Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dr
July 12, 2002 - July 23, 2002
Please remove me from the Kolb Mailing List.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Had a friend with a Firestar and he did everything at 50mph - climb out and
approach. He said it worked fine and gave him a margin of saftey. Has
anyone done the numbers on a FS2 with a 503? I would like to know what roll
rate, stall power on and off, etc are so I can program a flight simulator
with these numbers so I can play until I get mine finished and in the air.
This could be great for all of us during down times due to weather, rebuilds
etc. If you have not done these, perhaps some of you could take a flight or
two and get these?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight! |
Congratulations! Any one you walk away from is a good one and anyone you
walk away from without damage is Excellent!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Air Venture 2002 |
From: Julian Warren <jgw300(at)webolium.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Oshkosh AirVenture 2002
I will be attending this event for the entire period. I
have.......................
I will be there Wednesday and Thursday. Look forward to meeting
everyone. I'll wear a Kolb T-shirt & a nametag. If you see a
middle-aged, balding, slightly overweight but outrageously handsome guy
come over and introduce yourself.
Should we set a meeting time at the Kolb trailer everyday for whoever is
there? 2:00 or whatever?
Rex Rodebush
Building a Mark III Xtra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
Anyone know anyone who has ever tried a 15HP engine on a FS? Any ideas on
what to expect if I try?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
I have a set of comtronics single plug helmet headsets. I do not have
the intercom box and wondered if anyone out there might have the box for sale.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full enclosure aerodynamics |
Go for it and tell us how it works. This is experimental aircraft isn't it?
> To follow up an a question I posted not so eloquently, what do people think
>the aerodynamic ramifications would be of installing a "wall" from the
>bottom of the gap seal to the to the landing gear cross member, this would
>fully enclose the cabin. I would then not cover anything behind this wall,
>including the area around the fuel tanks. My guess is it would not really
>change anything as the covered area around the fuel tanks is so
>unaerodynamic even when it is covered. What do you all think!
>
>
>JASON OMELCHUCK
>ACUITY INCORPORATED
>PHONE 503.221.6995 x 102
>FAX 503.221.3139
>www.acuityinc.com <http://www.acuityinc.com/>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight! |
We will all let you know as soon as it happens
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
Expect to taxi rather briskly for prolonged periods.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Venture 2002 |
> Should we set a meeting time at the Kolb trailer everyday for whoever is
> there? 2:00 or whatever?
>
> Rex Rodebush
Rex/Gang:
I'll be there at 2:00 or whatever.
I will also be at the big coffee pot in the UL Barn every
morning snuggling up close and comfy for my shots of
caffeine.
Anybody gonna be camping in the UL area beside me?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Air Venture 2002 |
In a message dated 7/12/02 10:18:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
> Anybody gonna be camping in the UL area beside me?
>
I am waiting until the last minute to commit to going. (weather) I haven't
forgotten the three days I sat at leitchfield KY airport last year waiting on
the weather.
Steven G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight! |
In a message dated 7/12/02 7:09:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ken-foi(at)attbi.com writes:
> There is a point when you finally "get it down" and the
> airplane does exactly what you want it to when you want it to do it.
> I'm just wondering how long that will be...
If you are referring to good landings every time then it is somewhere beyond
210 hours for me.
Steven G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
In a message dated 7/12/02 9:07:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com
writes:
> Anyone know anyone who has ever tried a 15HP engine on a FS? Any ideas on
> what to expect if I try?
>
>
>
I could give you a smarta** answer, but I won't. Probably would not leave
the ground.
What kind of engine? Maybe a Teledyne 32 ci??
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
Thanks for the restraint in your answer. The engine is a Yamha 100cc and the
reason I am curious is because I read in one of the other messages about a
guy who said he had flown with one on a (T-bird maybe? I don't recall right
now) ultralight. I am trying to put together the lightest FS that I can so I
can try motorgliding/soaring/thermaling. The biggest change I can make in
weight now is the engine and fuel system. I realize that I may have to go
with a 277 but I am hoping to hear from someone who has tried to use
something this small on a FS.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
In one of the flying magazines a year or 2 ago, there was an article (by
Barry Schiff ??) about "power soaring" in a Cessna. I'm not sure how it
would work with a 2 stroke, but what he did was figure the sink rate of a
sailplane (I believe it was something like 200 fpm), then ease the power
back on his plane, until he had a sink rate of 200 fpm.............then went
looking for thermals. He had a ball. If you had a useful engine, say a 447
or similar, that isn't too temperamental to run at reduced rpm's, it might
be worth a try. There're others on the List who're much more up on 2 stroke
idiosyncrasies than myself. My main concern for you would be the borderline
flying you'd be doing at the very best of times............you'd have no
reserves at all, and my feeling would be that what you're considering would
be very dangerous. Food for thought. Concerned Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 15 HP on a FS
>
> Thanks for the restraint in your answer. The engine is a Yamha 100cc and
the
> reason I am curious is because I read in one of the other messages about a
> guy who said he had flown with one on a (T-bird maybe? I don't recall
right
> now) ultralight. I am trying to put together the lightest FS that I can
so I
> can try motorgliding/soaring/thermaling. The biggest change I can make in
> weight now is the engine and fuel system. I realize that I may have to go
> with a 277 but I am hoping to hear from someone who has tried to use
> something this small on a FS.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re:277 needs airframe |
Remarkable. The 277 that was on my old Hummer is in excess of 600 hours now
with no problems. On the other hand, it was propped so that it never got
above 5900 rpm, and it always ran cool...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> Ted
>
>If I had a 277, I would sell it and get a two cylinder Rotax to fly
>with. I have owned and flown with a 277 as well as a 5 other engines
>including a Cuyuna, a pair of 377's, a 447 and a 503. The 277 was the
>worst and it was new when I got it. I flew it for 70 hours and it never
>made it more than 10 hours without a problem. I was also a member of an
>ultralight club and it seemed that 277 users had more problems than others.
>
>John Jung
>http://jrjung.0catch.com/Firestar.html
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Full enclosure aerodynamics |
I think that would be a good example of exchanging one poor situation (the
MKIII with the factory supplied rear soft enclosure) for an equally poor
alternative. But it might be cheaper. Cheaper is good...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> To follow up an a question I posted not so eloquently, what do people think
>the aerodynamic ramifications would be of installing a "wall" from the
>bottom of the gap seal to the to the landing gear cross member, this would
>fully enclose the cabin. I would then not cover anything behind this wall,
>including the area around the fuel tanks. My guess is it would not really
>change anything as the covered area around the fuel tanks is so
>unaerodynamic even when it is covered. What do you all think!
>
>
>JASON OMELCHUCK
>ACUITY INCORPORATED
>PHONE 503.221.6995 x 102
>FAX 503.221.3139
>www.acuityinc.com <http://www.acuityinc.com/>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TreatRayner(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
I flew a weightshift Quicksilver with a 15hp Yamaha back in 81. It was a
blast.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M. Domenic Perez" <perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net> |
| Subject: | Inflight adjustable prop |
Kolb List,
Try Proplink.org (org not com)for a company making an inflight
adjustable hub that supposedly works for Warp or Powerfin blades(maybe
others). I have no experience whatsoever with these guys. I just found them
surfing around. Cost is 2-blade for $2650 or 3-blade for $2850. It's all
mechanical-no electric or hydraulics.
Sounds interesting to me.
Sorry I couldn't make it a hyperlink but my computer has been in a
rebellious mood lately.
Domenic Perez
Vaughn, NM
FS II, 503, BRS, Tundra tires
owned since Mar. '02 but unsoloed due to lack of taildragger instructors
within less than 1000 darn miles. When time window arrives I guess it will
be "Have Kolb, will travel".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
>
>Anyone know anyone who has ever tried a 15HP engine on a FS? Any ideas on
>what to expect if I try?
>
The FireFly with a 447 will fly/maintain altitude at 4000 rpm. When you
look at the 447 rpm/hp curve, the maximum hp at 4000 is about 15 hp. Since
in actuality the 447 was not propped efficiently at 4000 rpm, the engine
was putting out less than 15 hp. So if your engine/prop combination weighs
less than a 447, and your gross weight is not over 500 pounds, and with
your increased wing area, I believe a FS could be flown with a 15 hp
engine. The Wright brothers flew a heavier plane on 13 hp. Just do not
expect it to climb at a high rate and use thermals to help boost you up.
You will be in the powered slow flight mode without much difference between
cruise and stall speeds. You may want to fly it first on cold, then cool,
followed by warm and then hot days to take advantage of greater air density.
This is interesting.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Inflight adjustable prop |
You may want to try a GA instructor at any local airport for taildragger
instruction. Several of the small GA taildragger airplanes have the same
general landing characteristics (adjust for airspeed, sink rate, glide and
flare height differences and you will probably be just fine if you have
experiance with any other ultralight type).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 07/12/02 |
In a message dated 7/13/02 2:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> Full enclosure aerodynamics
>
>
As far as enclosing the area behind the seats, My MK3 may be a little
different as it has a retractable gear set up (for floats) but I used 1" pink
foam board from Home Depot, slide it in place using 2 pcs., tie wrapped it,
and glued black felt like material over the front of it. The purpose was to
help with noise. Didn't cut down on eng. noise but really helped with
cutting down on prop noise alot. I was very pleased with the out come. Total
cost (around $12)
Safe flying
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
>
>Anyone know anyone who has ever tried a 15HP engine on a FS? Any ideas on
>what to expect if I try?
You would not have a firestar you would have a penguin. Perfect engine if
you are afraid of heights.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 07/12/02 |
> As far as enclosing the area behind the seats, My MK3 may be a little
> different as it has a retractable gear set up (for floats) but I used 1"
pink
> foam board from Home Depot, slide it in place using 2 pcs.,
I thought about using the foam board myself but more for insulation for
flying in the cold Michigan winters. I was concerned about what fuel spills
would do to it though. I'm looking at some stuff they use at work for
soundproofing now. Not as stiff and inflexable but still has some insulating
properties. I think much of the noise in a Kolb is due to the megaphone
affect resulting from the shape of the fuselage. I wonder if insulating the
insides of the rear half of the fuselage so they couldn't vibrate and
amplify the noise would help? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
Whoeveryouare,
I believe that Larry expressed it well below. I believe that the
Firestar would actually take off and fly. But not safely. You would be
so close to stall that you would have to fly in calm air. Soaring and
calm air do not go together.
John Jung
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> My main concern for you would be the borderline
>flying you'd be doing at the very best of times............you'd have no
>reserves at all, and my feeling would be that what you're considering would
>be very dangerous.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Probably work ok with bungie assisted take off.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles" <chieppa47(at)attbi.com> |
Hi All,
I am looking for some time (flight training) in a Kolb Kolbra --- will drive
to your location. I may or may not have my Firestar with me. The plan
would be to get to a safe level (flight training) and solo the Firestar
Thanks, Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 15 HP on a FS |
Maybe this would be an ideal way of "teaching" crow-hopping? Here's an
idea(?)--rewire the ignition kill switch so that it becomes a squat
switch. Whenever the vehicle gets light enough to fly, the ignition cuts
off.
Or maybe as a "taxi-trainer"?
Bob N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Blair wants to know if he should switch to a Slingshot |
| From: | Joseph B Stevenson <mandosoul(at)juno.com> |
John , I,ve had 24 hours dual in the GT500 from an AFI with another 20 or
so ground school,also i,ve been about 1/2 way through the "Cleared for
takeoff" CD Rom course cessna uses. I got this because I started my
flying career at a GA school,I have an additional 5 hours dual with them
but writing that check for $120 - !50 per lesson began to get real old
real quick so I headed down the ultralight road and never looked back.
Also I should let you know the deed is done I've made the deal for the
trade , I'll have the Kolb in about a week and a half. So You'll be
hearing me asking for advise on the list . By the way now that you have
an overview of my training ,even though I don't have a PPL what do you
think? I'm sure I'll take your advice anyway,since I'm switching to a
tail dragger, and especially because its such a high performance one.
>
> Blair,
>
> You didn't mention your trainning. Just 100 hours on a GT500 may not
>
> prepare you for a Slingshot. If you have your PPL, go for the
> Slingshot.
> If you don't, I suggest that you get your flying skills checked by
> an
> instructor and ask him what he suggests.
>
> John Jung
>
>
>
>
> messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I think his brain is severely flawed. He certainly didn't engage it before
putting his mouth in gear. How many axle failures have you heard of, since
being on this List ?? Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bean" <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: axles
>
> Ok group here comes a long-winded one... I just got back from
> an airshow in Geneseo, NY, even though I rarely attend them any
> more. My good brother invited me and the day was perfect.
> -well anyhow there was only one Kolb there, sorta weather beaten
> old FS 1 and I managed to talk to the driver. He was in a club
> of ultralighters out of the Rochester area (RUFF) and get to talking
> a little about Kolbs, informed him of the existence of Matronics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: axles
Maybe he was thinking they are driven axles? In which case they would be
severly flawed. Especially if they were intended for positraction. :o)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Think he needs to P-L-L, and that ain't phased lock loop, either.
It's Please Land Lightly
How many of you (certainly not I) have pounded the kybd or kicked the
cat when you alone goofed up?
BN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
I have a FS and I had a couple bend before I put the heavier ones from the
FS2 on. I originally thought I was just landing hard. I put a brand new
pair on, had my wife video my next landing (which I greased), and had two
other friends watch to see where I was having my problems. We checked the
gear after that first landing and they were already bowed a bit. I only
weigh 160lbs and the FS was close to legal weight. The tape confirmed a
gentle landing. I called Kolb and asked them and they said I should put the
heavier FS2 gear on and that they had to make them very light to make the
legal weight. After I put the FS2 legs on I have had no problems. Just my
experiance - may not be universal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <George_Bass_0(at)hotmail.com> |
< snip > "He declared the design as severely flawed and
< snip > that he was an "engineer,etc"
Did that engineer fella mention which way the airframe was
facing when the tire hit the pavement/surface? Not that that
would have anything to do with the longevity of the gear leg.
Or how hard he hit, or whether he had Elmer and his favorite
pet in the cockpit with him ........
..........................they do have a load limit, ya' know.
Sounds like he already reached his limit.
George Bass
USUA # 80399
USUA Club # 555
USUA Club # 770
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> What should
> I look for to keep ahead of a failure on mkIII axle assy? -BB
Bob/Gang:
Should be something in the archive reference broken axle
sockets.
What should you look for? If I knew I would have saved
myself a lot of trouble 1 July 2000, when I broke an axle
socket at Muncho Lake, BC. However, it was an old socket,
1400 hours and thousands of rough landings. Time for it to
fail, but I didn't think about it until it was too late.
We fixed the problem with ours by welding the axle socket to
the gear leg and then having the whole thing heat treated.
Works good now.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Woods" <kolbpilot(at)msn.com> |
Hey Gang,
Just food for thought, If you land a MKIII the way it's supposed to be landed the
factory landing gear holds up fine. Brother's MKIII has almost 400 hrs. with
factory gear that came with it. It's not the lightest MKIII
either, has 912S engine. He has flown on several occasions with my younger brother's
brother in-law, (350 lbs) from a pretty rough field. No problems to report
on gear. He was all paranoid about the factory gear at first but has shot down
all the rumors of weak landing gear.
Bill Woods
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: axles
> What should
> I look for to keep ahead of a failure on mkIII axle assy? -BB
Bob/Gang:
Should be something in the archive reference broken axle
sockets.
What should you look for? If I knew I would have saved
myself a lot of trouble 1 July 2000, when I broke an axle
socket at Muncho Lake, BC. However, it was an old socket,
1400 hours and thousands of rough landings. Time for it to
fail, but I didn't think about it until it was too late.
We fixed the problem with ours by welding the axle socket to
the gear leg and then having the whole thing heat treated.
Works good now.
john h
=
=
=
=
Get mor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 07/11/02 |
I need help in selecting a pair of headphones that
will work in
my MK111.
----------------------------
i started with a set of pilot headphones with noise
canceling mikes. and had the same trouble you
describe..... i called the factory and described the
problem and they sent me a new set of mikes at no expence to
me.... they made all the diference in the world. i
would have to see if i can find the information on the mikes
if you need to know i would be glad to look....
since then i thought i may have put a variable resistor in
line with the mike imput ( in the intgercom) and used the
resistor to attinuate the signal. if you would like more
help with this option let me know.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MEMATUZAK(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Kolb trailer for sale |
Is it enclosed or open?
Please email pics,
Thanks
MEMatuzak(at)aol.com
FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full enclosure aerodynamics |
I would still cover the area back by the fuel tank. I makes it look better
and I'm not so sure that if you didn't you may find that it may add some drag.
As for the wall. you might consider the plastic corrugated board the sign
shops use. It's light and tuff, comes in many colors and cheap. You could
punch holes in it and tie wrap it to the cage tubes. A friend has done
something like this on his Hawk. Seemed to work well for that application.
jerryb
>
>
> To follow up an a question I posted not so eloquently, what do people think
>the aerodynamic ramifications would be of installing a "wall" from the
>bottom of the gap seal to the to the landing gear cross member, this would
>fully enclose the cabin. I would then not cover anything behind this wall,
>including the area around the fuel tanks. My guess is it would not really
>change anything as the covered area around the fuel tanks is so
>unaerodynamic even when it is covered. What do you all think!
>
>
>JASON OMELCHUCK
>ACUITY INCORPORATED
>PHONE 503.221.6995 x 102
>FAX 503.221.3139
>www.acuityinc.com <http://www.acuityinc.com/>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob, Kathleen, & Kory Brocious" <bbrocious(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Venture 2002 |
Kolb'ers,
For those of you south of the Mason-Dixon line headed toOshkosh I've got a 1,400'
strip on my farm between Louisville and Cincinnati that I would be glad to
let you use. You would be welcome to camp on the field and might even be able
to persuade my lovely bride to prepare a meal or two. Might be able to swing a
shower even.
If you are interested, contact me off list and I'll give you the GPS numbers and
some other info.
Bob
Mark III at 96%
Bob, Kathleen, and Kory BrociousTenacity Farm
Campbellsburg, Kentucky
From: "jrodebush" <JRODEBUSH(at)CINCI.RR.COM>
Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
To:
Subject: Kolb-List: Air Venture 2002
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:03:48 -0500
-- Kolb-List message posted by: "jrodebush"
From: Julian Warren <JGW300(at)WEBOLIUM.COM>
Subject: Kolb-List: Oshkosh AirVenture 2002
-- Kolb-List message posted by: Julian Warren
I will be attending this event for the entire period. I
have.......................
I will be there Wednesday and Thursday. Look forward to meeting
everyone. I'll wear a Kolb T-shirt a nametag. If you see a
middle-aged, balding, slightly overweight but outrageously handsome guy
come over and introduce yourself.
Should we set a meeting time at the Kolb trailer everyday for whoever is
there? 2:00 or whatever?
Rex Rodebush
Building a Mark III Xtra
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> I have to maintain a fair amount of back pressure to maintain level
> flight> If I pull the power back and release the stick completely, it
will
> decend at about 50 mph. If I go to full power and release the stick,
> she noses over and Vne comes REAL quick. (when I release the stick,
> the wings stay perfectly level- at least something is working right!)
>
> Any suggestions?
I've often wondered if being able to adjust the angle of thrust relative
to the plane would resolve this tendancy? Another idea is whether a small
adjustable canard wing might improve the situation? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
> If I pull the power back and release the stick completely, it will
> decend at about 50 mph. If I go to full power and release the stick,
> she noses over and Vne comes REAL quick. (when I release the stick,
> the wings stay perfectly level- at least something is working right!)
>
> Is this a common problem? Is it normal? I am running a 30% CG.
>
> Any suggestions?
Hi Ken and Gang,
My Firestar II is about 380 lbs dry and the CG is 36%. If I fly at WOT I
have to hold forward stick to keep it from climbing, but not much. Fly's
level at about 52-5400 rpm's. Sounds like you might need to add one of those
snazzy full swiveling tail wheels (if you don't have one already) I think
they weigh a couple of pounds more and this would move your cg aft some
which should help with the nosing down problem. I wish I had enough room to
add one, but I'm already at the aft limit.
Later,
John Cooley
Firestar II 503 DCDI, BRS, EIS, 114 hrs etc. etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
Kirk & Ken,
You will not be able to use one pitch trim setting for all speeds. It is
best to set it for cruise and accept the rest. The only way to make a Kolb
speed neutral in pitch trim is to lower the thrust line so that it passes
through the center of the heads on profile. This is impractical because it
would mean one would have to go to a smaller less efficient prop.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>> I have to maintain a fair amount of back pressure to maintain level
>> flight> If I pull the power back and release the stick completely, it
>will
>> decend at about 50 mph. If I go to full power and release the stick,
>> she noses over and Vne comes REAL quick. (when I release the stick,
>> the wings stay perfectly level- at least something is working right!)
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> I've often wondered if being able to adjust the angle of thrust relative
>to the plane would resolve this tendancy? Another idea is whether a small
>adjustable canard wing might improve the situation? Kirk
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
>
> Kirk & Ken,
>
> You will not be able to use one pitch trim setting for all speeds. It is
> best to set it for cruise and accept the rest. The only way to make a
Kolb
> speed neutral in pitch trim is to lower the thrust line so that it passes
> through the center of the heads on profile. This is impractical because
it
> would mean one would have to go to a smaller less efficient prop.
>
Due to the twisting moment on the axis of the cord of the wing, an increase
in thrust causes the nose to pitch down. Also the increase and decrease of
airflow over the tail that is directly in the prop blast which hits the
upper horizontal tail for the large part. This can counteract the twisting
affect to some extent but is too irregular for a consistant trim. Adjusting
the angle of thrust can decrease the affect of the prop blast on the tail
and a canard would tend to counteract the twisting moment caused by thrust
changes besides increasing overall lift. A canard could also be used for
wing leveling. .... Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Another idea is whether a small
> adjustable canard wing might improve the situation? Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
Try reflexing the ailerons, or additional adjustment on
horizontal stab, or a simple bendable trim tab of the
elevator. I like the trim tab on the elevator because they
are pretty much self adjustable once you get it set up the
way you want it. As air speed increases, so does the trim
force exerted by the tab. It worked out extremely well on
my original Firestar.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
>
>Ken,
>
>Adjust both ailerons up to take the back pressure off the stick. Count
>the number of turns made to raise the ailerons and do the same on both
>sides. Be careful to leave enough thread length into the rod end bearing.
>
>The disadvantage of a flat-bottom airfoil is the increase in lift and
>pitch over tendency with speed with no change in AOA..
