, I live in Texas.
BTW: I'll be working at the GM Doraville plant March the 18
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
----- Original Message -----
From: "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Builder/Pilot Database
>
> This is the monthly remainder about the Database that I maintain. This
month
> I plan to greatly expand the site with more pictures and eventually
perhaps
> include other folks aircraft.
> Kip Laurie
> Firestar II
> Atlanta
>
> http://www.springeraviation.net/
>
>
> Please Email me directly for any changes at dama(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Nice. I'm a little unsure about flow separation with the squared off end,
but I do like that wingtip extension idea..................
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: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Woody
>
>
> Subject: Modified Mk III
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/duesouth@iname.com.03.02.2002/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> |
Recently a URL was published to a site (eBay ?? ) showing what looked
like a Mk III with twin props. Just now I was re-reading the Dec. 2001
Experimenter, and lo & behold.............there at the top of page 45,
is a much better picture & description of it, tho' I think they goofed
on the engine specs. Quite the job; he was pretty creative.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What is a legal ultralight? |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Jack,
I don't mean to pursue this legal ultralight issue, but are you saying
that I can have an ultralight that flies faster than 63 mph and what's
filled out in the paperwork and be legal? This means I can write in 254
lbs and the actual weight may be 15 more pounds. I knew there was a way
around this Sport Pilot thing.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
writes:
>
> Ralph and others,
>
> Once again, the actual maximum cruise and minimum stall speed of
> the
> ultralight does not necessarily determine whether an unltralight is
> legal
> or not. What is important is the filling out of AC 103-7 Appendices
> 1
> through 4. Appendix 1 determines whether your vehicle meets the
> maximum
> ultralight flight airspeed. In the case of my FireFly with the
> engine
> limited to 38 or less hp, summing up the drag factors for the
> FireFly and
> using the graph provided, the MAXIMUM FULL-POWER LEVEL FLIGHT SPEED
> is 54
> kt. By filling out these appendices the indication is that my
> FireFly
> meets all the legal requirements.
>
> If you would like to see the documentation you can see it at:
>
> http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
>
> Be patient because this is a rather large html and it may take a
> minute or
> two to load.
>
> It was a good exercise filling this document out because it really
> gave me
> an appreciation for what an ultralight could be. There is a
> tremendous
> amount of design flexibility in what can be a legal ultralight
> vehicle.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
After I sent that message about the picture of the twin prop Kolb in
Experimenter, it dawned on me that there's quite a few people ( most ??
) who don't get that magazine...............so I scanned it, and sent it
in in Photoshare. Enjoy................ Good Guy Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Back when 103 came out everyone was excited about the 254 lb weight
limit. They had been expecting a 150 lb limit and were very happy to be
able to build such a heavy craft. Fat U/L's appeared a couple of months later.
>
>I do not want to see 103-7 change in any way. Mr. Moore claims that
>ultralights are more safe than GA aircraft, and yet he wants increased fuel
>capacity and weights in the name of safety.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
A few years ago I was doing research and design of the Kline Fogleman
airfoil ( The Ultimate Paper Airplane). It was a regular airfoil but it had
a sharp step in the wing profile. This caused the airflow to stay on the
wing and improve the aerodynamics contrary to what you may have thought. I
am hoping for a similar situation with the wide squared off back design.
There is not a lot of room between the back of the fuselage and the prop
anyway so the turbulence created should be smoothed out by being forced
into the prop right away.
>Nice. I'm a little unsure about flow separation with the squared off end,
>but I do like that wingtip extension idea..................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, Woody. Go for it ! ! !
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Woody" <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
February 13, 2002 - March 03, 2002
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dl