>
>Another option is to get an electric MAC trim tab for the elevator that
>can be adjusted from the cockpit.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original Firestar
>15 years flying it
>
>
Ralph & Ken,
Reflexing the ailerons up will reduce lift at a given angle of attack, and
so, decrease climb rate and increase stall speed.
My problem with the FireFly was just the opposite. I had to fly with
forward stick. I made some little brackets that let me extend forward
horizontal stabilizer adjustment. You can see them at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly20.html
This approach can be used to move the front of your horizontal stabilizer
down. Also TNK company probably has ready made bracket that will help you
out.
I am in favor of putting connecting trim mechanisms to the control horns in
the cockpit area and not directly on the flying surfaces. The reason is
that if a trim system component fails no control is lost between the stick
and the flying surfaces.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 7/14/02 12:37:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes:
> ,
>
> Adjust both ailerons up to take the back pressure off the stick. Count
> the number of turns made to raise the ailerons and do the same on both
> sides. Be careful to leave enough thread length into the rod end bearing.
>
> The disadvantage of a flat-bottom airfoil is the increase in lift and
> pitch over tendency with speed with no change in AOA..
>
> Another option is to get an electric MAC trim tab for the elevator that
> can be adjusted from the cockpit.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
>
>
>
Ken, I had the same problem as you after I changed out a damaged set of
horizontal stabs/elevators [don't know why, as everything appeared
identical].
I lowered the front of the stab about 3/4", reflexed the ailerons up about 2
full turns, & still had to adjust my elevator trim [same as yours] to the max
for hands-off flight at 5400 rpm.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> here in the past. Two problems would be introduced, stall characteristics
> and, due to the fact that it also would be in the airstream below the
> thrust line, would also contribute to nose down from it's own induced
> drag.
It is my understanding that a canard wing improves stall
characteristics. If induced drag tends to force a wing down, then how can a
Kolb fly? I think a Kolb is a perfect platform for experimenting in this
area. It would be so easy to put a canard on Kolb..............Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
On the new Mark 3 extra the fuselage itself has become a lifting force.
Which should move the center of lift forward. I wonder if the tendency to
pitch up and down with throttle changes is better on it? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
Contrary to the saying that summer falls on a weekend in Western NY
Last night I was able to get in a couple of hours on the Ultrastar
with the new belt drive and 3 blade Warp prop and it seems to be working
well......But....things have changed in relation to the operating temps
of the Cuyuna. Before the change ,using a Nova 2.04 to 1 gearbox and 2
blade Warp drive set to 6250rpm in a 50 mph climb, my EGT was over 1175
and CHT around 350. Cruise at 5100 was 1150 and 325 and fuel burn about
2 gal. /hr......Now I have 1100 and 275 in climb and 1100 and 275 in
cruise. I have already dropped 2 jet sizes and it still may need
another. Summer should only recquire a drop of one
size........right?......The performance seems to be as good as it was
with the box and 2 blade but fuel consumption is up about 1/4 gal /hr.
I was flying with 2 new 2 place 503 Challengers for the 2 hours and
the US was able to keep up even though they were 70 mph at normal
cruise. My rpm was up at 5300 and the ailerons were getting stiff at
anything above 70 which was easy to do with this Firestar type
enclosure...next step is to install my vortex generators and see if I
can get better authority in roll. On 35 HP this thing amazes me......
I may be ready to fly down to see you soon BB.....got to see your
project !
Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
A while back I saw a picture of a FS with a canard on it that had been taken
at one of the major airshows (Fun & Sun?). It was in one of the GA mags. In
the article they stated that they had not talked to the owner and had no idea
how well it worked. It has been tried.
On my old PA-28-180 I had adjustable trim on all three axis which gave me a
poor mans version of auto pilot for all flight attitudes (long climb outs and
descents, cross winds at cruise, etc.). I have also seen a Cessna take off,
fly a pattern and land using only trim (simulating loss of normal controls
for ail., ruddr, elev.s). If redundancy = safety, adding adjustable trim may
be a better answer than a fixed tab. Something to consider (I once lost a
rudder cable, fortunately I had just landed but if I had been in the air?)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> fly a pattern and land using only trim (simulating loss of normal controls
> for ail., ruddr, elev.s). If redundancy = safety, adding adjustable trim
may
> be a better answer than a fixed tab. Something to consider (I once lost a
> rudder cable, fortunately I had just landed but if I had been in the air?)
Excellent point. If we lose elevator control due to a broken cable we're in
deep doo doo. With an adjustable canard we still have some pitch control. It
could even be made to control roll. Could be quite simple on a kolb with no
cables being used. Could actually make a right and left canard with their
own control levers in the cockpit. Kind of fly it like a tank or an APC.
LOL. It is my theory that a canard would give more leverage to counteract
the pitching up and down caused by the leverage the high thrust line has.
The canard would ride in undisturbed air not like the tail does. I would
think it would dampen the pitching........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
That would seem to make sense, but my flight testing in the MKIII shows
otherwise. I am able to adjust the flaps incrementally in the up position,
varying between slightly reflexed, flat in line with the bottom of the
wing's airfoil, and slightly drooped. Solo, in any of those positions,
stall speed remains constant, along with rate of climb. (Haven't tried it
dual. The good-lookin' Old Poop doesn't enjoy stalls, and family harmony is
more important than theoretical absolutes...)
I suspect that the reason for this is because the tail always has to
counterbalance any nose pitchover caused by the center of lift on the wing,
which is always aft of the CG. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift
moves back & the CG moves forward, which has to be countered by an increase
in back stick, which effectively makes the tail "heavier", and in effect,
makes the airplane heavier by that amount. (Just like a front and rear wing
on a race car adds hundreds of pounds of downforce against the road)
Depending on the amount of lift added by the flaps, the flaps may add more
than the tail takes away. And the amount of variation in lift/pressure
travel with flaps can make a big difference. With Kolbs, the center of
pressure moves a lot. When you crank in the flaps, you need to also crank
in a bunch of nose-up trim.
On the other hand, a slight reflex of the ailerons or flaps -while it will
slightly reduce the total lift of the wings- may reduce back stick enough
to reduce tail downforce so that things even out. What little lift you lose
from the wing you gain back from a tail which is not as "heavy," or to put
it another way, your airplane just got "lighter."
Which is why I think a slight reflex in Kolb flaps/ailerons doesn't really
cause an observable loss of performance, at least on my MKIII.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>Ralph & Ken,
>
>Reflexing the ailerons up will reduce lift at a given angle of attack, and
>so, decrease climb rate and increase stall speed.
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, MO
>
>
>Jack & Louise Hart
>jbhart(at)ldd.net
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Independant canard controls - interesting idea. Could be used in the air
like independant R and L brakes on the ground and assist elevators too. I
would probably use a setup like the Dac instead of cables. Are you going to
try it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
>. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift
> moves back & the CG moves forward,
How does the CG move forward? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Check
> it with a rotating protractor between the front and rear mounts.
> jerryb
Jerry/Gang:
The thrust line changes dramatically on a Kolb under power.
What you measure at rest, will not be what it is under power
producing thrust.
Depending on what density Lord Mounts you are using, the
change in angle of thrust will be more or less. Also
depends on
amount of hp and thrust. I try to use the hardest Lord
Mounts avaiable so I will not have the engine changing
thrust line any more than necessary.
Did some tests with my original Firestar and its old 447.
At full throttle it would come up against a brick wall at an
airspeed that I can no longer remember. By reducing power
and gently increasing power and airspeed I could get past
this point and add another 15 or 20 mph, whatever it was,
CRS.
I set up my MK III and 912S with the prop perpendicular to
the bottom of the wing. To do this I added some 5/8"
spacers under the engine and above the Lord Mounts. Does it
make much difference between level and nose raised 5/8"? I
don't know if it does or not.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> How does the CG move forward? Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
Cause he doesn't use a canard. :-)
The Homer Kolb airfoil center of lift moves a lot
aerodynamically which in turn changes the CG. Lotsa folks
think the change is pitch trim is all high thrust line. A
lot of it is caused by center of lift shifts.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
The Homer Kolb airfoil center of lift moves a lot
> aerodynamically which in turn changes the CG. Lotsa folks
> think the change is pitch trim is all high thrust line. A
> lot of it is caused by center of lift shifts.
I'm really concerned about the CG changing, especially when the lift is
gone. I'd kind of like the CG to be in the front when that happens. I know
if I do a weight and balance on it when it isn't flying, mine is nose heavy.
A canard will make it more so....:o) Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Independant canard controls - interesting idea. Could be used in the air
> like independant R and L brakes on the ground and assist elevators too. I
> would probably use a setup like the Dac instead of cables. Are you going
to
> try it?
Still in the research stages. One being a discussion on here. Probably
start with small ones and see how it performs........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
:
>
> The thrust line changes dramatically on a Kolb under power.
> What you measure at rest, will not be what it is under power
> producing thrust.
One of the reasons I'm changing the way the engine is mounted is to
eliminate the wobbling of the thrust angle. How many degrees approximately
would you say the line dithers? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
I don't have a clue. I have been rebuilding mine for a while and changed
everything from the engine and mounts to prop and instrument panel.
Something I don't recomend - next time I will just change one thing at a time
and test it before moving on. I will not be able to test it for a while yet
( I am going to have to change to the FS2 wing to handle the extra weight -
approx 725-750 lbs wet and I don't have the $ to buy a new wing yet) before I
can test. Much of the wobble may be affected by the type of mount system you
use.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
I'll field this one for ya John. The center of lift travels aft, in effect
making the cg go forward. -BB
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> >. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift
> > moves back & the CG moves forward,
>
> How does the CG move forward? Kirk
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> I'll field this one for ya John. The center of lift travels aft, in
effect
> making the cg go forward. -BB
>
> Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > >. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift
> > > moves back & the CG moves forward,
> >
> > How does the CG move forward? Kirk
I don't think gravity cares where the center of lift is, it just prefers the
end with the most density............Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
>
> I have to maintain a fair amount of back pressure to maintain level
>flight. I have a fairly good sized spring attached to the bottom of
>the stick to assist, but still have to hold it back.
You may be able to get away with ground adjustable trim tabs rivited to
the elevators.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> How many degrees approximately
> would you say the line dithers? Kirk
Kirk/Gents:
Have no idea. And........it will not be the same on all
Kolb aircraft.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
....heavy stuff
> and
> light stuff fall at the same rate, minus the drag effect. The wings and
> tail provide the drag and hopefully the weight in front will accelerate
> faster than what is in back (that big badminton birdie again, the term
Where did the center of lift go? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
The center of lift on a Kolb wing changes as you vary the camber of the
wing. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift moves aft. Picture your
airplane hanging by a strap, and you move the strap an inch toward the
back. Now the airplane "hangs" like it's noseheavy. "The CG moved forward."
Not really, but practically. The CG doesn't actually change, but the
center of lift moving aft makes it act like it did. The thing now acts
noseheavy.
And if you reflex the flaps/ailerons up a bit, the center of lift moves
forward a bit. Now you have moved the imaginary hang strap an inch forward,
the tail hangs lower, and you don't need as much up elevator. It acts
tailheavy. Or at least not noseheavy.
Hope this makes sense...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>>. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift
>> moves back & the CG moves forward,
>
>How does the CG move forward? Kirk
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> back. Now the airplane "hangs" like it's noseheavy. "The CG moved
forward."
> Not really, but practically. The CG doesn't actually change, but the
> center of lift moving aft makes it act like it did. The thing now acts
> noseheavy.
Exactly, the CG never changes only the fulcrum point. Almost, of course fuel
burn, objects moving around inside the plane will change CG. It really
matters when the lift is gone. Then hopefully the ratio of density to drag
is highest towards the front of the plane. So we can use the force of
gravity to accelerate ourselves in a forward direction thereby
re-establishing a controlled flight condition before the density of the
flying medium excedes the ability of the structure to penitrate it. Thereby
putting us in another absence of lift state. Essentially dead stalled
again.....:o)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
John, Richard, Kirk and Others
This has been very interesting. Assume that you keep the wing angle of
attach constant as you apply flaps. The center of gravity of the plane
will move forward an insignificant amount due to the flaps or flaperons
being lowered. What is significant is that by lowering the flaps the
effective wing chord becomes shorter which means the CG position as a
percentage of wing chord may actually increase.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>The center of lift on a Kolb wing changes as you vary the camber of the
>wing. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift moves aft. Picture your
>airplane hanging by a strap, and you move the strap an inch toward the
>back. Now the airplane "hangs" like it's noseheavy. "The CG moved forward."
> Not really, but practically. The CG doesn't actually change, but the
>center of lift moving aft makes it act like it did. The thing now acts
>noseheavy.
>And if you reflex the flaps/ailerons up a bit, the center of lift moves
>forward a bit. Now you have moved the imaginary hang strap an inch forward,
>the tail hangs lower, and you don't need as much up elevator. It acts
>tailheavy. Or at least not noseheavy.
>Hope this makes sense...
>
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
writes:
> On the other hand, a slight reflex of the ailerons or flaps -while
> it will slightly reduce the total lift of the wings- may reduce back
stick
> enough to reduce tail downforce so that things even out. What little
lift
> you lose from the wing you gain back from a tail which is not as
"heavy," or
> to put it another way, your airplane just got "lighter."
> Which is why I think a slight reflex in Kolb flaps/ailerons doesn't
> really cause an observable loss of performance, at least on my MKIII.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard and others,
I don't know if any of you have noticed the elevator in flight, but many
Kolbs cruise with it slightly down from neutral. This is added drag. A
nose-heavy Kolb, will counteract with backstick which raises the elevator
to the neutral position, reducing drag.
This was a discussion in the early days of this list. I reported that my
Firestar flew faster carrying auxiliary fuel tanks ahead of the CG.
It still does.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> effective wing chord becomes shorter which means the CG position as a
I wonder if the cord becomes shorter or just altered in shape. Air over the
lower surface has to travel the same distance but at reduced velocity. As
long as the air remains attached to the upper surface it remains fairly
constant in velocity. This should increase not only the lift but change the
angle of lift which moves the center of lift rearward until air begins to
detach. Ideally flaps would simulate a parachute with no flow over the lower
surface, only the upper.........Hmmm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
> It is my understanding that a canard wing improves stall
> characteristics. If induced drag tends to force a wing down, then how can
a
> Kolb fly?
the canard is adding area in front of the cg so it is destabilizing the
aircraft. your useful cg range would move forward with the canard. the
stall characteristics can be made to be better with a canard but it is very
tricky. the canard must stall before the wing does. If it does not then
you will have a very nasty pitchup, and probably tumble. so yes it can be
done but you had better know exactly what you are doing because it can
really kill you.
force vectors above or below the cg cause pitching moments. the drag of a
high wing pitches the plane up. thrust on a high thrustline airplane pitches
the plane down, witch is the down they were talking about above, not a
direction down but a pitching motion nose down. the induced drag of a high
wing would pitch the plane up not down.
the airfoil we have on the kolb is unstable in pitch. when it makes lift it
also makes a nose down moment to go with the lift. so we have to have a
downforce on the tail to hold the nose up. add the canard and you can put
an upward motion at the nose instead of pushing down on the tail. very well
and good, except that now all the air that the canard throws down to lift
the nose pushes down on the wing, and as is usual in physics uses up all of
what you thought you were going to gain and then some... so canards are not
usually as efficient as tailed planes. Overall efficiency usually comes
down to good packaging. whoever wraps all the necessary parts of the plane
in the neatest package wins. small is good, smooth is good, light is real
good. after you get that much the rest is fighting for the last 10%, which
is usually not worth bothering with in the real world!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
> The center of lift on a Kolb wing changes as you vary the camber of the
> wing. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift moves aft. Picture your
> airplane hanging by a strap, and you move the strap an inch toward the
> back. Now the airplane "hangs" like it's noseheavy. "The CG moved
forward."
> Not really, but practically. The CG doesn't actually change, but the
> center of lift moving aft makes it act like it did. The thing now acts
> noseheavy.
> And if you reflex the flaps/ailerons up a bit, the center of lift moves
> forward a bit. Now you have moved the imaginary hang strap an inch
forward,
> the tail hangs lower, and you don't need as much up elevator. It acts
> tailheavy. Or at least not noseheavy.
> Hope this makes sense...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
will I get this smart when I am older then the founding fathers too???
;-)
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
> I wonder if the cord becomes shorter or just altered in shape. Air over
the
> lower surface has to travel the same distance but at reduced velocity. As
> long as the air remains attached to the upper surface it remains fairly
> constant in velocity. This should increase not only the lift but change
the
> angle of lift which moves the center of lift rearward until air begins to
> detach. Ideally flaps would simulate a parachute with no flow over the
lower
> surface, only the upper.........Hmmm
the chord change is really small and negligible. it is the camber (shape)
change that causes the center of lift to move aft. you add lift at the rear
of the airfoil which gives you a nose down pitching moment, cause the rear
of the airfoil is aft of the cg. the cg does not move but the center of
lift does. Just think of a teeter-totter with balloons on it. bigger
balloons at one end tip the thing over. the pivot point is the cg.
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 7/14/02 3:30:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<<
> How does the CG move forward? Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
Cause he doesn't use a canard. :-)
The Homer Kolb airfoil center of lift moves a lot
aerodynamically which in turn changes the CG. Lotsa folks
think the change is pitch trim is all high thrust line. A
lot of it is caused by center of lift shifts.
john h >>
I can see how the Center of Lift would change with airfoil or wing changes,
but I do not see how the CG changes unless an Eagle poops on the plane in an
unusual place....or even in a normal place...:)
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 7/14/02 7:58:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard(at)bcchapel.org writes:
<< he center of lift on a Kolb wing changes as you vary the camber of the
wing. When you lower the flaps, the center of lift moves aft. Picture your
airplane hanging by a strap, and you move the strap an inch toward the
back. Now the airplane "hangs" like it's noseheavy. "The CG moved forward."
Not really, but practically. The CG doesn't actually change, but the
center of lift moving aft makes it act like it did. The thing now acts
noseheavy.
And if you reflex the flaps/ailerons up a bit, the center of lift moves
forward a bit. Now you have moved the imaginary hang strap an inch forward,
the tail hangs lower, and you don't need as much up elevator. It acts
tailheavy. Or at least not noseheavy.
Hope this makes sense...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) >>
yea, that makes more sense, another way to muddy the water is to use
engineering terms and describe the Cg as a force down and the CL as a force
up at a different location, thereby causing a "couple" or "moment" causing
the plane to twist nose down (as the UP CL is always ...or better be...behind
the CG...but maintained counteracted by the elevator and horizontal stab
which should always have downpressure on it....look at the large angle of
attack between the elevator and the wing on a Kolb ...then look at a more
commonly rigged GA aircraft like a piper cub and notice very little angle of
attack between them. I suspect this difference on the kolb is one of the
reasons for its great stability. Notice also that the flying wires of the
Kolbs are fixed on the top of the stab and removeable and pinned on the
bottom...such that if a pin fell out (I wouldn't want to test this though)
the horizontal stab would stay opened instead of folded due to the natural
down pressure on it. I don't view the horizontal stab as a flying surface
anymore...only a downward lever to counteract the moment created by the CG
and CL....well...makes sense to me ....sorry for the wordiness.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
07/15/2002 07:26:21 AM
>From: SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 15 HP on a FS
>Thanks for the restraint in your answer. The engine is a Yamha 100cc and
the
>reason I am curious is because I read in one of the other messages about a
>guy who said he had flown with one on a (T-bird maybe? I don't recall
right
>now) ultralight. I am trying to put together the lightest FS that I can
so I
>can try motorgliding/soaring/thermaling. The biggest change I can make in
>weight now is the engine and fuel system. I realize that I may have to go
>with a 277 but I am hoping to hear from someone who has tried to use
>something this small on a FS.
I am the person you are remembering posting using a Yamaha 100 cc on a
Teratorn (company now called T-bird). I would not consider 15 HP enough
for the Firestar. If I understand it correctly, you will end up with a
plane weighing what, 240 lbs, plus or minus 10 pounds. And you will have a
five gallon fuel tank capacity, for another possible 30 pounds. So wet the
plane may be 270, plus your own weight. For reference, the old Teratorn
weight shift weighed 165 dry, and had a 3.25 gallon tank. There were no
instruments, except the Ball disc-type windspeed. I weighed 180 then. I
was carefull to take my keys out of my pockets before flight. Climb rate
was a scary flat 150-250 fpm depending on air temp. Stall was so slow you
could put your feet down and stall land it in a 20 foot circle (and not
roll out). WOT gave you climb, 3/4 throttle was level flight, any less and
you were landing.
I think it is possible that a 240 pound Firestar with 25 pounds of fuel and
a 200 pound pilot may not leave the ground at all on 15HP (this is a
guess). In any case, it was my experience that 15 HP on a 165 pound
aircraft of the cable-braced high drag variety, performance was
unacceptable. Now if you could get the Firestar down to 150 pounds, 15
would work.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org> |
I am in the process of recovering my Ultra Star. Having some difficulty
with attaching the fabric to the small tubing such as the top and rear of
the rudder, and all trailing edges where the small tubing is used. The first
side I just cement the fabric around the tube being careful not to have any
wrinkles on the tube but the second side is where I have the problem. Do I
just wrap it over the first side, cement, shrink and tape over the joint?
HELP!!!!!
Dale Sellers
Georgia Ultra Star
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "info" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
Hi Kolb listers,
Dondi and Jim will be at the Poly-Fiber booth (right in the middle of
building "A") during the fly-in at Oshkosh, Please stop in & visit us!!
Thanks,
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.poly-fiber.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Thanks for the info. I knew this was a marginal idea and that I was probably
going to need a 277 but was interested in finding out if the idea had been
tried. I will take the advise of those who have said its to marginal and go
for the larger engine. Anyone have need of a Yamaha 100cc? Any of the
members live in the Modesto area?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-Modesto area |
Anyone on the list live in the Modesto area? If so please contact me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>Thanks for the info. I knew this was a marginal idea and that I was probably
>going to need a 277
You are probably going to need a 377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
Dale,
All of the control surfaces should be wrapped starting at the leading
edge of the rudder / elevator / aileron / flap if you have them, glue
the material to the the LE tube then wrap it around the surface then
back to the leading edge, the Vertical and Horizontal Stabs should be
wrapped starting at the trailing edge, don't pull it too tight when
your gluing it, with a 6% shrink rate you can easily bend or even
break the tubing. If you still need help give Jim and Dondi a call.
There is a link to there Web site on the Kolb Web site.
Guy Swenson
>
>I am in the process of recovering my Ultra Star. Having some
>difficulty
>with attaching the fabric to the small tubing such as the top and
>rear of
>the rudder, and all trailing edges where the small tubing is used.
>The first
>side I just cement the fabric around the tube being careful not to
>have any
>wrinkles on the tube but the second side is where I have the
>problem. Do I
>just wrap it over the first side, cement, shrink and tape over the
>joint?
>HELP!!!!!
>
>Dale Sellers
>Georgia Ultra Star
>
>
>====
>====
>====
>====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sound insulation |
I thought about using the foam board myself but more for
insulation for
flying in the cold Michigan winters. I was concerned about
what fuel spills
would do to it though. I'm looking at some stuff they use at
work for
soundproofing now. Not as stiff and inflexable but still has
some insulating
properties. I think much of the noise in a Kolb is due to
the megaphone
affect resulting from the shape of the fuselage. I wonder if
insulating the
insides of the rear half of the fuselage so they couldn't
vibrate and
amplify the noise would help? Kirk
=======================
i have been thinking of a insulation that would best be
described ad bubble wrap.... it is like 2 layers of
bubble wrap put bubble sides together with aluminum type
coating on the outsides..... last week while at the airport
i saw some of this stuff installed in a swift extremely
light weight
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PitchTrim Options |
Well said Mr. Pike,
And as we already know, the center of lift also changes (moves rearward)
with the chord constant and the speed increasing, thus back to the need for
trim options.
The 1st step seems to be made clear by Ralph B's comment: "This was a
discussion in the early days of this list. I reported that my Firestar flew
faster carrying auxiliary fuel tanks ahead of the CG. It still does." We
must manage the CG to our advantage when possible by rearranging weight.
As for adjusting the angle of thrust, I tried raising & lowering the
rear of my engine on both the MKII & SlingShot. In both cases I could not
tell much of a difference & left it stock.
The canard solution is unnecessarry weight, drag & danger. I'd vote it
as a nonoption.
Adjusting the aileron linkage up or down according to need, is simple &
effective tho not necessarily the most effecient. Moving them up will
increase stall & moving them down will decrease top speed. Plus, I'd guess
that a smaller deflection at the elevator using a much longer moment would
have less induced drag (as opposed to down ailerons.) Flaperons allow you
to have your cake & eat it too. Not only can you adjust them incrementally
inflight, but you can land significantly slower, climb better, have enhanced
slow flight manuverability & maybe even a slightly higher top end. However,
unless you have a FireFly or SlingShot, you'd have to do a lot of tinkering
to incorporate them.
Optimizing the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer is also
obvious. Too much gives excess drag & unwanted stick forces, too little &
we loose pitch stability. Kolb seems to erred on the side of safety as much
change has taken place here with acceptable results. Rather than guess &
try, it sure would be nice if someone had a formula to go by that at least
would predict a safe range.
Lastly we have the traditional trim devices in 2 catagories: 1)
Mechanical assist (bungee or spring) that may or may not be adjustable
inflight. This has the advantage of being simple, light, no increased drag
& as far as I know, does not contribute to flutter. 2) Trim tabs, fixed or
inflight adjustable. Fixed are very light, simple, & are not prone to
flutter; but they work for only a limited speed range & add a little drag.
Inflight adjustable tabs work over a wide range of speeds & can provide a
backup pitch control system as they are directly attached to the elevator &
provide both an up & down input. Their disadvantage is that they too add a
little drag, are more complicated, but more importantly can contribute to
flutter if they add significant weight or if they add sloppy input into the
control system due to loose cables, weak springs, ect. If done right, I
believe this option gives you the most control of your plane.
There maybe another option. I heard a rumor, 3rd hand, that the real
reasonVamouse isn't up & flying yet is because Big Lar Scunk Works is
working on a rear mounted auxillary duct fan that directs thrust up or down
depending on stick pressures & it also can be used like an afterburner on
take off.
Richard Swiderski
Florida
>
> The center of lift on a Kolb wing changes as you vary the camber of the
wing. ......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PitchTrim Options |
See...........pickin' on me again. The only fans going around here are
blowing on my poor ol' sunburned head. Mercy...........at least it's cooled
off to 105. That I can live with...sorta............last Friday's 119 in
the shade was ruinous. Hiding in the A/C Lar. Do not
Archive.
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: PitchTrim Options
<swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
>
> Well said Mr. Pike,
>
> There maybe another option. I heard a rumor, 3rd hand, that the real
> reasonVamouse isn't up & flying yet is because Big Lar Scunk Works is
> working on a rear mounted auxillary duct fan that directs thrust up or
down
> depending on stick pressures & it also can be used like an afterburner on
> take off.
>
> Richard Swiderski
> Florida
>
> >
> > The center of lift on a Kolb wing changes as you vary the camber of the
> wing. ......
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> the canard is adding area in front of the cg so it is destabilizing the
> aircraft. your useful cg range would move forward with the canard. the
> stall characteristics can be made to be better with a canard but it is
very
> tricky. the canard must stall before the wing does. If it does not then
> you will have a very nasty pitchup, and probably tumble. so yes it can be
> done but you had better know exactly what you are doing because it can
> really kill you.
>
> force vectors above or below the cg cause pitching moments. the drag of a
> high wing pitches the plane up. thrust on a high thrustline airplane
pitches
> the plane down, witch is the down they were talking about above, not a
> direction down but a pitching motion nose down. the induced drag of a
high
> wing would pitch the plane up not down.
>
> the airfoil we have on the kolb is unstable in pitch. when it makes lift
it
> also makes a nose down moment to go with the lift. so we have to have a
> downforce on the tail to hold the nose up. add the canard and you can put
> an upward motion at the nose instead of pushing down on the tail. very
well
> and good, except that now all the air that the canard throws down to lift
> the nose pushes down on the wing, and as is usual in physics uses up all
of
> what you thought you were going to gain and then some... so canards are
not
> usually as efficient as tailed planes. Overall efficiency usually comes
> down to good packaging. whoever wraps all the necessary parts of the
plane
> in the neatest package wins. small is good, smooth is good, light is real
> good. after you get that much the rest is fighting for the last 10%,
which
> is usually not worth bothering with in the real world!
>
This makes sense. I have read about canard wing planes that have done this
pitch up stuff and also get into what they called a deep stall that could
not be stopped with any control input. In one case the test pilot actually
unbuckled , opened the canopy and leaned out over the nose in an attempt to
shift the CG ahead enough to get the plane to dive. I believe it was a Cozy.
Anyway, all the canards I read about had no tailfeathers. I know ducks have
a canard ( Beak) and tailfeathers. They fly pretty good. :o))) Oh well it's
been interesting. Well how about cutting a notch in the boom and lowering
the engine and thrust line? Or raising the wing? Poopfire! There's so many
things to dabble with in our minds.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sound insulation |
> i have been thinking of a insulation that would best be
> described ad bubble wrap.... it is like 2 layers of
> bubble wrap put bubble sides together with aluminum type
> coating on the outsides..... last week while at the airport
> i saw some of this stuff installed in a swift extremely
> light weight
I know the stuff. I used in ice fishing shanties. They don't have those in
Alabama John. :o) It's plastic of some type, so again I don't know about
fuel spills. I think it may work well for sound deadening and it does
insulate well thermally. Very light weight and pliable. Could even use some
under your keaster. Pretty neat stuff. Maybe I'll go out and pour some gas
on some to see if it knocks me out. :o).......Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
One of my concerns with a Kolb is the location of the fuel tanks right
behind the pilot/passenger. You could survive a crash but burn up in a
fire due to fuel tank rupture and subsequently being drenched with fuel.
I have considered optional locations. One idea I had was fuel pods aside
the fuselage mounted on extensions welded to the fuselage. It would add
to drag but be safer in the event of a crash. Could even be made
detachable in an emergency. Any thoughts? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
Kirk, i would leave the tank where it is, first of all you may never
even crash in a kolb, 2nd of all how do you know the gas will ignite behind
you more than by the side where it hits the ground first? and last but not
least you will likely get out in the high probability this circumstance will
even happen. and if you do crash, how do you know what attitude you will be
in when it does? it may be in a cross wind and be struck by the side, then
your screwed. i'am glad to see that you are safety conscious but stick with
the design and don't deviate from it too much, you may change more than you
think. let me know if any has even tested this method.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> One of my concerns with a Kolb is the location of the fuel tanks right
> behind the pilot/passenger. You could survive a crash but burn up in a
> fire due to fuel tank rupture and subsequently being drenched with fuel.
> I have considered optional locations. One idea I had was fuel pods aside
> the fuselage mounted on extensions welded to the fuselage. It would add
> to drag but be safer in the event of a crash. Could even be made
> detachable in an emergency. Any thoughts? Kirk
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Kirk, i would leave the tank where it is, first of all you may never
> even crash in a kolb, 2nd of all how do you know the gas will ignite
behind
> you more than by the side where it hits the ground first? and last but not
> least you will likely get out in the high probability this circumstance
will
> even happen. and if you do crash, how do you know what attitude you will
be
> in when it does? it may be in a cross wind and be struck by the side, then
> your screwed. i'am glad to see that you are safety conscious but stick
with
> the design and don't deviate from it too much, you may change more than
you
> think. let me know if any has even tested this method.
Gary,
Some of my logic; Most crashes are nose first. The fuel is ahead of the
engine and exhaust system which would be the most likely source of ignition.
Fuel spills and fumes will be ignited by this. I'm underneath it all. You
know they do put floats on Kolbs? I recently saw a movie produced by Exxon
and narrated by an Exxon employee who survived a fire. He was doing a job
he'd done for 20 years and said it would never happen to him. He was the
most skilled guy there was on the job where the accident occured. He just
overlooked obvious danger because it never happened to him. He was burned
over 50% of his body and as he said " If you're unfortunate enough to live
through that, what you will go through afterward is the most ungodly horror
a human being can endure. " He went on for several minutes describing the
horror chamber burn patients go through. Personally I'm not all that
afraid of of dying in a plane crash. At least I'll die doing what I love to
do. But being severely burned and living through what he did scares the
living hell out of me. ...........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Kirk,
I know of two severe Kolb crashes where one pilot survived without a
scratch and the other one was killed. Neither crash ignited, but that's
not to say that it wouldn't have. Personally, I believe most crashes
happen due to a stall close to the ground. It would be very unusual for
the plane to break up due to it's strength. This means when we fly close
to the ground, we need to watch our airspeed closely. I enjoy circling
over friends houses, but it could prove deadly if I lost track of my
speed.
There are literally dozens of things to think about to make the plane
safer in a crash, but if we get too concerned about crashing then maybe
we should not be flying in the first place. The first guy that crashed
was obsessed with the thought that he would crash his plane. Did he plan
his own fate?
Leave the design the way it is and put your energies into becoming a
safer pilot.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
>
> One of my concerns with a Kolb is the location of the fuel tanks
> right
> behind the pilot/passenger. You could survive a crash but burn up in
> a
> fire due to fuel tank rupture and subsequently being drenched with
> fuel.
> I have considered optional locations. One idea I had was fuel pods
> aside
> the fuselage mounted on extensions welded to the fuselage. It would
> add
> to drag but be safer in the event of a crash. Could even be made
> detachable in an emergency. Any thoughts? Kirk
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <George_Bass_0(at)hotmail.com> |
Don't know if this will help your decision making process,
but, I've been carrying around one fuel tank from the old
days, hoping I can find a matching tank (making a pair).
The pics are small, hope they are clear enough. Notice
the black dot (sort of) on each end of the raised portion,
where the outlet and the filler cap are located. these are
the only mounting areas and they have been used like this
on many an ultralight.
I've seen them on CGS Hawks, QuickSilvers, T-Birds
and others. Only problem I know of is the effort to get
the fuel from the tank to the engine. Most often done by
adding an electric fuel pump. Most had them mounted on
the wings (away from the cockpit, to satisfy your needs) &
usually at the point at which the STRUTS met the WING.
Hope this was at least informative. George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
But being severely burned and living through what he did scares the
>living hell out of me. ...........Kirk
>
Kirk,
May be you should take up soaring. No fuel directly involved.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Kirk,
>
> May be you should take up soaring. No fuel directly involved.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
Sounds like a viable alternative at first glance. However it severely limits
my range. Won't allow floats or winter flying in Michigan on skiis. Thanks
for your input though. :o)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> The pics are small, hope they are clear enough. Notice
> the black dot (sort of) on each end of the raised portion,
> where the outlet and the filler cap are located. these are
> the only mounting areas and they have been used like this
> on many an ultralight.
>
Thanks George,
No pics though??? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
I share your concern about the fire factor. I made a fuel tank out of
aluminum (11.5gal) and have used a fiberboard rear firewall to act as a
splash guard and mount for a couple of radios. Duel purpose. It added less
than 10lbs over the plastic 10gal tank and ceconite rear firewall. Extra
weight, yes - but it looks good and gives a little extra peace of mind. I
left the fuel tank where it was. Have a freind who suggested making axil.
tanks out of alum. pipe used in plumbing and mounted at the upper wing
attachment points then plumb a "y" feed tube into the main tank with an
on/off valve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>One of my concerns with a Kolb is the location of the fuel tanks right
>behind the pilot/passenger. You could survive a crash but burn up in a
>fire due to fuel tank rupture and subsequently being drenched with fuel.
>Any thoughts? Kirk
I've never read about an ultralight crash where there was a fire involved.
However, I think in a "Cessna" engine out your chances are about 50/50 on
getting toasted (unless you've run out of gas). I've seen two "really bad"
Kolb accidents myself. Both totally destroyed the planes. One hit the
ground after doing some major aerobatics minus some wing parts - at
probably a terminal velocity of 130mph - no fire. Geo Murphy could tell
you what that looked like, if he is still on the list (the 447 block was
flattened by the impact). In the other incident I was the lucky guy that
got to go into the woods to retrieve what I thought was going to be a
repeat of the first episode. This Firestar II managed to come full
throttle through the 70 ft trees 100 yards short of the field- tearing
apart everything "but" the fuselage. And guess what, the guy had nothing
but a broken arm - and wouldn't have had that if he had keep his arm inside
the cockpit. He was still strapped into the cage and mumbling about
something or other. Later he said he couldn't remember anything after he
hit the first tree. I later retrieved most of the hardware (always can use
new hardware) and the gas tanks. They were like new.
Those little milk jugs can take a lot more than you think. Wouldn't use
them myself, but there're stronger than you might image.
Always wondered if I would pull the chute if there was a fire. Gas burns up
the risers if you climb and drips down on you if you don't.
BTW: I finally got to experience a broken throttle cable last Saturday
(another thing I dream about) while coming back from a flyin. Actually it
didn't break all the way though, still had one strand left that keep
unraveling and getting longer until I went to idle. It happened while I
was setting up for a landing back at the field so I guess I was lucky -
we got lots of woods around our field.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles" <chieppa47(at)attbi.com> |
Hi All,
I am looking to fly a KOLBRA --- are there any out there?
Thanks Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting toasted |
A year or so ago there was a FS2 in our area that went down on the gentlemans
maiden flight (fatal) and it did burn, from what the picture in the paper
looked like. I do not know the cause of the accident, but I do know that it
had been test flown by a BFI just before this flight and he was okay with it.
Mike Anderson (somewhere in the Modesto, Calif. area) could tell you more
about this as he was the BFI.
I personally think the idea of designing our aircraft to be as crash
survivable as possible is a smart idea. All the training in the world does
not prevent DoDo from happening at the worst possible time and no matter who
you are or how good you are - when it rains on your parade, you have the
potential to get wet. This is why race cars have all that fancy roll cage
and fire extiquisher stuff.
The GWFGs (Great White Flying Gods) in the sky give us that fear factor not
to discourage us from flying but to encourage us to do all we can to make
sure we can walk away from even the bad ones. Its that "old pilots / bold
pilots" thing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jawmson" <jawmson(at)attbi.com> |
Charles and Gang,
I think my just completed Kolbra is the first customer built one to fly.
The only other Kolbra's flying are the #2 and #3 ships in Kentucky.
Several more are under construction but have not heard of any other
completions.
I am in the process of Phase 1 flight testing but would be glad to take you
up when I get my time flown off.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
N49KK
King Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
http://home.attbi.com/~kolbrapilot/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting toasted |
>
>
> I personally think the idea of designing our aircraft to be as crash
>survivable as possible is a smart idea. . This is why race cars have all
>that fancy roll cage
>and fire extiquisher stuff.
If your going to soar that thing with a 277 - you don't have room for all
that "stuff".
If you want all that "stuff" put on a 503.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <George_Bass_0(at)hotmail.com> |
Guess I blew it again. Deleted the pics after I sent them.
Will take more tomorrow and try again.
Sorry
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cal" <cgreen01(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | For Sale: Firestar and trailer |
Hi Guys,
I decided to sell my 90% completed firestar and the enclosed trailer I
had built for it, if anyone is interested I have a few pic's I can
email, or if anyone wants to see them I live 30 miles from Oshkosh, you
can stop by on your way to EAA.
Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting toasted |
I agree with you on that one. I have rebuilt it with a 503 DC on it and lots
of "stuff" which should be nice for long x/c flights but will be way to heavy
for soaring.
I still need to get a pair of FS2 wings to up the GW to handle all this (
anyone know of a pair in search of a good home?) and get it in the air again.
Once I finish this, I plan to remove just about all of the "stuff", change
over to the 277 (again, anyone know one in search of a good home? I promise
to feed it well and pet it all the time), smaller fuel tank - and try the
glide thing!
Just a dream I have been working on for a long, long time
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting toasted |
I'm sorry nothing personal, Ok this is my vent page.
- Once in a while FNG's rouse me from my comatose state. We can't tell what
will kill us. We can only guess - the answer is up ahead somewhere.
Somewhere up ahead and patiently waiting for us to arrive. I hope they
would listen, I expect, because they are curious.
All of us carry private memories and, I think, a few ghosts as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Some of my logic; Most crashes are nose first. The fuel is ahead of the
> engine and exhaust system which would be the most likely source of ignition.
Kirk/Gang:
Can you name any post crash fires in ultralights? Kolb
ultralights?
The ultralight industry has been extremely lucky because
there are very few post crash fires. In 18 years I can only
name one I read about, a couple in a Rans Cuyote(?) in the
D/FW area I think.
If you hit nose first hard enough to get buried under the
engine and exhaust system, you probably won't need to worry
about fire.
Crash worthy fuel cells have been in use for many years. We
had them in our Army helicopters.
Most Kolb casulaties are probably caused by poor and lack of
instruction, and improper and lack of training.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Have a freind who suggested making axil.
> tanks out of alum. pipe used in plumbing and mounted at the upper wing
> attachment points then plumb a "y" feed tube into the main tank with an
> on/off valve.
Hi Gang:
I do not know the author of the above comment because he
does not sign his name to his posts.
My question is: Why go to the bother of hanging aux tanks
on the lift struts? Why didn't you make your main aluminum
tank large enough to meet your needs?
Eleven and a half years ago we welded up a .050" 5052
aluminum fuel tank of 25 gal ultimate capacity for my MK
III. Works great. Never had a leak, although I did slosh
it extremely well with Randolph Slosh Sealer for auto and
aviation fuel. Got the capacity right the first time
around. Don't need to hang little tanks all over my
airplane. Seems hanging tanks outside the protection of the
4130 welded tube cage is asking for a post crash fire or at
least a fuel spill and bath.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Hi John h,
I mentioned the aux tank system only as an idea that had been passed on to me
as a potential place and way to put extra fuel when space is not available
inside the cage. I fly an original FS and have pretty much used up all of
the space available. The tank I made holds 11.5 gal. (it fills every inch
available) and there are times (although not always) I would like more fuel -
but as I said, this is the largest tank that will fit. If an orig. FS wants
more fuel, options are limited and the safety compromise comes into play
(your post crash senario). The alum. tubes I mentioned are a potential
alternative to the plastic ones commercially available. The mount location
seems to offer some + and some - over hanging it out on the strut (which is
where most people seem to put theirs).
I agree that "hanging little tanks all over the outside of the 4130 cage" is
not the best of all worlds and I am pleased that those flying MKIII's and
other models have the space available to avoid such potential hazards, the
increase in drag they create, etc.. I am also pleased that you were "able to
get the capacity right the first time around". I personally have not always
managed perfection on the first try and appreciate that more experienced
builders such as yourself are out there to help and guide those of us
learning via the trial and error method. The considered and thoughtful
feedback from other builders and pilots such as yourself will certainly
ultimately help to refine and/or eliminate ideas submitted to the Kolb list.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
I am finally able to get back on line after a virus wiped out my
windows operating files and report on my trip over to see BB's MK 111.
It looks very good with some rather interesting innovations.It
has a Suzuki Geo 3 cylinder with a Raven redrive and a Warp drive heavy
HP hub. But the throttle linked to the brakes is slick.How about some
pictures ,Bob?
Nice airstrip too ! ........although the grass was a bit long for
the ULtrastar Weedwhacker .....
Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rayfield, Bill" <brayfield(at)kcc.com> |
Question:
What does the throttle/brake linkage do exactly?
Bill Rayfield
Kimberly-Clark, Corp.
Global Nonwovens Engineering
phone: (770) 587-8371
fax: (770) 587-7703
email: brayfield(at)kcc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Steuber [mailto:esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: BB's Big Bird
I am finally able to get back on line after a virus wiped out my
windows operating files and report on my trip over to see BB's MK 111.
It looks very good with some rather interesting innovations.It
has a Suzuki Geo 3 cylinder with a Raven redrive and a Warp drive heavy
HP hub. But the throttle linked to the brakes is slick.How about some
pictures ,Bob?
Nice airstrip too ! ........although the grass was a bit long for
the ULtrastar Weedwhacker .....
Ed in Western NY
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.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BB's Big Bird |
Bill and Kolbers, I posted a poor shot from my files to photoshare.
Probably take a day or so to come up. The linkage is slip in normal
throttle range, but back of idle stop actuates the master cyl.
--no differential braking. The bellcrank at the carb will have
a compensator spring . The throttle handle had to be beefed
and you can see a brace going forward from the pivot point.
Stuff like this slows things down (right Lar?) -BB
"Rayfield, Bill" wrote:
>
> Question:
> What does the throttle/brake linkage do exactly?
>
> Bill Rayfield
> Kimberly-Clark, Corp.
> Global Nonwovens Engineering
> phone: (770) 587-8371
> fax: (770) 587-7703
> email: brayfield(at)kcc.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Steuber [mailto:esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com]
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: BB's Big Bird
>
>
>
> I am finally able to get back on line after a virus wiped out my
> windows operating files and report on my trip over to see BB's MK 111.
> It looks very good with some rather interesting innovations.It
> has a Suzuki Geo 3 cylinder with a Raven redrive and a Warp drive heavy
> HP hub. But the throttle linked to the brakes is slick.How about some
> pictures ,Bob?
> Nice airstrip too ! ........although the grass was a bit long for
> the ULtrastar Weedwhacker .....
> Ed in Western NY
>
> 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.
>
> ==============================================================================
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
I was asked how many Kolbs I've seen crash and burn. Not a single one.
Actually I've seen more space shuttles burn than Kolbs. The best and
brightest aeronautical/technical minds on the planet overlooked or
ignored a simple gasket. The tiny leak became a major explosion seen
round the world. Some fine people "slipped the surley bonds of earth and
touched the face of God".......................I have a ballistic chute
for my plane, it works best when open. So does my
mind................Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
SR3SA2L1/Gang:
What is your name and where are you from?
> I fly an original FS and have pretty much used up all of
> the space available. The tank I made holds 11.5 gal. (it fills every inch
> available) and there are times (although not always) I would like more fuel -
but as I said, this is the largest tank that > will fit.
OK. Where there is a will, there is usually a way. First
thing I discovered when I started flying my new Ultrastar in
1984, was it didn't have enough fuel capacity. Two each 1
3/4 gal go kart tanks did not feed the Cuyuna II 02 for more
than enough time to fly a couple hour cross country. Called
Kolb and they sent me another 1 3/4 gal tank which I mounted
above the engine for my reserve tank with valve to gravity
feed into the bottom two tanks under my knees.
When it came time to build the Original Firestar I knew I
wanted more fuel to feed the 447. Bought a Ken Brock 9 gal
seat tank (turned out to be an 8 gal seat tank) plus the
orginal 5 gal plastic jug. This gave me 13 gal useable, but
the seat was large and I had to remember to drain the rear
tank into the front tank when I got two hours on the meter.
This I did not always remember, or on occassion flew harder
than planned, which resulted in some off field dead stick
landings. Rebuilt and reconfigured the Firestar with a 18
gal useable alum tank. Fit into the top rear portion of the
fuselage just like the one on my MK III. Left the bottom
rear of the fuselage open for cargo compartment. Was able
to get all my XC gear inside the aircraft rather than sling
loading my sleeping bag between the gear legs.
Of course when we built the MK III it was a no brainer to go
ahead and have plenty fuel. We designed and built the 25
gal tank for use with the 582 at 5.5 gph. Then went to the
912 at 4 gph, and now with the 912S at 5 gph.
Somebody mentioned NASCAR, roll cages, and fire extinguisher
systems. Our Kolb fuselages are 4130 roll cages. That's
where the fuel tanks need to be installed, as designed,
inside the cages.
I have had a halogen fire extinguisher on board my aircraft
since I built my Firestar and the small halogen bottles
became available. How many of you other
ultralighters/lightplaners have a fire extinguisher on
board? If you never use it you are ahead of the game. I
have used mine once on an electrical fire. It was worth
every penny at that time. The fire was the epoxy burning in
the reg/rec under a brand new 912. :-) Miss Piff'er still
has the black smudges on parts of her airframe to remind me
that it can happen.
SR3SA2L1, we are a friendly bunch here on the Kolb Builders
List. Most of us know each other and where we are from and
where we fly. How about you?
Take care,
john h
hauck's holler, Titus, Alabama
If an orig. FS wants
> more fuel, options are limited and the safety compromise comes into play
> (your post crash senario). The alum. tubes I mentioned are a potential
> alternative to the plastic ones commercially available. The mount location
> seems to offer some + and some - over hanging it out on the strut (which is
> where most people seem to put theirs).
>
> I agree that "hanging little tanks all over the outside of the 4130 cage" is
> not the best of all worlds and I am pleased that those flying MKIII's and
> other models have the space available to avoid such potential hazards, the
> increase in drag they create, etc.. I am also pleased that you were "able to
> get the capacity right the first time around". I personally have not always
> managed perfection on the first try and appreciate that more experienced
> builders such as yourself are out there to help and guide those of us
> learning via the trial and error method. The considered and thoughtful
> feedback from other builders and pilots such as yourself will certainly
> ultimately help to refine and/or eliminate ideas submitted to the Kolb list.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Kirk,
Understand your concern about the fuel tank, I had the same concerns when I
started flying UL's. For a Kolb if the tank is secured as per the design,
I would leave it alone. Kolbs haven't had any past history that I recall
of cash and burn problems, not saying it never has or could happen.
My bigger fear is your redesign of the tanks could induced more problems
than it solves. If Kolbs had the history of Ford Pinto gas tanks, then I
would agree to making a change, but there hasn't been a history of this
being a problem. I've seem too many cases where the builder selected the
plane due to it past safety history and then decides they need to
re-engineer and change things to make it better, safer, stronger, thus
induced many unknowns. Build it to the plans, keep it light, and just
fly. Any major changes you make will add weight which increases stall
speed. With increase in speed, now you have altered the survivability
factor should you have a crash. You'll be surprised what just much a few
additional MPH will do.
I have more concern with using rubber grommets in bottom of the tank for a
the fuel pickup. We use a top feed with a pick on end of a hose (flop
tube). I believe Sky Sports sells the pickup. Same concept used in Van's
RV's. It flops around in the bottom of the tank.
Another thing is how you vent your tank. You should have a vent line that
runs down to the slightly below the level of the bottom of the tank just in
case you become inverted you don't have fuel coming out the vent.
Another item many planes have the primer line tee'd into the main fuel
line. If that fragile with 1/8" barb cracks or breaks off, you going
down. The fuel pump will suck air, the engine will quit. (Note, if you do
this I recommend the use of the metal barb T fitting, I believe its
available from Lockwood.) On my Hawk I've gone to a manifold mounted at
the top of my tank. It has three tubes, one 1/8" for the vent, two 1/4",
one for vent and other for the fuel pickup. I also strap the tank down, no
bungee cords.
jerryb
Fuel Tank Vent - I got tired of having fuel fumes in the cockpit so I took
action. I purchased a metal valve stem assembly for a wheel at a NAPA auto
parts or any large tire industrial/truck tire center. (There used on metal
wheels like farm wagons.) While the typical rubber auto stem might work,
stay with the metal one.) This assembly includes a threaded metal valve
stem having a large flat washer at it's base the size of a nickel or
quarter, a washer which goes on the outside of the tank, a nut to secure
it, and 2 different size rubber bushings which seal the hole. They range
from $3-$4 per kit.
Remove the valve core from the stem. Install the value stem at top most
part of the tank. Attach 1/4" tubing to it and route the vent line down
side of the tank. It must be lower than the bottom to prevent leakage
should the tank become inverted such as if the airplane were to over
turn. Works like a champ.
>
>
> > Kirk, i would leave the tank where it is, first of all you may never
> > even crash in a kolb, 2nd of all how do you know the gas will ignite
>behind
> > you more than by the side where it hits the ground first? and last but not
> > least you will likely get out in the high probability this circumstance
>will
> > even happen. and if you do crash, how do you know what attitude you will
>be
> > in when it does? it may be in a cross wind and be struck by the side, then
> > your screwed. i'am glad to see that you are safety conscious but stick
>with
> > the design and don't deviate from it too much, you may change more than
>you
> > think. let me know if any has even tested this method.
>
>Gary,
> Some of my logic; Most crashes are nose first. The fuel is ahead of the
>engine and exhaust system which would be the most likely source of ignition.
>Fuel spills and fumes will be ignited by this. I'm underneath it all. You
>know they do put floats on Kolbs? I recently saw a movie produced by Exxon
>and narrated by an Exxon employee who survived a fire. He was doing a job
>he'd done for 20 years and said it would never happen to him. He was the
>most skilled guy there was on the job where the accident occured. He just
>overlooked obvious danger because it never happened to him. He was burned
>over 50% of his body and as he said " If you're unfortunate enough to live
>through that, what you will go through afterward is the most ungodly horror
>a human being can endure. " He went on for several minutes describing the
>horror chamber burn patients go through. Personally I'm not all that
>afraid of of dying in a plane crash. At least I'll die doing what I love to
>do. But being severely burned and living through what he did scares the
>living hell out of me. ...........Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Dear Mr. Hauck,
Thank you for your reply and the info on how you solved your fuel problem.
When I built my fuel tank I fit it to the original site of the 5 gal tank
that came with the FS. I was concerned with creating an aft CG problem if I
put a larger or additional tank in the cage behind that (and I wanted that
for area for other items). Personally I do like the idea of the seat tank
and also of having all fuel protected by the cage, however, based on what I
see others doing (and thanks to the wonders and joys of being EXP status
aircraft) I do not believe that an in cage aux fuel system is always going to
be used or is even always an option. I would agree that safety is compromised
when fuel is not protected and that should be of major concern, which is why
I mentioned the use of alum vs plastic. In a perfect world...
In the interest of overall safety it may be worth noting that I read in a one
of the GA mags that fuel starvation ( ie running out of gas and/or basically
clogged fuel system) accounts for 66% of engine outs. Although we can land
in much smaller spaces and at lower airspeeds and we should always have a
safe landing site under us and we are all supposed to be experts at
deadsticks etc., etc. we are probably in more danger, statistically, of
getting hurt from lack of fuel than we are from where we put the extra fuel
to prevent the problem (crash) in the first place. Again, in a perfect
world...
Yes, I do have a halogen fire extinguisher on board and an additionl small
one for gas fires. I have used the one for gas fires once - but not on my
plane. A farmer in a field next to the airpark had an engine fire in his
truck and I used it to put that out for him.
Did you use the 7 rib wing when you built your orig FS? Do you recall the GW
wet and fully loaded?
My name is Steve Roby and I live in Turlock, Calif. I am rebuilding an orig
FS which I have owned since the early 90s and I have my PPL. I intend to
register the FS as an EXP when it is finished (although I have not yet
researched the process and will be ordering a book on the process soon). As
a relatively low time pilot and inexperianced builder I welcome any advise
from those who have been there and done it and am always open to suggestion
and/or new ideas.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Guys,
Actually a fuel tank wouldn't have to break due to the impact of a
crash. It could be punctured by an object such as broken aluminum
tubing. Even a rod flying out the bottom of a blown engine. Could have a
wear spot un-noticed that is a weak point and gives way at the worst
time. I really think that giving as much protection as possible to the
fuel tank behoves us all. When you're sitting in front of a bomb what
can it hurt? Inside the cage where it is , is a good idea. However there
are some shortfalls that can be improved upon. I think that improving on
that system would only help everyone including Kolb. I work for GM and
safety is the number one customer priority now. It sells! Maybe the
jugs inside an aluminum box filled with spray foam insulation? Minimum
weight change. A fire wall of some sort between the pilot and fuel
cells? Comments?........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting toasted |
One hit the
> ground after doing some major aerobatics minus some wing parts - at
> probably a terminal velocity of 130mph - no fire
The dirt it was buried in probably snuffed the fire out! LOL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Kirk,
I have seen a some crashed Firestar II's, and the tanks have survived
except one. It had a leaking crack where the small diameter tube kept it
from moving forward. A forward pan similar to the under pan would
probably be an improvement.
John Jung
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
>snip
>
>Comments?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
It had a leaking crack where the small diameter tube kept
it
> from moving forward.
John Jung/Guys:
Any ideas how old the tank was? Must have made a crinkled
or something similar to start a tear/rupture. Usually these
plastic tanks take a lot of abuse before they fail.
However, UV light shortens their life drastically, just like
it does all the plastic fuel lines. Problem being, they
still look serviceable when they are not.
John: Are you going to be a Oshkosh? How far is your
airstrip from OSH? Any possibility of me and Miss P'fer
dropping by before, during, or after the air show?
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I work for GM and
> safety is the number one customer priority now. It sells! Maybe the
> jugs inside an aluminum box filled with spray foam insulation? Minimum
> weight change. A fire wall of some sort between the pilot and fuel
> cells? Comments?........Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
Yep. :-) I am answering with a smile. If I was pissed I
might address you as Mr. Smith. :-)
The above is an overkill in my opinion. I don't sell
airplanes. I just builds 'em and flies 'em.
I think you will find that if the impact is hard enough the
plastic cap will blow off the plastic tank. It does not
take much force to do that.
One of the reasons for very few post crash fires in
ultralights is that most do not have batteries, there are
not a lot of live wires running throughout the airframe to
start a fire, the engines are not that hot and they usually
shut down right away after the crash, during, or are shut
down prior to the crash, they do not carry that much fuel
(if they are legal), they normally do not hit the ground
very hard (as compared to a much heavier faster airplane).
Fuel tanks, alum, plastic, do not seem to rupture in ULs
like cells in real airplanes.
Take care,
john h
PS: Keep it simple! Keep it safe!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
>
> Yep. :-) I am answering with a smile. If I was pissed I
> might address you as Mr. Smith. :-)
> I think you will find that if the impact is hard enough the
> plastic cap will blow off the plastic tank. It does not
> take much force to do that.
John,
:o)) Me tooo! Though I have been pissed at helicopter pilots in the
distant past. They are all old guys now though.....LOL So it pops it cork
heh? Sort of like a drinking fountain for the pilot then.....Hmmmmm....One
of the things I don't like about the plastic is as you stated. Ultraviolet
rad rips it up.........Well I got another idea .......4 each, 6 inch
diameter by 30 inches long aluminum tube like the spars are made of. 1 tube
6 inches by 18 inches. put together in the manner of a pipe organ. Short
tube in the middle. Connecting ports between tubes tops and bottoms in all.
Then side walls and end walls of aluminum. Filler on top, drain on the
bottom to check for water. All mounted vertically behind the pilot passenger
where the plastic tanks are approximately. If you follow my drift. Would be
virtually no change in CG as fuel was burned. Stronger, no ultrapink rad
rash. Would improve storage area in rear of fuselage. Light stuff of
course. Would be further from engine. More crash survivable. Simple fuel
gauge installation. About 16 gallons capacity. And a lot
purdier............Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
.........Well I got another idea .......4 each, 6 inch
> diameter by 30 inches long aluminum tube like the spars are made of. 1 tube
> 6 inches by 18 inches. put together in the manner of a pipe organ. Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
Go for it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N.B. DelMore" <mk3(at)bailinair.com> |
Why not just get a beer keg and convert same ...
(actually, have a look at tanks made for dune buggys etc.)
Noel
Nashua, NH
MK III
http://www.bailinair.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:45 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ruptured
>
>
>
> >
> > Yep. :-) I am answering with a smile. If I was pissed I
> > might address you as Mr. Smith. :-)
> > I think you will find that if the impact is hard enough the
> > plastic cap will blow off the plastic tank. It does not
> > take much force to do that.
>
>
> John,
> :o)) Me tooo! Though I have been pissed at helicopter
> pilots in the
> distant past. They are all old guys now though.....LOL So
> it pops it cork
> heh? Sort of like a drinking fountain for the pilot
> then.....Hmmmmm....One
> of the things I don't like about the plastic is as you
> stated. Ultraviolet
> rad rips it up.........Well I got another idea .......4 each, 6 inch
> diameter by 30 inches long aluminum tube like the spars are
> made of. 1 tube
> 6 inches by 18 inches. put together in the manner of a pipe
> organ. Short
> tube in the middle. Connecting ports between tubes tops and
> bottoms in all.
> Then side walls and end walls of aluminum. Filler on top, drain on the
> bottom to check for water. All mounted vertically behind the
> pilot passenger
> where the plastic tanks are approximately. If you follow my
> drift. Would be
> virtually no change in CG as fuel was burned. Stronger, no
> ultrapink rad
> rash. Would improve storage area in rear of fuselage. Light stuff of
> course. Would be further from engine. More crash survivable.
> Simple fuel
> gauge installation. About 16 gallons capacity. And a lot
> purdier............Kirk
>
>
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tank inovation |
I have a Georgia friend who silver solded 1 gal.metal rectangulur piant
thinner cans ento end & stuffed them in the wing. they made excelent tank
tanks that were baffled & stackable. The way he talked about them, you'd
think they were his proudest achievement. The made me grin.
...Richard Swiderski, Ocala FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ruptured
>
> .........Well I got another idea .......4 each, 6 inch
> > diameter by 30 inches long aluminum tube like the spars are made of. 1
tube
> > 6 inches by 18 inches. put together in the manner of a pipe organ. Kirk
>
> Kirk/Gang:
>
> Go for it.
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
)........and got to thinking (??).........in Nov., it'll be 6 yrs
> since I started Vamoose. I better shut up and get to work
6 years..... that should put us back to about 1996.... I joined the list in
'95 and I'll testify that ol Lar has been a perpetual inspiration to the
list all those years.... back then the list wasn't even run by Matronics in
those days... ( who then?? a good trivia question!)
There have been a lot of Kolb messages posted on this list since then......
8,123 if you're looking for a number. A GREAT deal of information has been
exchanged during that time and for sure - I believe that I fly a much safer
Firestar because of the information exchanged by all of the contributors..
But back to Ol Lar.... when I read a post from him I always look forward to
his compassionate, positive tone that accompanies his messages. Never a
negative or caustic flavor to his language..... we can all learn from his
etiquette! But this is his natural nature of his personality.
I got a chance to meet him last year and inspect his handiwork. YOU try
building a MK3 on a porch! You gotta see it to believe it. I recommend a
pilmgrimage to his place if you get the chance. It's kinda a religious
experience.
I would like to return to visit him again some time and FLy with him in his
Kolb.... but -- how should I approximate how long before Vamoose is
finished?
Jon
near Green Bay
www.joncroke.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Cowan" <tcowan1917(at)direcway.com> |
well, one thing I gotta say is you young guys have better bladders than I. I
have five gals in my original firestar and have a three gal tank that slips
into the area of the center gap seal. works great. I want you all to know
that no matter what time of day, I have all I can do to fly out eight gals
of gas without stopping to pee. mo gas is not my problem unless I cannot
get mo somewhere. I burn three gals an hour no matter how I fly. We
generally have places to refuel within an hour or so flying time. This is
supposed to be fun, no druggery. My idea of fun flying is not four hours in
the air. If I wanted that, I would have a big real plane. my opinion.
Just to remind the world that some of us are still just doing it for fun!!
Ted Cowan, Alabama.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Old fueltank poop...... |
One of the most dangerous fuel tank installations I've seen is a tank
that was placed in the gap seal space and wrapped around the engine,
completely exposed outside the cage. I can see where hitting a gopher
hole that flipped the plane on it's back could cause that sucker to
blow. Reminds me of the old days of snowmobiles where some had the fuel
tanks in the front of the sled. Saw one of those hit a tree at no more
than 30 mph and it blew.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Throttle - brake linkage |
Bill Rayfield and gang,
I don't want to steal BB's thunder , but the throttle -brake
setup on his MK3 is a good innovation provided you have a full swivel
tailwheel. It has a beefed up throttle shaft that works in the normal
throttle fashion and is independent in normal idle to WOT. When you want
brakes, you merely apply the necessary pressure to the rear for both
main wheels and the throttle linkage is not in the game at this point. A
hydraulic lock is incorporated for runups . Neat !
Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
John and Group,
The tank that leaked after a crash should not have been old. The plane
had 15 hours and was in it's first year. It had been built in less than
a year, also. The tank was not discolored and looked new. It was
probably full when the plane stalled in, and the plastic kinked at the
corner where it stretched around the forward brace, causing a slight
rupture or tear. Now that I think about it, I wonder why I didn't change
the design on my own Firestar II. I guess my first concern was to get
the plane flying quickly by keeping it simple. I had forgotten about
that tank until this thread came up.
John Jung
John Hauck wrote:
>
> It had a leaking crack where the small diameter tube kept
>it
>
>>from moving forward.
>>
>
>John Jung/Guys:
>
>Any ideas how old the tank was? Must have made a crinkled
>or something similar to start a tear/rupture. Usually these
>plastic tanks take a lot of abuse before they fail.
>However, UV light shortens their life drastically, just like
>it does all the plastic fuel lines. Problem being, they
>still look serviceable when they are not.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Blair wants to know if he should switch to a Slingshot |
Blair,
I would like to hear that you had solo experience and more pilot time
before soloing a Firestar much less a Slingshot. Since you made the
decision to "go fo it", please don't be in a rush and be careful.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Charles,
If you don't line up a Kolbra, a Mark II or III is good preparation for
a Firestar. I got dual time in a Mark III before I flew my first
Firestar. A Mark II is even closer to a Firestar.
John Jung
Charles wrote:
>
>Hi All,
>
>I am looking for some time (flight training) in a Kolb Kolbra --- will drive
>to your location. I may or may not have my Firestar with me. The plan
>would be to get to a safe level (flight training) and solo the Firestar
>
>Thanks, Charles
>
>
>er List members.
> List Specific: http://www.matronics.com/kolb-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> The tank idea you mention sounds pretty decent....
> My comment is on seeing something similar on a Titan. This nut
used PVC
> pipes though. He had three sections, connected on the ends as you
mention,
> but his pipes were install horizontally with the fuel pickup on the
back
> end! Imagine how attitude could affect your fuel pickup. Also, gas
was not
> very friendly to the cement he used to stick the pipes together
with.....
>
>
> Bill Rayfield
PVC!!!!!!!!!! I think its important to avoid flamable materials like
plastics. I'm debating now as to whether to have the fuel common to
all the tubes or maybe have it like 2 separate tanks with a fuel tank
selector. Comments?
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
"Relief" tube.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Sounds like you're getting ready for a trip to the roto-rooter man. What
Fun ! ! ! :-) Been there done that Lar. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Cowan" <tcowan1917(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: x-tra gas
>
> well, one thing I gotta say is you young guys have better bladders than I.
I
> have five gals in my original firestar and have a three gal tank that
slips
> into the area of the center gap seal. works great. I want you all to
know
> that no matter what time of day, I have all I can do to fly out eight gals
> of gas without stopping to pee. mo gas is not my problem unless I cannot
> get mo somewhere. I burn three gals an hour no matter how I fly. We
> generally have places to refuel within an hour or so flying time. This is
> supposed to be fun, no druggery. My idea of fun flying is not four hours
in
> the air. If I wanted that, I would have a big real plane. my opinion.
> Just to remind the world that some of us are still just doing it for fun!!
> Ted Cowan, Alabama.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Buy GM or Ford....Keeps me employed.
>
> Will Uribe
> El Paso, TX
> FireStar II N4GU
> C-172 N2506U
Also keeps more dollars in America for Americans. Tax dollars to support
our military among others. And many of the enlisted ranks could sure use the
money. By the way, to the best of my knowledge, Japanese car companies have
not yet given to the World Trade Center disaster funds. American and
European car companies have given considerable amounts...........Do not
archive...........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Souza, Mark W" <mark.w.souza(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Tank Rutures |
Kirk and Steve,
I share your concerns about potential post crash fires. I am a list lurker.
I have not built a plane yet, but am doing the research in preparation to
building one and find this list a great resource. Even though the Kolb has a
great history in regard to crash worthiness, I would not want to be the
first recorded death due to a post crash fire (or maybe worse, the first
survivor). Crashes are very uncontrolled events. Despite a strong frame and
low mass and stall speeds, no one knows in advance which parts of the frame
may fracture and rupture the tank. And a hot engine is very close by. There
are things that can be done. The website below sells an open cell foam that
is used in the tanks of NASCAR and Fomula 1 cars. The foam allows fuel to
flow at a rate high enough to feed the engine but will retain most of the
fuel in the event of a rupture. Its function is to prevent a fire ball type
event. The foam is cut in blocks small enough to be inserted into the filler
opening of an existing fuel tank. It displaces 1 quart per 6 gallons. In
effect a 24 gallon tank would hold only 23 gallons. I can live with that. No
matter what type of plane I wind up building, I plan on installing this foam
in the fuel tank. It's worth the peace of mind.
http://www.airtech-streamlining.com/miscairtech/fuel.html
Clear Skies and Smooth Landings
Mark Souza
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Rutures |
>
> Kirk and Steve,
>
> I share your concerns about potential post crash fires. I am a list
lurker.
> are things that can be done. The website below sells an open cell foam
that
> is used in the tanks of NASCAR and Fomula 1 cars. The foam allows fuel to
> flow at a rate high enough to feed the engine but will retain most of the
> fuel in the event of a rupture. Its function is to prevent a fire ball
type
Mark,
Very interesting stuff. Will have to look deeper into that. Thanks!
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Bob Bean ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Bob Bean
Subject: Brakes
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/slyck@frontiernet.net.07.17.2002/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: | [ George Bass ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: George Bass
Subject: Wing Tank
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/George_Bass_0@hotmail.com.07.17.2002/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: | Re: Fw: Blair wants to know if he should switch to a Slingshot |
| From: | Joseph B Stevenson <mandosoul(at)juno.com> |
John, I just realized that in the note I sent you about my training ,that
I totally forgot to list my solo time .I think I was assuming you'd know
since I'd mentioned that I was about a100 hour pilot.My solo time in the
GT-500 is 69.9 hours as of 7/15/02 so basically 70 hrs. solo with 24
dual recieved = 94 tot. (so I exaggerated a little, just rounded it off)
Also Iv'e landed 380 times (the GT-500 is tri gear mind you) Since we
have quite a bite of wind up here I've landed in as much as 14-16 mph
headwind 4-6 90 degree crosswind and just aweek ago, I was practicing in
a 9-12 mph crosswind coming in at between 40-60 degrees(no exaggeration
here) that would be my record and about all I'm willing to attempt at
this time. Up until about 6-7 months ago I wouldn't fly unless the winds
were less than 5 and only if it was straight down the runway.Even then
any air movement , kinda freaked me out (by the way I did my dual in 7
straight days in Hemet Calif. last August,and soloed there at the end.My
instructor then flew the GT here to Meadowlake airport where I keep it
hangered ,he spent a few more hour's with me here dual,because airport
altitude is 6,875ft., then soloed me again and I've been goin ever since)
now I like the breeze its fun,just have to flow with it. Anyway let me
know what you think now that you have this information.Ireally appreciate
you're concern ,and feedback Blair
writes:
>
> Blair,
>
> I would like to hear that you had solo experience and more pilot
> time
> before soloing a Firestar much less a Slingshot. Since you made the
> decision to "go fo it", please don't be in a rush and be careful.
>
> John Jung
>
>
>
>
> messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Rutures |
Thank you very much! I will certainly look into this. Both of my parents
survived a plane crash because they were in a Mooney (chrome molly cage) and
no fuel fire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Old fueltank poop...... |
> Wow, that sounds terrible!
The odds are much higher that it could be. Have fun flying! :o)........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Ford used to make the Ford Tri-motor, a three engine multi passenger unit
that was quite famous in its day. To bad they got out of it. Can you
imagine the UL they could have developed by now if they had stayed in the
field! Might have been almost as good as a Kolb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 7/17/02 8:43:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com
writes:
> Ford used to make the Ford Tri-motor, a three engine multi passenger unit
> that was quite famous in its day. To bad they got out of it. Can you
> imagine the UL they could have developed by now if they had stayed in the
> field! Might have been almost as good as a Kolb.
>
Ford also made a single place light plane with a 36 hp engine called the
Flivver. It didn't go into production for a couple of reasons. 1) single
place so you couldn't train in it. (sounds like an ultralight) 2) Harry
Brooks, a close friend of Henry's, went down in the "268 racer" somewhere in
the Atlantic. If the real one flies anything like the scale model of it that
I built it wouldn't have lasted long anyway. Low wing no dihedral. The EAA
built a replica of it and was on display at Oshkosh last year.
I flew for a while yesterday evening in some of the calmest air I have flown
in this year. After getting to cruising altitude I leveled out and trimmed
the elevator and was able to fly hands off for a while. My passenger (not my
wife) and I were the same weight and the plane would fly straight and level.
We could lean to the right and after a while the plane would ever so slightly
start to roll to the right. Then we leaned back to the left and after a long
while it leveled back up and banked to the left. I also was introduced to a
couple of private strip owners in the Tellico Lake area. Had a great
evening!!!
S. Green
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 60 yeares on |
If I had the money I would go there just to help him finish his plane so
we could stop listening to his belly aching about the problems he has with
Vamoose. :)
I recommend a
>pilmgrimage to his place if you get the chance. It's kinda a religious
>experience.
________________________________________________________________________________
I had never flown before when Dan at the "old" Kold furnished me with 12
hours of instruction in their Mk. III. I was then easily able to transition
into my Firestar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tank inovation |
I would be nervous using them. I had they darn things start leaking on
there own just sitting undisturbed. I would rather try something out of
large dia. poly pipe. Our gasoline today may cause a reaction if PVC pipe
were used.
jerryb
><swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
>
>I have a Georgia friend who silver solded 1 gal.metal rectangulur piant
>thinner cans ento end & stuffed them in the wing. they made excelent tank
>tanks that were baffled & stackable. The way he talked about them, you'd
>think they were his proudest achievement. The made me grin.
>...Richard Swiderski, Ocala FL
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ruptured
>
>
> >
> > .........Well I got another idea .......4 each, 6 inch
> > > diameter by 30 inches long aluminum tube like the spars are made of. 1
>tube
> > > 6 inches by 18 inches. put together in the manner of a pipe organ. Kirk
> >
> > Kirk/Gang:
> >
> > Go for it.
> >
> > john h
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles" <chieppa47(at)attbi.com> |
Ok I have a plan ---
1. Call KOLB this Friday and ask if the KOLBRA is ready for
training.
2. Continue the search for one (KOLBRA) on the east coast.
3. Go back to chapter 62 and see if there are any Mark III's with an
instructor.
Will keep you all posted.
Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Does anybody know where I can obtain the 6 inch aluminum tubing like
that used on the Kolb? Thanks..........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum tubing |
KIrk I think there was quite a long discussion about the tubes some time
ago . check the archives , good luck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Aluminum tubing
>
> Does anybody know where I can obtain the 6 inch aluminum tubing like
> that used on the Kolb? Thanks..........Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles" <chieppa47(at)attbi.com> |
Lou,
Forgot all about Oshkosh, I still plan on calling Kolb. I am located
just west of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
Will keep you all posted. I am NOT going to solo my Firestar without
training!
Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum tubing |
Try checking prices at Kolb, and check out irrigation pipe suppliers for
6061T6 pipe. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Aluminum tubing
>
> Does anybody know where I can obtain the 6 inch aluminum tubing like
> that used on the Kolb? Thanks..........Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <wecounselman3(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Got My 277! & Lot O' Dumb Questions! |
Friends,
I spent the $500 my grandma left me when she died and
I picked up the 277 yesterday. I am sure she would
have been happy I spent it on something fun. Vince
says it has ~20 hrs on it and it looks very clean. He
said it was taken off a Chinook in favor of a 2 cyl.
engine and that he also used in on a power chute. Said
he runs Pennzoil at 50:1 and he thought the redrive
was 2.17 to 1(or something). Said I could count the
teeth on the cog and the drive and figure it out.
Anybody know that technique so I can be sure what the
redrive ratio is?
Would it be stupid to try to wheedle a prop out him or
somebody before I get the plane? Can I put the engine
on a test stand with a piece of wood for a prop and
hear it run? What grade of gas does a 277 require?
What kind of gas tanks do most people use? Where can I
get a throttle cable and a "kill switch" for a Rotax
277?
He told me the little hole in the muffler is for an
EGT and that I should buy one for tuning/safety
purposes. Where is the best place to buy a EGT and how
much will it cost?
Desmond had a cute little ASI mounted on his Chinook-
I think he called it a "Hall" or something. Looked
like a test tube with a floating stopper. He claimed
it worked well and was cheap. Anybody seen such a
thing?
Saw a cute little Flightstar take off? Anybody have
any experience with them?
Sorry if my questions sound elementary, my deaf
whopper, but I don't have much experience with 2
stroke cycles. Thanks,
"Ted"
=====
http://autos.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 60 yeares on |
It would be nice if we had a group of retired (they are the only ones with
the time) and experianced builders that could travel about the country and
split their time between flying in new areas and helping local builders
finish their planes. Or perhaps we should set up a list and map for all of
us Kolb people so no matter where we want to go fly we will have contact
pilots there that can put them up, give them a free place to hook up motor
homes, pitch a tent, etc. or at least give them info about local flying. As
long as we are dreaming, how about a dedicated list of all the extra and left
over parts,gauges and insturments we all have laying around cluttering up our
garages/hangers that list members could pass on at the cheapest ( sorry, I
meant to say "least expensive") prices. Anyone need a project or two?
If anyone on the list is ever interested in flying their Kolbs in the
Modesto/Turlock area of Calif. contact me and I will be happy to make roon in
my driveway for your moter home, or find a place to pitch your tent ( I don't
have room right now in the house yet) and give you advise about the local
flying. My next door neighbor has a pool that I could probably get you access
to also. I live 4 miles from an airpark and 7 miles from a small airport
(both uncontrolled ).
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Hi Ron,
I have an Orig FS and would like a little info on the tailwheel you were
talking about. What is the difference between this and the orig? Does it
still have the springs or is it a free swivel? Do you know the cost? What
changes did you have to make to use it? Is there a picture of this somewhere
in the archieve?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 60 yeares on |
> It would be nice if we had a group of retired (they are the only ones with
> the time) and experianced builders that could travel about the country and
> split their time between flying in new areas and helping local builders
> finish their planes.
I got dibs on John Hauk coming to finish my plane!!!! Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
It still has the springs but they are heavier. It steers just like the
original until it gets to about 25 to 30 degrees (don't hold me to these
numbers) then it releases and becomes a full swivel. As soon as it comes
back into the original range it locks back up and the springs take over. The
cost is $265.00 plus shipping and tax if you live in Ky as I do. I feel it
is well worth the cost. The only change I made is to cut I think about one
inch off the rod that it slips on. The swivel unit is about one inch longer
than the original so this puts the tail wheel in the same position as the
original. Also the new hole is not directly in line with the old hole. I
have a picture here and will try to e-mail you direct. Let me know if you
get it as I sometime have trouble getting e-mail addresses off the list.
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:29:32 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tailwheel
Hi Ron,
I have an Orig FS and would like a little info on the tailwheel you were
talking about. What is the difference between this and the orig? Does it
still have the springs or is it a free swivel? Do you know the cost? What
changes did you have to make to use it? Is there a picture of this somewhere
in the archieve?
Steve
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gearheart <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum tubing |
Kirk
The New Kolb has a bunch of scratch and dent
tubing in 5 and 6 inch od at the rear of their
factory. When I bought a tail boom tube for my Ultra
Star; I paid half price for scratch and dent
seconds. Still very usable. The 5 inch tube was 10
bucks a foot as opposed to 20 for better quality. 5
years ago I paid less than 100 bucks for a 6 inch
wing spar for my mkIII. Herb
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
>
> Try checking prices at Kolb, and check out irrigation pipe suppliers for
> 6061T6 pipe. Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
> To: "Kolblist"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Aluminum tubing
>
> >
> > Does anybody know where I can obtain the 6 inch aluminum tubing like
> > that used on the Kolb? Thanks..........Kirk
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jawmson" <jawmson(at)attbi.com> |
The same tailwheel sells in Aircraft Spruce catalog as P/N L-693 on page
215.
For the Kolb application the mount has been reamed out to 7/8 inch for the
AL rod.
Weight: 3 pounds.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
N49KK
King Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
http://home.attbi.com/~kolbrapilot/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | They Always Break Just Prior To Departure |
> I got dibs on John Hauk coming to finish my plane!!!! Kirk
Kirk/GAng:
Would really like to do that for you, but I have my own
airplane problems. During my preparation to go to OSH I
discovered a broken tailpost. This will require removal of
tail section. While I am at it I will remove the old 1991
paint and fabric, with the help of Brother Jim (he doesn't
know it yet) repair and reinforce the tailpost, recover and
repaint. This is a 1,700+ hour component that really gets a
workout because of the changes I made in the main gear to
place more weight on the tailwheel.
I had been hearing a little "tick, tick" sound when I would
preflight while pushing back and forth laterally on the
upper vertical stab and/or tail section. That was the tail
post trying to tell me it had already cracked. Has been
that way for a while. This morning I discovered the paint
cracked in the area of the break.
Am undecided at this time, but do have the option to pull
the 5th wheel to OSH or stay home and work on my airplane.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: They Always Break Just Prior To Departure |
> Kirk/GAng:
>
> Would really like to do that for you, but I have my own
> airplane problems. During my preparation to go to OSH I
> discovered a broken tailpost.
Old Murphy does get around. Sorry to hear about it but glad you found
it..........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
Kinda interesting article about 2-cycle engines (absent most specifics) but
does mention "Snowmobile maker Bombardier" and states that they "will
release a semidirect-injection engine in 2003, the first of its kind".
http://msnbc.com/news/779086.asp
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: They Always Break Just Prior To Departure |
John,
Miz P'fer will be there when you come back---so go awready.
BN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: They Always Break Just Prior To Departure |
John,
Is this the same area that it was recomended that the extra brace be put on?
Do you remember the old Kolb newsletter from a few years back? They had an
A.D. on this.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
john and all , i'm thinking about switching to a H.A.C . instead of the
standard bing on my 503 . has anyone any experence with this carburetor? I
can't find any reference to them in the archives? thanks chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
> Richard Carlisle wrote:
>
> > Ive been running them for years with no problems.
>
> Hi Richard and Gang:
>
> How does the above equate to actual hours flown?
>
> How does the tuned pipe affect the power band?
>
> How many hours are you getting on your 503's producing 12
> more HP than stock?
>
> The reason I ask is I have heard many horror stories from
> unsuspecting pilots that have been sold these pipes, only to
> ruin engines. My understanding is that the pipes are
> accompanied with instructions for setting up the carbs
> correctly, yet they still burn engines.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
charles good to hear you are almost flying , sorry we never got together .
Ther is a guy on the list that flys a mk 3 out of middleboro i think .Where
are you going to fly from? good luck Chris Davis Chatham , cape cod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles" <chieppa47(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: KOLBRA
>
> Lou,
>
> Forgot all about Oshkosh, I still plan on calling Kolb. I am located
> just west of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
> Will keep you all posted. I am NOT going to solo my Firestar without
> training!
>
> Charles
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Herren" <wmdherren(at)hotmail.com> |
>From: "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com>
>Subject: Kolb-List: 60 years on the porch
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
>
>)........and got to thinking (??).........in Nov., it'll be 6 yrs
> > since I started Vamoose. I better shut up and get to work
>
>6 years..... that should put us back to about 1996.... I joined the list in
>'95 and I'll testify that ol Lar has been a perpetual inspiration to the
>list all those years.... back then the list wasn't even run by Matronics
>in
>those days... ( who then?? a good trivia question!)
>
>There have been a lot of Kolb messages posted on this list since then......
>8,123 if you're looking for a number. A GREAT deal of information has
>been
>exchanged during that time and for sure - I believe that I fly a much safer
>Firestar because of the information exchanged by all of the contributors..
>
>But back to Ol Lar.... when I read a post from him I always look forward
>to
>his compassionate, positive tone that accompanies his messages. Never a
>negative or caustic flavor to his language..... we can all learn from his
>etiquette! But this is his natural nature of his personality.
>
>I got a chance to meet him last year and inspect his handiwork. YOU try
>building a MK3 on a porch! You gotta see it to believe it. I recommend a
>pilmgrimage to his place if you get the chance. It's kinda a religious
>experience.
>
>I would like to return to visit him again some time and FLy with him in his
>Kolb.... but -- how should I approximate how long before Vamoose is
>finished?
>
>Jon
>near Green Bay
>
>
>www.joncroke.com
>That's an easy one Jon. Keep watching the weather reports and when ya hear
>that Hell has frozen over head for Calif cause he's finished!
It's a joke Lar - calm down. Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ...H.A.C. |
Richard,
Have you been using the H.A.C. carbs or the tuned exh pipes? If its the
carbs, have you ever had to rejet, what engine are you using and what is the
highest alt. you have been to with these?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel tank rupture |
Seems like I heard/read about something like this a few years ago that
had a problem with dissolving and plugging jets.
Can't remember any particulars but be careful & check it out.
_______
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel Tank Rutures
>
> Kirk and Steve,
>
> I share your concerns about potential post crash fires. I am a list
lurker.
> are things that can be done. The website below sells an open cell foam
that
> is used in the tanks of NASCAR and Fomula 1 cars. The foam allows fuel
to
> flow at a rate high enough to feed the engine but will retain most of
the
> fuel in the event of a rupture. Its function is to prevent a fire ball
type
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
What in tarnation? I got ole Lar beat for procrastination. Started my Mark 3
in February of 93. Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum tubing |
Heyyyyyy.............I forgot............I gotta dented 6" spar out there.
Any takers ??
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herb Gearheart" <herbgh(at)nctc.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Aluminum tubing
>
> Kirk
> The New Kolb has a bunch of scratch and dent
> tubing in 5 and 6 inch od at the rear of their
> factory. When I bought a tail boom tube for my Ultra
> Star; I paid half price for scratch and dent
> seconds. Still very usable. The 5 inch tube was 10
> bucks a foot as opposed to 20 for better quality. 5
> years ago I paid less than 100 bucks for a 6 inch
> wing spar for my mkIII. Herb
>
> Larry Bourne wrote:
> >
> >
> > Try checking prices at Kolb, and check out irrigation pipe suppliers for
> > 6061T6 pipe. Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, Ca.
> > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> > http://www.gogittum.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
> > To: "Kolblist"
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Aluminum tubing
> >
> > >
> > > Does anybody know where I can obtain the 6 inch aluminum tubing like
> > > that used on the Kolb? Thanks..........Kirk
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Got My 277! & Lot O' Dumb Questions! |
>
>
>Friends,
>
>I spent the $500 my grandma left me when she died and
>I picked up the 277 yesterday. I am sure she would
>have been happy I spent it on something fun. Vince
>says it has ~20 hrs on it and it looks very clean. He
>said it was taken off a Chinook in favor of a 2 cyl.
>engine and that he also used in on a power chute. Said
>he runs Pennzoil at 50:1 and he thought the redrive
>was 2.17 to 1(or something). Said I could count the
>teeth on the cog and the drive and figure it out.
>Anybody know that technique so I can be sure what the
>redrive ratio is?
Take the spark plug out and turn the prop pulley around once. If it is
2.17:1, the engine should turn over 2.17 times. Turn the prop pully ten
turns, the engine should turn over 21.7 times. If not, at least you know
the drill. With a Rotax gearbox at 2.58:1, one turn of the prop equals 2.58
revs of the engine, etc.
>Would it be stupid to try to wheedle a prop out him or
>somebody before I get the plane? Can I put the engine
>on a test stand with a piece of wood for a prop and
>hear it run?
No.
>What grade of gas does a 277 require?
Regular.
>What kind of gas tanks do most people use?
Whatever fits the airplane, is safe, and doesn't leak.
>Where can I
>get a throttle cable and a "kill switch" for a Rotax
>277?
California Power Systems 1-800-AIRWOLF
Lockwood Aviation 1-800-LAROTAX
Or lots of other places.
Avoid Airstar Discount Sales. Problems. Junk.
>He told me the little hole in the muffler is for an
>EGT and that I should buy one for tuning/safety
>purposes. Where is the best place to buy a EGT and how
>much will it cost?
See above companies
>Desmond had a cute little ASI mounted on his Chinook-
>I think he called it a "Hall" or something. Looked
>like a test tube with a floating stopper. He claimed
>it worked well and was cheap. Anybody seen such a
>thing?
Yes. They are cheap and work well.
>
>Saw a cute little Flightstar take off? Anybody have
>any experience with them?
Yes. They are one of several good ultralights.
>Sorry if my questions sound elementary, my deaf
>whopper, but I don't have much experience with 2
>stroke cycles. Thanks,
>
>"Ted"
>
>=====
>
>
>http://autos.yahoo.com
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Adriel Heisey <adrielh(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | 912S on Kolb airplanes |
Hello Kolb-Listers,
I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated some flight time (>20 hrs) with
a 912S on any of the Kolb models?
I have a 912S on my TwinStar with about 80 hours so far. There's a pesky
engine vibration under certain conditions of load/airspeed/engine speed
that the Rotax grapevine says is characteristic of this engine on a
variety of airplanes. In my case, I've had THREE cracked/broken exhaust
tubes in those 80 hours, so the vibration is of more than academic
interest. I'm using the standard Kolb installation (developed for the
Mark III), which includes the Titan exhaust system. It's a beautiful
package, and the cracking has been completely unexpected and very
disconcerting. Titan, of course, simply says this shouldn't be
happening--they rarely get reports of a single crack, and never heard of
three on one plane.
Just searching for experiences that might help address the many
questions this conundrum raises.
Thanks!
Adriel Heisey
Tucson
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 7/18/02 9:34:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, GeoR38(at)aol.com
writes:
> Unnnngh...I have a '97 Saturn station wagon with 166,000 miles on and still
> get 40 Mpg on a trip and no problems otherwise.....
>
>
'94 Ford Aerostar Van, 301,000 + miles. I drive it to see my Firestar.
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <wecounselman3(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Thanks Richard, More Dumb Questions Later |
Thanks Richard,
Thanks for the tips. I will check out the links you
sent re: parts. I am sure i'll have more dumb
questions as I try to put this stuff together. I'll
hang out more with Vince at the airpark and eyeball
everybody else's planes and take pictures.
I did once own a Italian Harley Davidson 125cc 2
stroke motorcycle circa 1978(?). It ran well. I also
once owned a Zundap 100cc dirt bike- for about an
hour. Bought it off a guy in a bar, he told me wrong
oil ratio, I had a joy-ride with my girlfriend- then
the engine seized and never started again. Looks like
I had bought, from a guy in a bar, the only Zundap 100
in the state of California because that German
engine's parts could not be obtained. Oh, well... I
think I was out about $100.
Yours,
"Ted"
=====
http://autos.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
Would like the opinion of anyone using a Verner on their aircraft. Am
considering the purchase of this engine, but could use some feedback on
power, reliability, ease of installation etc.
Thanks,
Dave Rains
El Paso Alpha Pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org> |
I like the idea of the place to stay list. My wife and I would welcome
anyone who owns a Kolb to overnight at our place. My name is Dale Sellers
and I live in Americus, GA. We seem to be under the flight path that lots
take to SNF as many planes stop here to refuel. I work for a technical
college that sits on the edge of a 6000' runway. The College has a large
A&P school.
Anyone traveling this way, give me a call or email and you got a place to
stay, eat, sleep, shower, pitch a tent, transportation or what ever else you
need (except money, ha). We live about five miles from the airport, in the
country. Have a pool in the back yard and plenty of room. You are welcome
and expect some good ole southern hospitality.
only one requirement........you must be willing to talk airplanes.
Dale Sellers
134 Myrtle Springs Rd.
Americus, GA 31719
229-928-2610
dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org
Georgia Ultra Star!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org> |
RV's are welcome too.
Dale Sellers
Georgia Ultra Star
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A place to stay |
>
> I like the idea of the place to stay list. My wife and I would welcome
> anyone who owns a Kolb to overnight at our place.
Same goes here. Got a 2000x50 grass strip 9/27, 18 acres of camping, pond to
swim or fish in, travel trailer to sleep in, extra truck to drive to town
in. 1 mile due east of the fork dividing the north and south branches of
the Flint river. Columbiaville, Mi...........All welcome..Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912S on Kolb airplanes |
> I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated some flight time (>20 hrs) with
> a 912S on any of the Kolb models?
> Adriel Heisey
Adriel/Gents:
Good to see your post.
I am Jim Hauck's brother, John. Are you flying the same old
Twinstar with the 912S?
I have accumulated 365.5 hours on my 912S mounted on a Mark
III SN: M3-011. I have not had any vibration problems. I
have been using the Titan exhaust system since day one.
My 912S is smooth throughout the entire power band.
Some things that cause vibration are:
1. Carbs not in sync.
2. Prop blades not all pitched the same. What kind of prop
and how many blades are you running? I know four of us
running 912S here in Alabama and Georgia. All using Warp
Drive 3 blade props.
3. A poorly designed and machined prop extension can cause
vibration.
4. Loose fabric on the inboard surfaces of the wings. Had
occassion to find this out on a Kolb Sling Shot that had
been rib stitched, rather than utilizing fabric rivets.
Stitching had pulled loose causing the top inboard fabric to
billow. Created some terrible vibrations until repaired
with fabric rivets. Took a while to discover that this as
the problem.
5. Try another prop combination of the same type and make.
If that doesn't work, try another brand of prop,
combination, etc.
Good luck with the problem.
For those on the Kolb List that do not know Adriel, he has
done some beautiful photo work from his Kolb Twinstar in the
Southwestern US. Has been published in National Geographic
Magazine and has some of his on books published. You can
read about Adriel here:
http://www.adrielheisey.com/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/fourcorners/fourcorners.html
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature2/index.html
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 912S on Kolb airplanes |
Rotax has just come out with an AD on 912 exhaust pipes cracking, might
want to check it out.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Hello Kolb-Listers,
>
>I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated some flight time (>20 hrs) with
>a 912S on any of the Kolb models?
>
>I have a 912S on my TwinStar with about 80 hours so far. There's a pesky
>engine vibration under certain conditions of load/airspeed/engine speed
>that the Rotax grapevine says is characteristic of this engine on a
>variety of airplanes. In my case, I've had THREE cracked/broken exhaust
>tubes in those 80 hours, so the vibration is of more than academic
>interest. I'm using the standard Kolb installation (developed for the
>Mark III), which includes the Titan exhaust system. It's a beautiful
>package, and the cracking has been completely unexpected and very
>disconcerting. Titan, of course, simply says this shouldn't be
>happening--they rarely get reports of a single crack, and never heard of
>three on one plane.
>
>Just searching for experiences that might help address the many
>questions this conundrum raises.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Adriel Heisey
>Tucson
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
| Subject: | 912S on Kolb airplanes |
Adriel,
I know John H. threw out several good possible causes. I'll
raise one more. A flying buddy had problems on a Rans S6 (tractor
design) with a vibration. His was when he pulled back on the power to
slow down. If he didn't gradually bring the power back it would vibrate
pretty good as the engine decelerated through about 4000 rpm. He
adjusted the pitch on the prop several times and it would change the
exact rpm that the vibration would occur, but it never went away. He
spent a lot of time on the phone with Lockwood aviation in Florida, but
never could figure out anything. It was definitely engine related
though (i.e. nothing fluttering) Finally Rotax sent a couple of
engineers to the U.S. to examine a few cases (cause they were getting a
lot of calls about these weird vibrations) and they stopped by to see
his plane. Long story short, they added a slipper clutch in the gearbox.
The higher compression of the 912S was causing a little harmonic to
setup, that was doing it. All 912S's don't have the problem, but for
him the slipper clutch made the vibration disappear. They sell the
clutch for about $300. It also allows the engine to start without the
"backlash" thing that it does sometimes. If your vibration is a
constant sort of thing, then this is probably not it...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
Hello Kolb-Listers,
I'm wondering if anyone has accumulated some flight time (>20 hrs) with
a 912S on any of the Kolb models?
I have a 912S on my TwinStar with about 80 hours so far. There's a pesky
engine vibration under certain conditions of load/airspeed/engine speed
that the Rotax grapevine says is characteristic of this engine on a
variety of airplanes. In my case, I've had THREE cracked/broken exhaust
tubes in those 80 hours, so the vibration is of more than academic
interest. I'm using the standard Kolb installation (developed for the
Mark III), which includes the Titan exhaust system. It's a beautiful
package, and the cracking has been completely unexpected and very
disconcerting. Titan, of course, simply says this shouldn't be
happening--they rarely get reports of a single crack, and never heard of
three on one plane.
Just searching for experiences that might help address the many
questions this conundrum raises.
Thanks!
Adriel Heisey
Tucson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 912S on Kolb airplanes |
I sent a post a minute ago about a Rotax AD for the 912 on cracked exhaust
pipes, that was a mistake. Thought about it, went and looked it up, turned
out it was for the 914F, not the 912. Sorry.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "info" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
| Subject: | Tail repair & Oshkosh |
Hi John, we're planning on leaving for Oshkosh this evening(Friday). If
you need anything for the repair of your tail, we can still get it out
until around 4PM our time.
Otherwise, we can have it sent out Monday.
We hope you get to OSH, otherwise, there'll be quite a few people who
can give ya a full report!!
Thanks,
Jim & Dondi Miller
Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
Web Site: www.poly-fiber.com
E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuned pipes? ... |
| From: | William George <Wgeorge(at)macrevolution.com> |
Chris,
Had the HACs on my 582 and they worked beautifully. Just like a poor man's
mixture control. Took the Mk-3 to 10k feet to shoot some photos and was
still climbing at 500 fpm on arrival. Sold them real cheap to a lucky Kolber
when I went to the Verner.
Bill George
Kolb Mk-3/Verner1400SVS/Powerfin 68" "F"
> From: Kolb-List Digest Server <kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:50:01 -0700
> To: Kolb-List Digest List
> Subject: Kolb-List Digest: 41 Msgs - 07/18/02
>
> From: "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>
> john and all , i'm thinking about switching to a H.A.C . instead of the
> standard bing on my 503 . has anyone any experence with this carburetor? I
> can't find any reference to them in the archives? thanks chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
> when I went to the Verner.
>
> Bill George
Bill,
How does the Verner compare to the 582 in performance? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A place to stay |
It appears that I am not the only one who has no problem putting up with
endless hours of nothing but Kolbs, flying talk, tweaking on airplanes, using
any excuse to fly, and has a very tolerant wife (as long as I don't ask her
to fly). She fondly refers to me (and anyone else who has this particular
addiction) as "aeroheads".
I am new to the Kolb list, does anyone know how we can establish an on-line
list or section on this site for those of us willing and capable of providing
a place to stay for the traveling Kolbers? A list of our names, addresses
and a marked world map (no sense in thinking small!) showing our locations
would make it easy for anyone on the road to plan a mini flying vacation stop
on their way to ---? I know when I get mine back in the air again and a
trailer to pull it with, I don't plan on going anywhere without it hitched
securely behind my car (just in case the president should call and have
desperate need of me to go fly around for a couple of hours and check out the
local landscape or some other such emergency situation - I consider having
the Kolb with me on all travels as my patriotic duty!)
If anyone knows how to do this I will help establish and maintain the site.
Steve
Orig FS
Turlock, Calif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
If anyone else has a pair of H.A.C.s for a 503 or one for a 277 that they are
getting rid of please call me. I have a pair of the inflight mix control
carbs for the 503 now but wuld like to go the H.A.Cs
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | marv pribble <marv(at)surfbest.net> |
> I am new to the Kolb list, does anyone know how we can establish an on-line
>list or section on this site for those of us willing and capable of providing
>a place to stay for the traveling Kolbers? A list of our names, addresses
>and a marked world map (no sense in thinking small!) showing our locations
>
The mailing list already supplies the ability to do the above. Anyone
wishing to host visitors could send a message to the list with the
appropriate info (location, amenities, etc) and a keyword or phrase
(visit me! or something). Then when someone wants to go somewhere, just
search the list archives. Simpler and quicker than another !@#$#$*(
internet site.
Marv
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Places to Visit |
I'll be working in St Louis, MO for 6 weeks starting July 29, any Kolb flyers
out there?
I look at the data base kept up by Kip and John but sometime I don't know how
close the small towns are from where I'm working.
http://www.springeraviation.net/database.html
http://home.attbi.com/~kolbrapilot/
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
Lets try the archive method. We all use the "vist" title and then search
the archives when we travel
Dick Wood
519 978 0926
2633 Front Rd. Lasalle Ont.
n9j 2n2
Lasalle is across the US / Canada border at Detroit.
1500 x 75 ft runway. free camping .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A place to stay |
I know when I get mine back in the air again and a
> trailer to pull it with, I don't plan on going anywhere without it hitched
> securely behind my car
> Steve
Steve/Gang:
First, get rid of the car and trailer. Fly the Kolb where
you want to go. That is what I built my airplane
for...............to fly!!!
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com> |
Whether it be to visit, or on the way to/from Osh Kosh, Kolb pilots are
welcome to my field located just 70 mi NE from Osh Kosh, Wisconsin (30 mi NE
of Green Bay). This is beautiful Door County peninsula, the 'thumb' when you
look at a map of Wisconsin.
Address?? I live 'out in the country' so the best method is GPS
coordinates:
44 46' 13"
87 35'
Windsock, 1000' grass strip, 10 acres of camping potential, etc. Have had a
few Kolbs visit over the years.... come on by!
Visit www.joncroke.com for a picture of the area!
Jon
near Green Bay
Firestar
building CH 701 50%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A place to stay |
A great idea - now if I could only get my wife and daughter to each hang on a
gear leg when we go on vacation ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank rupture |
>
> Seems like I heard/read about something like this a few years ago that
> had a problem with dissolving and plugging jets.
> Can't remember any particulars but be careful & check it out.
I thought about that. Anytime something is added to the fuel tank there is
always a possibility of contaminants. I think I'll stick with my original
plan. Tubes with double firewalls......Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank rupture |
I think I'll stick with my original
> plan. Tubes with double firewalls......Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
How do you plan on handling your fuel lines?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank rupture |
> Kirk/Gang:
>
> How do you plan on handling your fuel lines?
>
> john h
John/Gang
I've been working over that in my mind. Top quality re-enforced lines of
course. Also I'm an electrician/electronics tech by trade and we are always
shielding and protecting electrical conductors and such. The electrical
industry has all kinds of shielding conduits etc. Ridged, flexible. I will
probably run my fuel lines in some type of conduit for extra protection.
Shouldn't add a lot of extra weight. ......as always I'm open for input on
this.....Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Steve,
Is there really a need for H.A.C.'s on Kolb with a Rotax? I had a 377 on
an original Firestar that went to 17,000 ASL while jetted to fly from
1,000 ASL. I haven't tested the limit of my 503 Firestar II, but it has
been to 12,000 to find calm air on a cross country.
John Jung
SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>If anyone else has a pair of H.A.C.s for a 503 or one for a 277 that they are
>getting rid of please call me. I have a pair of the inflight mix control
>carbs for the 503 now but wuld like to go the H.A.Cs
>
>Steve
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Hi John,
I would like to try the HACs. I don't know how much of a necessity they (or
even the in-flight mix control carbs I have now) really are to the average
pilot on the average flight, but I have a couple of special flights I would
like to try that will involve frequent changes in density altitude. It is my
thinking that these will just help to reduce potential problems and reduce
pilot work load.
I am glad to know that 12,000 ft is possible. What is your sink rate power
off on the FS2? At 500fpm you could turn off your engine and fall for 24
min. - fun!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Hi all,
I am in need of a stronger wing (I need to go from an orig FS GW to a FS2 GW)
and have just had the idea that there must be a way to strengthen the wing I
have (5 rib orig FS) instead of buying a new one and building that. $ is the
major issue (isn't it always?).
I have been coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas:
*Injecting a stiffening foam
*putting some type of carbon fiber reinforcing tube inside the wing spars
*coming up with some type of rib that I could just slit open the fabric and
pop rivet on to the spars
*drill out the old ones and add spars to the current wing and rebuild it
There is always a way -
Any ideas? Even "innovative" ones?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | I can't hold back much longer |
>
>If anyone else has a pair of H.A.C.s for a 503 or one for a 277 that they are
>getting rid of please call me. I have a pair of the inflight mix control
>carbs for the 503 now but wuld like to go the H.A.Cs
>
>Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank rupture |
Aircraft Spruce sells soft aluminum tubing in 1/4 and 5/16 that is intended
for use as fuel line. It is very easy to work with if you have a little
tubing bender.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>> Kirk/Gang:
>>
>> How do you plan on handling your fuel lines?
>>
>> john h
>
>
>John/Gang
>
> I've been working over that in my mind. Top quality re-enforced lines of
>course. Also I'm an electrician/electronics tech by trade and we are always
>shielding and protecting electrical conductors and such. The electrical
>industry has all kinds of shielding conduits etc. Ridged, flexible. I will
>probably run my fuel lines in some type of conduit for extra protection.
>Shouldn't add a lot of extra weight. ......as always I'm open for input on
>this.....Kirk
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
String heavy wires from the wingtips to the wheel axles ?? :-)
Seriously, I think you and Ken Korenek need to have a talk............he
went thru exactly the same thing, very recently, and did a huge amount of
research on it. He went ahead and built the new FS2 wings. What does that
tell ya ?? Discouraging Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am in need of a stronger wing (I need to go from an orig FS GW to a FS2
GW)
> and have just had the idea that there must be a way to strengthen the wing
I
> have (5 rib orig FS) instead of buying a new one and building that. $ is
the
> major issue (isn't it always?).
>
> I have been coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas:
> *Injecting a stiffening foam
> *putting some type of carbon fiber reinforcing tube inside the wing spars
> *coming up with some type of rib that I could just slit open the fabric
and
> pop rivet on to the spars
> *drill out the old ones and add spars to the current wing and rebuild it
>
> There is always a way -
>
> Any ideas? Even "innovative" ones?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
This was sent to me recently by a "shy Lister." I thought some of you
might find it interesting. Helpful Lar..............
http://www.aerotwinmotors.com
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
Here's another new engine. Be sure to watch the little movie to see how it
works.
www.rad-cam.com
Ron Payne
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday, July 20, 2002 01:26:48 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: New Engine
This was sent to me recently by a "shy Lister." I thought some of you
might find it interesting. Helpful Lar..............
http://www.aerotwinmotors.com
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am in need of a stronger wing (I need to go from an orig FS GW to a FS2 GW)
>and have just had the idea that there must be a way to strengthen the wing I
>have (5 rib orig FS) instead of buying a new one and building that. $ is the
>major issue (isn't it always?).
Time for one of my rude and crude repairs ideas. Inject the front and
rear spars with insulating foam. This will act like a composite aircraft
and greatly increase the strength of the tube. Remember Burt Rutans
designs are just foam with some fiberglass on top. Neither one really
strong untill you laminate them together. Concentrate more on the inboard
ribs. That is where the stress and strains are. Either remove the fabric
from the first two ribs and add in a couple more ribs there or do like you
were thinking and slit the fabric and slide in some wing batons and rivit
them on.
These ideas are just thought experiments and may not work in the real world.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Sudlow" <sudlow77(at)earthlink.net> |
Chris Sudlow
630-898-8151
aurora, il
E16 leland (50 miles west of chicago)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: visit
>
>
> Lets try the archive method. We all use the "vist" title and then
search
> the archives when we travel
>
> Dick Wood
> 519 978 0926
> 2633 Front Rd. Lasalle Ont.
> n9j 2n2
>
> Lasalle is across the US / Canada border at Detroit.
>
> 1500 x 75 ft runway. free camping .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
It seems that the most likely situation in which a fuel line would
hemorage would be a crash in which it could be hooked and torn loose or
sliced open. In the case of being torn loose I'm not sure weather the
re-enforced hose or aluminum would be better. To resist a slicing action
aluminum would seem the best . Then there is the stainless steel which
is probably the best of the three. For the small amount used it may be
the best. However it can still be hooked. So routing would be important
. If it is torn loose in a crash, it would most likely be near the
engine. So fuel could still be pumping out and onto the hot engine. This
is the area I would be most concerned about. Maybe an impact detector
could shut off the fuel pump in that situation. ................Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
> Maybe an impact detector
> could shut off the fuel pump in that situation.
> ................Kirk
If the crash is severe enough to ignite a fire, the crashed engine would
be the fuel shut-off valve.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar w/447
15 years flying it with plastic fuel lines, single Mikuni pump, original
5 gal plastic fuel tank. They are all reliable enough for me and have
proven themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> If the crash is severe enough to ignite a fire, the crashed engine would
> be the fuel shut-off valve.
In the case of an electric booster pump? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Hi Kirk,
Is there any concern about the vibration factor with alum or stan. steel fuel
lines? How would you connect them to the carbs (with a piece of regular fuel
line?)? I have wondered about using the thick auto fuel lines Vs the clear
or blue ones we usually use. It seems you seldom hear of a problem with auto
fuel lines and they take more abuse than an ultralight would give them. The
only problem I have ever heard concern about is the possibility of the inside
flaking off and clogging up something downstream if they are not changed
periodically (something we have to do with the clear stuff anyway). They are
thicker, have stronger pressure capability, less prone to UV degradation and
are more abrasion resistant. Why don't we see them used more often?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
> In the case of an electric booster pump? Kirk
You don't need one. The single Mikuni pump is reliable enough. I had one
on my plane for 8 years. Some of these guys that have an electric boost
pump on their planes have them connected in series which will do them no
good if the mechanical pump goes bad. Reason: the boost pump will only
pump fuel through the mechanical pump, through the ruptured diaphragm,
and into the crankcase of the engine via the pulse line. This raw fuel
intake will choke the engine to quit.
If an electric pump is used, they must be connected in parallel with
check valves installed.
Cheap solution: change out the pump every 3 years for $20.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Ken,
Hopefully if we are going down we will remember to hit the kill switch and
electric "master off". Can you think of a way to insure that we do that
though? Maybe wire them both up to a single "panic button".
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
John H. has recommended the neoprene auto fuel lines in the past, so I went
to them too. Not quite as sexy, but...........! ! ! Just last night , I
was talking to a friend on the phone, who's building an amphibian, and he's
got a strong fuel smell in the cockpit. He says the black fuel hose he
bought is "weeping" or "oozing" thru the rubber. Enuf to have melted the
adhesive on the aluminum duct tape he wrapped around it to try and stop the
smell. Anyone ever heard of this ?? What kind of black hose might he have
bought ?? He's.......uh.......a "thrifty" person, so it could be anything,
but I've never heard of this. I recommended he go to NAPA, and buy
"automotive neoprene fuel hose." Puzzled Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
> Hi Kirk,
>
> Is there any concern about the vibration factor with alum or stan. steel
fuel
> lines? How would you connect them to the carbs (with a piece of regular
fuel
> line?)? I have wondered about using the thick auto fuel lines Vs the
clear
> or blue ones we usually use. It seems you seldom hear of a problem with
auto
> fuel lines and they take more abuse than an ultralight would give them.
The
> only problem I have ever heard concern about is the possibility of the
inside
> flaking off and clogging up something downstream if they are not changed
> periodically (something we have to do with the clear stuff anyway). They
are
> thicker, have stronger pressure capability, less prone to UV degradation
and
> are more abrasion resistant. Why don't we see them used more often?
>
> Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Is there any concern about the vibration factor with alum or stan. steel
fuel
> lines? How would you connect them to the carbs (with a piece of regular
fuel
> line?)? I have wondered about using the thick auto fuel lines Vs the
clear
> or blue ones we usually use. It seems you seldom hear of a problem with
auto
> fuel lines and they take more abuse than an ultralight would give them.
The
> only problem I have ever heard concern about is the possibility of the
inside
> flaking off and clogging up something downstream if they are not changed
> periodically (something we have to do with the clear stuff anyway). They
are
> thicker, have stronger pressure capability, less prone to UV degradation
and
> are more abrasion resistant. Why don't we see them used more often?
>
> Steve
Good question and yes there certainly is a concern with vibration grinding
away at a fuel line. I'm thinking stainless steel firmly attached to the
cage with a short piece of hose on each end. This way the steel is
oscillating in frequency with the cage and not out . The hose serves a
fexible joint and vibration dampener. This is a better situation than if a
separate vibration rate is introduced into the lines which can set up a
hammering effect. ...........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Steve/gang
Another added benefit of metal tanks and lines is that they greatly
reduce the potential for a static charge igniting the fuel because it brings
the fuel closer to ground potential ( Aircraft ground) electrically. Very
difficult for a charge to build up this way..........one other reason I'm
not real fond of plastic tanks and lines....Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
>
> I'm a cross between Richard Nixon & Rodney Dangerfield................"Who
Gawd you must be purdee! Don't archive!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William George <Wgeorge(at)macrevolution.com> |
Hi Gang,
Saw a couple of inquiries on the digest concerning the Verner. I posted a
fairly complete evaluation on the Verner users list a while back. Check the
archives at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/verner_engine/
Great motor, small user base, long way to the Czech Republic. Performance on
my Mk-3 is identical to the 582 due to slight increase in horsepower being
cancelled by the extra weight of engine and a few other mods. Sweet sound,
smooth and about 3 GPH fuel consumption.
Bill George
Kolb Mk-3/Verner1400SVS/Powerfin 68" "F"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
charles,looking in the list members database the guy with the mk3 is chuck
cullen Hanson ma. I think they fly out of cranland, his phone is listed as
781 545 7011 and email is listed as cjcullen(at)mediaone.net but that might
have changed to cjcullen(at)attbi.com as mine did. may be he could help you out
with som stick time. good luck , by the way do you have any flight time? or
are you starting from scratch? chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles" <chieppa47(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: KOLBRA
>
> Lou,
>
> Forgot all about Oshkosh, I still plan on calling Kolb. I am located
> just west of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
> Will keep you all posted. I am NOT going to solo my Firestar without
> training!
>
> Charles
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
So fuel could still be pumping out and onto the hot engine.
This
> is the area I would be most concerned about. Maybe an impact detector
> could shut off the fuel pump in that situation. ................Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
If you turn off the master switch before you crash, you
won't need an impact detector to shut off the fuel pump.
If it hits that hard, you probably will only need last
rites.
Better yet, you need an engine that does not require
gasoline, kerosene, or any other inflamable, based on your
fear of fire. :-)
Based on your ideas of complicated insulated fuel
tanks/systems, etc., it is my opinion you are more prone to
experience an engine failure/fuel related problem than if
you were using a proven, simple, reliable system.
I have a .050" 5052 alum, gusseted fuel tank, with Gates
heavy duty neoprene fuel line that have proven in two
extremely hard crashes to be crash worthy. The system is
proven, simple, safe, and reliable for more than 1,700
flight hours.
Good luck on your experimentation.
john h
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
The
> only problem I have ever heard concern about is the possibility of the inside
> flaking off and clogging up something downstream if they are not changed
> periodically (something we have to do with the clear stuff anyway). They are
> thicker, have stronger pressure capability, less prone to UV degradation and
> are more abrasion resistant. Why don't we see them used more often?
>
> Steve
Steve/Gang:
I use it on my airplane. Good quality Gates heavy duty
neoprene fuel line does not come apart inside. I have used
in on my 351W powered ancient boat for years without
problem. Same same on my 32 year old Toyota Landcruiser.
When I started out in ULs I used what was being used,
polyurethane fuel line. I used it for many years. It can
create many problems for me compared to neoprene. The
biggest advantage is it is almost immune to UV light.
Plastic line is extremely prone to UV damage.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Some of these guys that have an electric boost
> pump on their planes have them connected in series which will do them no
> good if the mechanical pump goes bad. Reason: the boost pump will only
> pump fuel through the mechanical pump, through the ruptured diaphragm,
> and into the crankcase of the engine via the pulse line. This raw fuel
> intake will choke the engine to quit.
>
> If an electric pump is used, they must be connected in parallel with
> check valves installed.
>
> Cheap solution: change out the pump every 3 years for $20.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
Ralph/Gents:
Is there any record of a Mikuni Fuel Pump Diaphram
rupturing?
I have never heard of one getting a pin hole in it, much
less rupturing.
The primary problem with the Mikuni pulse pump is the little
ears that are the inlet and outlet valves failing to do
their job, thus a pump failure. The other problem is the
pulse line leaking or fracturing, causing the pump to quit
pumping. In either case, the electric boost pump, plumbed
in series, will continue to keep fuel pressure to the carb.
It will not pump it into the pulse line and crankcase.
On the 912S engine we use a Pierburg mechanical pump. I do
not know if it is a dual diaphram pump like the marine pump
on my 351W or not. If it is a single diaphram pump, gets a
hole in it, I will pump some fuel into the crankcase by the
time I get to the ground when the engine quits. But it
won't be much, cause I will hit the master switch when the
engine goes dead.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Kirk/Gang:
>
> If you turn off the master switch before you crash, you
> won't need an impact detector to shut off the fuel pump.
>
> If it hits that hard, you probably will only need last
> rites.
>
> Better yet, you need an engine that does not require
> gasoline, kerosene, or any other inflamable, based on your
> fear of fire. :-)
>
> Based on your ideas of complicated insulated fuel
> tanks/systems, etc., it is my opinion you are more prone to
> experience an engine failure/fuel related problem than if
> you were using a proven, simple, reliable system.
>
> I have a .050" 5052 alum, gusseted fuel tank, with Gates
> heavy duty neoprene fuel line that have proven in two
> extremely hard crashes to be crash worthy. The system is
> proven, simple, safe, and reliable for more than 1,700
> flight hours.
>
> Good luck on your experimentation.
>
> john h
Your probably 99.999999% right John. But just possibly I have elevated
somebody's awareness of a potential problem they are overlooking in their
installation. I certainly hope so. It may just save one person. That's good
enough for me. I don't have very much experience in aircraft but I do in
industrial accidents. We have found that visualization of potential
accidents in itself can prevent some of them. It never hurts to point out
the potential danger. Though sometimes people do feel it's trespassing on
their territory. One of the things they tried to hammer into us in infantry
training was a sense of impending danger. But I can tell you from personal
experience that actually seeing the results of combat taught me like nothing
else could. I would hate to see somebody learn by actually experiencing a
fire. I think I made some progress in my diatribe.......:o) Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I'm thinking stainless steel firmly attached to the
> cage with a short piece of hose on each end. ...........Kirk
Kirk/Gents:
SS is the least resistent to failure from vibration,
especially vibration from a 2 cycle engine.
By placing hoses at each end of your SS line, you are
introducing hoses back into your system. Neoprene fuel hose
with a fire sleeve would be much better in a crash than SS.
My own humble opinion.
BTW: Have you ever seen stainles steel line used in a fuel
or hydraulic application on an aircraft?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Another added benefit of metal tanks and lines is that they greatly
> reduce the potential for a static charge igniting the fuel because it brings
> the fuel closer to ground potential ( Aircraft ground) electrically. Very
> difficult for a charge to build up this way..........one other reason I'm
> not real fond of plastic tanks and lines....Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
Only if the aircraft is properly grounded before fueling
begins.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)velocityonline.net> |
Kirk;
An old military say was, KISS, keep it simple stupid.
It works.
Jim Hauck
John's Older bro
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Kirk;
>
> An old military say was, KISS, keep it simple stupid.
>
> It works.
>
> Jim Hauck
>
> John's Older bro
Yes I remember that one Jim. I was a simple grunt and we had another way of
looking at that. :o) Not Kolb related though. Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
You know Kirt, you might want to look into design of toys for kids sponsored
by the greenpeace folks, instead of building a airplane that is meant for
sport flying and risk management. Have you with all of your safety training
ever heard of RISK MANAGEMENT ?
Richard Harris
MK3 N912RH
Arkansas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
>
> > Kirk/Gang:
> >
> > If you turn off the master switch before you crash, you
> > won't need an impact detector to shut off the fuel pump.
> >
> > If it hits that hard, you probably will only need last
> > rites.
> >
> > Better yet, you need an engine that does not require
> > gasoline, kerosene, or any other inflamable, based on your
> > fear of fire. :-)
> >
> > Based on your ideas of complicated insulated fuel
> > tanks/systems, etc., it is my opinion you are more prone to
> > experience an engine failure/fuel related problem than if
> > you were using a proven, simple, reliable system.
> >
> > I have a .050" 5052 alum, gusseted fuel tank, with Gates
> > heavy duty neoprene fuel line that have proven in two
> > extremely hard crashes to be crash worthy. The system is
> > proven, simple, safe, and reliable for more than 1,700
> > flight hours.
> >
> > Good luck on your experimentation.
> >
> > john h
>
> Your probably 99.999999% right John. But just possibly I have elevated
> somebody's awareness of a potential problem they are overlooking in their
> installation. I certainly hope so. It may just save one person. That's
good
> enough for me. I don't have very much experience in aircraft but I do in
> industrial accidents. We have found that visualization of potential
> accidents in itself can prevent some of them. It never hurts to point out
> the potential danger. Though sometimes people do feel it's trespassing on
> their territory. One of the things they tried to hammer into us in
infantry
> training was a sense of impending danger. But I can tell you from personal
> experience that actually seeing the results of combat taught me like
nothing
> else could. I would hate to see somebody learn by actually experiencing a
> fire. I think I made some progress in my diatribe.......:o) Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> You know Kirt, you might want to look into design of toys for kids
sponsored
> by the greenpeace folks, instead of building a airplane that is meant for
> sport flying and risk management. Have you with all of your safety
training
> ever heard of RISK MANAGEMENT ?
>
>
> Richard Harris
> MK3 N912RH
Sure have Dic......did it in Vietnam...even played with the toy guns they
gave us. Good idea! Actually risked my life in the name of freedom and the
right to pursue our wonderful hobby and express our opinions freely as you
have just done. :o) KIRK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
While there is a bit of good natured back and forth on the site about the
needs and concerns of safety ideas like fuel tanks, back up fuel pumps etc.,
I do believe it is worth discussing and personally appreciate the feedback
and ideas. Aviation has advanced to the point it has because of just this
sort of discussion and for those of us relatively new to the sport there is
much to learn and many compromises to consider.
That said:
While agreeing that the KISS principle is a wonderful concept, I personally
prefer to combine it with as much redundancy and prevention as I can manage.
I have never said to myself (while in the middle of a "statistically unusual"
event) "jeepers, I sure wish I didn't have that backup system that I'm now
using to prevent the doodoo from being any deeper than it is!" I have,
however, said to myself on several occasions " Man, if I make it through
this, I am going to cover my butt a little better before I do this again by
__________".
In a perfect world we would always be in perfect control and chutes would
never be needed or used and pulse fuel pumps would never fail and we would
always have that perfect site for a deadstick within glide range and radios
would never fail and ---
While we cannot prevent or prepare for all the things that can go wrong,
experience and the ill fortunes of others can give us an idea of how to
increase the odds in our favor. Statistically Unusual Events do happen,
even to Kolb pilots and it only takes one in a lifetime.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
I am very interested in your engine. When Will They Be Available? What will
they cost? I would be using it on a Kolb Firestar II, in pusher
configuration, is that allowed?
The engine will be available in Sept. for approx $6500. I t will work in
your application very nicely. We will have 2 running on airplanes in Aug.
One in Oregon and one in Penn.
Thanks for your interest.
Dwaine Barnes
AeroTwin Motors Corporation
702.566.2411
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shackmania..... |
In a message dated 7/20/02 5:29:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, GeoR38(at)aol.com
writes:
> Well....Mike....I'm confused....you're from West Virginia and the other one
> is from Alabama...er...what?...and are you related...er..all I wannano is
> what's goin on here? Well, I guess you're not related and my presumptions
> are
>
Howard is from SC. Mike & I aren't related [far as I know]. But we both are
handsome devils.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
There's been enuf interest & comments about fuel lines, that it got me all
ambitious..........and I went out with my shiny new digital camera (what a
dandy toy ! ! ! ) and took some pics of Vamoose. They say a picture is
worth a 1000 words, so here's my contribution................If you like, go
ahead and use whatever you like. If you don't..........don't, but this is
what I felt did a good job for me............partly with advice on neoprene
fuel line used from John H.
http://www.biglar.homestead.com/fuellinedetails.html Helpful Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
>
> > Is there any concern about the vibration factor with alum or stan. steel
> fuel
> > lines? How would you connect them to the carbs (with a piece of regular
> fuel
> > line?)? I have wondered about using the thick auto fuel lines Vs the
> clear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Fascinating...........and what a simple idea. Why didn't I think of that ??
You know, since a 2 stroke version fires twice per revolution, then a 4
stroke would fire every rev., just like a regular 2 stroke, but with twice
the power impulses of a regular 4 stroke. I bet we'll see more of this
one........and the concept. Impressed Lar. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New Engine
>
> Here's another new engine. Be sure to watch the little movie to see how it
> works.
>
> www.rad-cam.com
>
> Ron Payne
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, July 20, 2002 01:26:48 AM
> To: Kolb
> Subject: Kolb-List: New Engine
>
>
> This was sent to me recently by a "shy Lister." I thought some of you
> might find it interesting. Helpful Lar..............
> http://www.aerotwinmotors.com
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
>
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
Actually risked my life in the name of freedom and the
> right to pursue our wonderful hobby and express our opinions freely as you
> have just done. :o) KIRK
Kirk,
Were you drafted or did you volunteer? Not that it matters, Just wondering.
As for the tank rupture, fuel line failure (due to vibration I guess) Are
you building a KOLB or a tank? do you plan on hitting alot of hard stuff??
Plastic, Aluminum, Tin, whatever you want to build your fuel tank out of,
can and will create static and can spark if not properly grounded to the
fueling vessel prior to beginning the refueling process. So simply making
your tank out of metal will not insure you wont have a fire.
Just for your information. All Snowmobiles manufactured today have plastic
fuel tanks. Usually about 10 gallons each and located right between your
legs! That puts it between you and the motor.
I question if a Kolb is the right project for you. You seem to take issue
with almost all aspects of it's design from the control design (or lack of a
canard),the shody slip performance, the plastic fuel tanks, the fuel
lines, even the thrust line is wrong??? What gives??? Have you finished your
Mark III you started in 93? Have you flown it??? I realize that in the
experimental arena anything is fair game for change, but with so many issues
with the current design maybe it's just not what your looking for???
Just my earned .02 worth.
Guy Swenson
Semper Fi
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
If anyone else has a pair of H.A.C.s for a 503 or one for a
277 that they are
getting rid of please call me. I have a pair of the
inflight mix control
carbs for the 503 now but wuld like to go the H.A.Cs
Steve
=======================================
i have 4 hac that are set up in a set that fit a yamaha 5??
motorcycle..... not sure the size but could find out if
someone would like.... rebuild parts should be easy
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)velocityonline.net> |
Kirk;
The "KISS" wasn't a personal slur to you. Just a hint to rethink your ideas.
If you have ever seen a crashed Kolb and/or repaired one that had been
pranged, you would see that there is hardly ever a broken tube from the
impact, but a severely twisted cage is usually the result. Having seen a few
and rebuilt a bunch, I have never seen a severed fuel line or ruptured fuel
tank as a result of the crash.
Your idea of affixing the metal fuel line securely to the cage and
connecting that line with short pieces of pliable tubing which more than
likely would be pulled loose from the twisting of the cage. If you had two
systems both would go. So you are back to square one. I suggest that you use
a single, simple fuel system and spend more time on getting your plane
ready to fly.
What model Kolb are you working on?
I am proud that you served your country so we all have these freedoms to do
as we wish in the pursuit of happiness.
Jim Hauck
USA Special Forces Ret.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
writes:
> The biggest advantage is it is almost immune to UV light.
> Plastic line is extremely prone to UV damage.
>
> john h
Group,
The plastic fuel line that I use has UV protection and is really neoprene
line that is common in many ultralights. I should not have used the word
'plastic' although neoprene may be a form of plastic. The tank is not UV
protected and I should think about replacing it one of these days.
Does TNK sell the same tanks the old Kolb did?
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
writes:
> Is there any record of a Mikuni Fuel Pump Diaphram
> rupturing?
>
> I have never heard of one getting a pin hole in it, much
> less rupturing.
John and others,
Yes there is record of a Mikuni fuel pump rupturing. There are pilots
that have had the main diaphragm rupture. I had a new one that was
leaking, but the diaphragm was an aftermarket product. An article in
ULTRALIGHT FLYING magazine (forgot which issue) mentioned to use the
clear mylar replacements which are from Mikuni.
John, I would also think if the pulse line is cracked and leaking, it is
also taking in fresh air which would lean the mixture. A boost pump may
not be able to keep it running under these conditions. If a boost pump is
being used as a backup for a cracked pulse line, this may not be good
justification for this extra weight and hardware on the plane (2-stroke
engines).
The Mikuni pumps should be replaced and are cheap enough to do this every
3 years or so. The one that I have on my plane right now has been on
there since '99. I have a new one sitting on the shelf, but have been
waiting for the right time. I can't put a new one on and then take a
cross country trip. I have to stay close to the airstrip for a few
minutes before venturing off.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel systems |
> Kirk;
>
> The "KISS" wasn't a personal slur to you. Just a hint to rethink your
ideas.
>
> If you have ever seen a crashed Kolb and/or repaired one that had been
> pranged, you would see that there is hardly ever a broken tube from the
> impact, but a severely twisted cage is usually the result. Having seen a
few
> and rebuilt a bunch, I have never seen a severed fuel line or ruptured
fuel
> tank as a result of the crash.
>
> Your idea of affixing the metal fuel line securely to the cage and
> connecting that line with short pieces of pliable tubing which more than
> likely would be pulled loose from the twisting of the cage. If you had two
> systems both would go. So you are back to square one. I suggest that you
use
> a single, simple fuel system and spend more time on getting your plane
> ready to fly.
>
> What model Kolb are you working on?
>
> I am proud that you served your country so we all have these freedoms to
do
> as we wish in the pursuit of happiness.
>
>
> Jim Hauck
>
> USA Special Forces Ret.
Jim,
Thanks for the pointers. Mark # Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
> Kirk,
> Were you drafted or did you volunteer? Not that it matters, Just
wondering.
BOTH!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Group,
Along with the KISS principle, I believe in something similar: "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it". After 15 years in ultralight/light aircraft
flying and being a member of on of the largest ultralight clubs in the
nation (EAA UL#1), it seems that most people induce more problems,
trying to fix a perceived problem on their plane. And what they don't
perceive as a problem is their own trainning/ability. Yet most accidents
in this type aircraft are caused by the pilot, not the plane.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
OK......Uncle!!! I get the point.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Big Lar's Got the Tightest..... |
Naw...........I used those on the logging trucks I drove in the northwest,
30 yrs ago. That was enuf for a lifetime. It's my "fuel line" buddy who's
the cheapskate............I'm the spendthrift fool of the crowd. Sad to
say, no innovations there from the Lar. I set mine up by the book, with
room on the tangs for tightening, and also with the lower bolt a little
long, so that I can take up slack there, as well. KISS Lar.
(???)
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Big Lar's Got the Tightest.....
>
> Hey Tight Lar,
> When are we gonna here about the tightening system
for your tail feathers.... does it involve chain binders?
>
>
> SNIP >>> I did my tail wires last night and my new system works great
for
> attaching the bottom tail wires. Now I have the tightest wires on any
> foldable Kolb. It's easier too.
> ---
> Sometimes you just have to take the leap
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Something I missed last night............on the lower picture, at the bottom
of the picture, you can also see where I wrapped the braid in a piece of
clear plastic tubing to prevent chafing where it's ty-rapped to the frame.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
> There's been enuf interest & comments about fuel lines, that it got me all
> ambitious..........and I went out with my shiny new digital camera (what a
> dandy toy ! ! ! ) and took some pics of Vamoose. They say a picture is
> worth a 1000 words, so here's my contribution................If you like,
go
> ahead and use whatever you like. If you don't..........don't, but this is
> what I felt did a good job for me............partly with advice on
neoprene
> fuel line used from John H.
> http://www.biglar.homestead.com/fuellinedetails.html Helpful Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Is there any concern about the vibration factor with alum or stan.
steel
> > fuel
> > > lines? How would you connect them to the carbs (with a piece of
regular
> > fuel
> > > line?)? I have wondered about using the thick auto fuel lines Vs the
> > clear
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sabean <sabean(at)ns.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Mark111Xtra Dual Controls |
Having a problem trying to figure out how the front of the elevator
push-pull tube is attached to the dual control pivot. The Mark111Xtra
plans show it attached to the left side(looking forward) on one page and
on the right side on another page.
They also show it connected with either an AN5-10A bolt on one page and
on another page show an AN5-15A. Yet another page shows an AN5-16A bolt.
Anybody know what the correct setup is?
Thanks,
Tom Sabean
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark111Xtra Dual Controls |
> They also show it connected with either an AN5-10A bolt on one page and
> on another page show an AN5-15A. Yet another page shows an AN5-16A bolt.
Tom,
I mounted mine on the right side of the of the dual control pivot. I cut 2
pieces of 4130 tubing approx. 3/8 long and large enough diameter to slide
over the AN5 bolt to use as a stand offs, so the push-pull tube would not
bind against the control pivot or the elevator bellcrank (one on each end of
the push-pull tube). Size the bolt length so only 1 to 2 threads extend from
the Ny-lock nut once in place and tightened. I will send you pictures of my
setup off list.
Guy Swenson
MK III Xtra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
Hi Boyd,
I am interested in the carbs if they will work on a 503 Rotax like the ones I
see advertised in the Ultralight Flying etc. Maybe CPS or one of the other
dealers can tell us the differences, if they will work for us the same as
their high alt. comp ones, if they need to be tweaked to fit or work and how.
Anyone out there in KolbLand know anything about this that might help?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Adriel Heisey <adrielh(at)earthlink.net> |
Hello john h, Jeremy, Richard, Lar, and others
Thanks for the thoughtful replies, and the comments about my
book--unexpected and appreciated.
Jeremey, your story about your friend with the Rans S6 rang true with
what I've exerienced, and I've heard something of the Lockwood/Rotax
response through the grapevine here in AZ. Would you be willing to send
me your buddy's email address so I could ask him about his experiences
off-list? It looks like I may be facing a similar course.
John, I'm curious if you or any of the other three 912S operators in
your area happen to have the slipper clutch installed? I'm hearing that
Lockwood and/or the NA Rotax distributor is recognizing there is a
growing problem with a mid-range "buzz" in some 912S's without the
clutch. If you don't have the clutch, then you must be one of the lucky
ones ...
I replaced my original 582 (1200 hours, four overhauls) in February as a
condition of accepting an assignment to photograph the islands of Hawaii
for National Geographic Magazine. After much discussion with Dennis
Souder and Steve Beatty of Airscrew Performance, I decided to upgrade to
a new 912S. Jim Hauck had done a fine and prescient job of reinforcing
my main cage after a years-earlier tube-bending episode, so I augmented
that by installing an internal sleeve and beefier H-section in the
forward end of my fuselage tube.
We all know that flying these homebuilts requires a curious mix of pluck
and perspicacity. Putting on a new engine in an untested installation
before a major mission two thousand miles from home was probably a
little heavy on the pluck. (I did the conversion in a rented hangar in
Hilo because the plane was already in Hawaii from a previous assignment
when all this came about). I was lucky. Except for taking longer than I
had hoped, there were no big problems and the early flights went without
a hitch.
Then, at around 20 hours (which is when I had the first cracked tube), I
began to notice this subdued vibration at mid-range power settings when
I'd unload the engine, as in pitching over to begin a descent or
reducing throttle. Under the duress of the photo assignment, I mostly
just tried to avoid it. But by the time I weathered the third cracked
tube (and the assignment was finished), I was quite interested in
tracking it down.
I'm using the Ivoprop Medium Model for the 912S (what TNK sells in its
912 package), and I have it pitched to turn 5800 RPM at full throttle at
50mph (climb!). The buzz occurs from 3600 to 4100 RPM (approx). It is
very distinct, but not at all severe. I would tend to think it is a
problem unique to my installation except for these reports. I'm
currently experimenting with changing the pitch of the prop to shift the
buzz into a different range, and this is getting me by for now.
I'm having to dig up all the original zeal I can find in myself for
ultralight flying to overcome the discouragement of spending 15 grand
for a "real" airplane engine and then running into this problem. I keep
reminding myself that this is merely the downside of DIY aviation, and
that the upside is still, in its best moments, unspeakable joy and freedom.
Adriel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912S vibration |
Adriel/Gents:
> John, I'm curious if you or any of the other three 912S operators in
> your area happen to have the slipper clutch installed?
I do not have the slip clutch installed in my 912S. I do
not believe John Russell or the Woods Brothers have it
either.
I was having some unexplained vibration at cruise, but it
proved to be a prop extension that was not machined as
closely as it should have been.
I still have an occasional episode with gear lash at start
up, but since the new prop extension I have not had that
problem either.
Ronnie Smith of S. Mississippi Lt Aircraft and Eric Tucker
both said I should have the gear box torsional vibration
dampner (spring washers) snubbed up at 400 hours. I now
have 365.5 hours on the engine. Eric is aware of my start
up problems. Rotax was working on a heavier flywheel, but
Eric didn't like it and I have heard nothing of it since
then.
Adriel, since the 912S, as well as the 912, are designed for
5500 rpm continuos, and 5800 rpm for 5 minutes (similar to
military power settings), it doesn't do us any good to
adjust the prop for 5800 rpm. I find that propping the
aircraft to turn the redline of 5500 rpm at WOT straight and
level flight gives the best climb and cruise performance.
However, in your application with the 912S on a Twinstar,
you are not looking for speed, but good climb and loiter
capability.
Good luck on your new assignment. A much different
environment from the SW US.
john h
I'm hearing that
> Lockwood and/or the NA Rotax distributor is recognizing there is a
> growing problem with a mid-range "buzz" in some 912S's without the
> clutch. If you don't have the clutch, then you must be one of the lucky
> ones ...
>
> I replaced my original 582 (1200 hours, four overhauls) in February as a
> condition of accepting an assignment to photograph the islands of Hawaii
> for National Geographic Magazine. After much discussion with Dennis
> Souder and Steve Beatty of Airscrew Performance, I decided to upgrade to
> a new 912S. Jim Hauck had done a fine and prescient job of reinforcing
> my main cage after a years-earlier tube-bending episode, so I augmented
> that by installing an internal sleeve and beefier H-section in the
> forward end of my fuselage tube.
>
> We all know that flying these homebuilts requires a curious mix of pluck
> and perspicacity. Putting on a new engine in an untested installation
> before a major mission two thousand miles from home was probably a
> little heavy on the pluck. (I did the conversion in a rented hangar in
> Hilo because the plane was already in Hawaii from a previous assignment
> when all this came about). I was lucky. Except for taking longer than I
> had hoped, there were no big problems and the early flights went without
> a hitch.
>
> Then, at around 20 hours (which is when I had the first cracked tube), I
> began to notice this subdued vibration at mid-range power settings when
> I'd unload the engine, as in pitching over to begin a descent or
> reducing throttle. Under the duress of the photo assignment, I mostly
> just tried to avoid it. But by the time I weathered the third cracked
> tube (and the assignment was finished), I was quite interested in
> tracking it down.
>
> I'm using the Ivoprop Medium Model for the 912S (what TNK sells in its
> 912 package), and I have it pitched to turn 5800 RPM at full throttle at
> 50mph (climb!). The buzz occurs from 3600 to 4100 RPM (approx). It is
> very distinct, but not at all severe. I would tend to think it is a
> problem unique to my installation except for these reports. I'm
> currently experimenting with changing the pitch of the prop to shift the
> buzz into a different range, and this is getting me by for now.
>
> I'm having to dig up all the original zeal I can find in myself for
> ultralight flying to overcome the discouragement of spending 15 grand
> for a "real" airplane engine and then running into this problem. I keep
> reminding myself that this is merely the downside of DIY aviation, and
> that the upside is still, in its best moments, unspeakable joy and freedom.
>
> Adriel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Thanks Larry, I will try and get some info from Ken about what he thought of,
tried, and his conclusions. It is always nice to talk with someone who has
already tried an idea, even when it doesn't work, you learn.
Has anyone else out there tried this? The only way I see of getting into the
air anytime in the near future is to come up with a way to stengthen the orig
FS wing I have ($4 - 5,000 is not going to be avail for quite a while) but I
do want to be safe at the same time. I am always open to suggestions, but
please refrain from the "lighten everything up" comments, there are other
considerations and while that is an easy answer, it not help me at this time.
Ken,
If you read this will you please e-mail me and go over this with me? If we
do this thru the list site, others considering this and others in the future
who want to do the same thing can study the pros and cons we come up with or
you can e-mail me off the list if you want to keep it private
Anyone have Kens e-mail address, in case he doesn't read the list for a while?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Woody,
Thanks for the feedback on the wing. I like the idea of using a foam
stiffener along with any and all other ideas, only not just in the spars but
throughout the entire wing, if I can figure out a way to it without
distorting everything. Flotation in the event of a water landing appeals to
me as I intend to put the FS on floats eventually and this would cover both
the increase strength requirements and the booboo factor of a water landing.
My thought had been that if I could find a non-expanding injectable foam that
would harden like a styrofoam or the insulation foam you mentioned, a small
hole in each area of the wing would allow easy injection. I was thinking of
running a carbonfiber inner core tube or beam of some sort thru the spars to
stiffen and strengthen them and use the foam injection to secure them in
place. I don't think that would add much weight.
A while back I read about one of the other kit planes (I don't remember which
one ) that was using a stiffening foam in their fabric covered wings for
flotation and strength. I wish I had kept the article so I could contact the
company. Anyone remember reading about this? The plane also had folding
wings and had two different wings that could be easily changed depending on
how the pilot wanted to use the plane.
I could sure use some feed back from all of you creative builders on this
idea.
Steve
orig FS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 912S vibration |
Would adding the electric in-flight motor option to your IVO prop help you?
It is basically a bolt on option and doesn't require major modifications to
anything else. Pitch change at the push of a toggle and now there is an
optional electric box that can be set and changed in flight to give you a
"constant speed prop" at any rpm you want or turn it off and use the manual
toggle to change the pitch.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
Well put and I for one have enjoyed the thread. Keep up the good stuff.
Merle
=============================================================
> While there is a bit of good natured back and forth on the site about the
> needs and concerns of safety ideas like fuel tanks, back up fuel pumps
> etc.,
> I do believe it is worth discussing and personally appreciate the feedback
> and ideas. Aviation has advanced to the point it has because of just this
> sort of discussion and for those of us relatively new to the sport there is
>
> much to learn and many compromises to consider.
>
> That said:
> While agreeing that the KISS principle is a wonderful concept, I personally
>
> prefer to combine it with as much redundancy and prevention as I can
> manage.
> I have never said to myself (while in the middle of a "statistically
> unusual"
> event) "jeepers, I sure wish I didn't have that backup system that I'm now
> using to prevent the doodoo from being any deeper than it is!" I have,
> however, said to myself on several occasions " Man, if I make it through
> this, I am going to cover my butt a little better before I do this again by
>
> __________".
>
> In a perfect world we would always be in perfect control and chutes would
> never be needed or used and pulse fuel pumps would never fail and we would
> always have that perfect site for a deadstick within glide range and radios
>
> would never fail and ---
>
> While we cannot prevent or prepare for all the things that can go wrong,
> experience and the ill fortunes of others can give us an idea of how to
> increase the odds in our favor. Statistically Unusual Events do happen,
> even to Kolb pilots and it only takes one in a lifetime.
>
> Steve
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Hi Ken,
I am in need of a FS2 wing GW. The wing kit that was for sale had already
been sold so I am still trying to figure out a way to convert my orig FS to a
FS2 wing without ending up a statistic.
Larry wrote:
String heavy wires from the wingtips to the wheel axles ?? :-)
Seriously, I think you and Ken Korenek need to have a talk............he
went thru exactly the same thing, very recently, and did a huge amount of
research on it. He went ahead and built the new FS2 wings. What does that
tell ya ?? Discouraging Lar.
Woody responded:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am in need of a stronger wing (I need to go from an orig FS GW to a FS2 GW)
>and have just had the idea that there must be a way to strengthen the wing I
>have (5 rib orig FS) instead of buying a new one and building that. $ is the
>major issue (isn't it always?).
Time for one of my rude and crude repairs ideas. Inject the front and
rear spars with insulating foam. This will act like a composite aircraft
and greatly increase the strength of the tube. Remember Burt Rutans
designs are just foam with some fiberglass on top. Neither one really
strong untill you laminate them together. Concentrate more on the inboard
ribs. That is where the stress and strains are. Either remove the fabric
from the first two ribs and add in a couple more ribs there or do like you
were thinking and slit the fabric and slide in some wing batons and rivit
them on.
These ideas are just thought experiments and may not work in the real
world.
My thoughts go along these lines:
I like the idea of using a foam stiffener along with any and all other
ideas, only not just in the spars but throughout the entire wing, if I can
figure out a way to it without distorting everything. Flotation in the event
of a water landing appeals to me as I intend to put the FS on floats
eventually and this would cover both the increase strength requirements and
the booboo factor of a water landing. My thought had been that if I could
find a non-expanding injectable foam that would harden like a styrofoam or
the insulation foam you mentioned, a small hole in each area of the wing
would allow easy injection. I was thinking of running a carbonfiber inner
core tube or beam of some sort thru the spars to stiffen and strengthen them
and use the foam injection to secure them in place. I don't think that would
add much weight.
Can you give me an idea of what you went through, what did and didn't work
out and why you went ahead and built the new wing instead of doing a
conversion?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Korenek <ken-foi(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Steve,
I understand the conundrum you face.
I understand the desire to fix what you have.
I was there last April. What's worse, I had just bought a "pig in a poke."
I
had just paid top dollar for a FireStar II conversion that turned out to be a
plain old FireStar I.
I had lengthy dialog with all the "heavy hitters" like Dennis Souder, John Hauck,
Ray Brown, et al.
The conclusion?
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
There is no reasonable way to turn a 5 rib, 535 pound gross weight FS I wing into
a 725 pound gross weight wing.
Period.
First of all, do you have .028 or .035 thick wall leading and trailing edge
tubes? You can measure the leading edge wall in the gap area between the
wings. If you have .028, you're even farther from the goal.
Even if you have the .035 wall, it is the spreading of the load over the length
of
the spar by the number of ribs that determines the gross weight capacity of a
wing.
There is some controversy over the exact failure process, but the failure mode
in
an overloaded wing failure is column buckling of the forward section of the main
rib. The forward sections of the rib fold up or over sideways, and then go over
the top of the wing. At that point, all you can do is pull the chute as you are
going down.
Whoever is fueling your hopes and dreams with talk of filling the spar and leading
edges with some sort of foam is doing you a disservice. Foam is nothing but air
bubbles in some sort of medium. You mentioned a "foam stiffener." That is an
oxy-moron. There is no such thing as a "foam stiffener." Foam is not stiff.
Not one that you could find, afford, or install properly. Composit airplanes
use
some fillers, but not the kind of foam you talk about here.
Someone wrote to you: "Remember Burt Rutans designs are just foam with some
fiberglass on top. Neither one really strong until you laminate them together."
The only "foam" Burt Rutan uses is in his throw away coffee cups. Rutan's
designs are highly engineered composites made of multiple layers of epoxy
impregnated kevlar and other carbon-fiber weaves. They are laid with the weaves
going in predetermined directions in specific layers. They are then heated at
specific temperatures for specific periods of time at specific levels of vacuum.
Not something you can do in your garage.
Rest assured that he doesn't take a can of Home Depot insulating foam, squirt it
between two pieces of fiberglass, stick it on an airplane and then go fly around
the world.
The problem lies in the failure of the 5/16 main rib tubing, not the spar or
leading/trailing edges. So, if you could find something that would structurally
strengthen aluminum tubing by "filling" it, you would need to fill the ribs, not
the spar/leading/trailing edges. Then, the failure point goes to the rivets that
hold the ribs together. When you ry to patch up something that is not designed
for the loads, you chase the failure from one place to another.
You can not just add two ribs and respace the rest. The damage you would do
would be extremely detrimental and all the holes left in the spar would weaken
it
severely, not to mention the TONS of work this would involve- removing all the
fabric, drilling out hundreds of rivets, respacing, redrilling for the new rivets,
pulling the new rivets, and recovering/repainting the wings. And, there is no
way you could drill out all those rivets without wallowing out the holes, making
the rivets less effective.
Even if you did all that, considering the detriment of the scratches and damage,
the oversize holes, etc, you could still not be sure that you increased the gw
to
the full 725 pounds.
The only way to be sure is to start with new materials and build accordingly.
By
the time you uncover, drill out rivets, respace, redrill, pull all the rivets,
apply fabric, and paint, you would have invested as much, if not more time than
a
new build. I think you'd only save 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.
I looked into all this with input from the guys mentioned above- (except the foam
part- foam is just a non structural filler.) and I determined that a new build
was the fastest, cheapest, most direct way to get me back in the air- safely.
I couldn't find a way to increase the gross weight capacity of my 5 rib wings to
accomodate my 711 pound flying weight efficiently or effectively and still be sure
of the structural integrity. I would forever be worried about the leading edges
rolling over the wing every time I hit a thermal.
I've been there, Steve. I know how hard the decision is. But, there is only
one decision you can make and assure your safety in the air. What is your life
worth? How lucky are you? I ask that because that is what you will be relying
on HEAVILY if you do anything other than a legitimate 7 rib wing.
I can also tell you how satisfying and comforting the feeling of having wings
rated for the gross weight you are carrying is...
If I was doing this all over again, I would consider selling my FS I and buying
a
new plane that started life as an FS II and not one that was "converted." There
are some bargains on Barnstormers.
My fat fingers are binding up from all the typing. Call me (817-483-8054) if
you want to discuss this further.
Oh, before I forget, you have to replace the gear legs as well. FS I has legs
that are 1.125 diameter at the top and you have to go to 1.250 diameter legs.
*********************
Ken W. Korenek
ken-foi(at)attbi.com
Kolb FireStar II, "My Mistress" Back in the Air !!
Rotax 503, Oil Injected
3 Blade Powerfin
http://home.attbi.com/~KolbraPilot/TX_files/image003.jpg
Six Chuter SR7-XL, "Elmo"
Powered Parachute
Rotax 582, Oil Injected
3 Blade PowerFin
4906 Oak Springs Drive
Arlington, Texas 76016
817-572-6832 voice
817-572-6842 fax
817-657-6500 cell
817-483-8054 home
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Thanks Ken. As much as it breaks my heart to think of having to wait a
couple more years to get back in the air, it looks as though reality is
rearing its ugly head once again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
> Someone wrote to you: "Remember Burt Rutans designs are just foam with
some
> fiberglass on top. Neither one really strong until you laminate them
together."
>
> The only "foam" Burt Rutan uses is in his throw away coffee cups.
Rutan's
> designs are highly engineered composites made of multiple layers of epoxy
> impregnated kevlar and other carbon-fiber weaves. They are laid with the
weaves
> going in predetermined directions in specific layers. They are then
heated at
> specific temperatures for specific periods of time at specific levels of
vacuum.
> Not something you can do in your garage.
>
> Rest assured that he doesn't take a can of Home Depot insulating foam,
squirt it
> between two pieces of fiberglass, stick it on an airplane and then go fly
around
> the world.
Ken how old are you? Burt Rutan became famous when her flew to Oshkosh 1975
in the Vari-EZ... a plane that was made by cutting foam slabs to shape with
a hot wire cutter and then laying up glass on the surface. Since then
thousands of ez's have been built and flown by guys in there garages.
as far as everything else you said... your exactly right, there is no
practical way to strengthen the wing, especially injecting it with foam.
the foam core in composite parts is used to hold the fiberglass skins in
position, but it has very little strength. Sure it would help support the
leading edge and keep the ribs in column, but it would not increase the
strength of the robs, which is the problem.
if your not a structural engineer this is NOT a good place to be messing
around.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Korenek <ken-foi(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Christopher Armstrong wrote:
>
> Ken how old are you? Burt Rutan became famous when her flew to Oshkosh 1975
> in the Vari-EZ... a plane that was made by cutting foam slabs to shape with
> a hot wire cutter and then laying up glass on the surface. Since then
> thousands of ez's have been built and flown by guys in there garages.
I'm in my late 40's. I'm an aerospace engineer and am well versed on the composits
used in aircraft today. I am not familiar with what Rutan did in the 70's, but
I
doubt that he's using cut styrofoam today.
Starting with a slab of foam and laminating skins is one thing, adding it to an
existing Kolb is another. Injecting a Kolb wing with a foaming substance will
do
nothing but distort the soft skins ruining the airfoil shapes and add nothing but
weight and a corrosive atmosphere.
What is your background? You have some impressive postings and are well respected
on the list. I suspect that you are an engineer yourself.
This is off list- I sent it to your address so that we can keep a bit of anonymity.
*********************
Ken W. Korenek
ken-foi(at)attbi.com
Kolb FireStar II, "My Mistress" Back in the Air !!
Rotax 503, Oil Injected
3 Blade Powerfin
http://home.attbi.com/~KolbraPilot/TX_files/image003.jpg
Six Chuter SR7-XL
Powered Parachute
Rotax 582, Oil Injected
3 Blade PowerFin
4906 Oak Springs Drive
Arlington, Texas 76016
817-572-6832 voice
817-572-6842 fax
817-657-6500 cell
817-483-8054 home
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
>
>Whoever is fueling your hopes and dreams with talk of filling the spar and
>leading
>edges with some sort of foam is doing you a disservice. Foam is nothing
>but air
>bubbles in some sort of medium.
Since that was my statement I will back it up and say that you would
double the strength of the tube by filling it with foam.
>Someone wrote to you: "Remember Burt Rutans designs are just foam with some
>fiberglass on top. Neither one really strong until you laminate them
>together."
>
>The only "foam" Burt Rutan uses is in his throw away coffee cups. Rutan's
>designs are highly engineered composites made of multiple layers of epoxy
>impregnated kevlar and other carbon-fiber weaves.
>
>Rest assured that he doesn't take a can of Home Depot insulating foam,
>squirt it
>between two pieces of fiberglass, stick it on an airplane and then go fly
>around
>the world.
Sorry but you are wrong. You can go down to Home Depot and buy the blue
Styrofoam used on some of the structural parts of his aircraft. Not a lot
of kevlar or carbon fiber in his early designs either Ask any Long eze or
vari eze builder. I have a dragonfly built mostly of the blue Styrofoam.
Yes how you layer the fabric is important but the foam core gives it the
strength.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <George_Bass_0(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Not that I have any real knowledge here, but, it might be
better for you to think about the prossibility of SELLING
the Firestar I and using the money toward a Firestar II.
Very often there are some pretty good 'deals' around.
My suggestion is to check EBAY, BARNSTORMERS,
any and all newsletters related to the subject, for ads, &
the Homebuilt Homepage, and a few others. At the
very least, these sites will give you more information &
could even lead you to a plane that you can fly the way
you want, and do it safely.
A couple of links might be:
1. http://www.aircraftsuper-market.com/acsm.html
2. http://www.ultralightnews.com/classifieds/4sale.html
3. http://www.ultralighthomepage.com (then go to the for sale section)
4. http://www.4sale.bc.ca/ultralig.htm
Good luck, I sincerely hope you are successful
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Korenek <ken-foi(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Steve,
Consider selling your FS I and buying an FS II.
That's the direction I would go today. I enjoyed the building, it took
away the fear of building that I did have, but it does burn up some time and
cash.
I spent around $5500 on the wing kit, a few tools and the Poly Fiber covering
and paint. Took me 335 hours from first hole to last coat.
I'd definately look into the "trade up" option.
This is off list.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
In a message dated 7/21/02 11:14:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ken-foi(at)attbi.com writes:
> This is off list.
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
No, it's not.........
Shack
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Ken and group,
Other than the wing/GW factor what is the advantage of the FS2 over the orig
FS? Are there any other structural weaknesses in the orig FS that have been
improved or strenghtened on the FS2? What would be the advantage of building
another FS (wing excepted - that having to be built in either case) instead
of just using what I have and adding the new wing? I have not read of any
other areas that have ever failed on the orig FS or any other problems
associated with it. Something else I should know?
I have been told that with the orig FS wing there is no need to consider
adding ailron counter weights due to the larger full span vs the FS2 wing
that does use them for flutter control at VNE. Any info on this?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
The only one (homebuilt) I can think of off-hand that has 2 wings available
for it is the Europa, and it IS a composite plane, which would make it
reasonable to suppose they'd come up with a composite solution to a problem.
( I almost bought their kit, but my aversion to solvents is well documented.
It were a little (???) spendy too, for alla that. ) Gogittum
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation
>
> Woody,
>
> Thanks for the feedback on the wing. I like the idea of using a foam
> stiffener along with any and all other ideas, only not just in the spars
but
> throughout the entire wing, if I can figure out a way to it without
> distorting everything. Flotation in the event of a water landing appeals
to
> me as I intend to put the FS on floats eventually and this would cover
both
> the increase strength requirements and the booboo factor of a water
landing.
> My thought had been that if I could find a non-expanding injectable foam
that
> would harden like a styrofoam or the insulation foam you mentioned, a
small
> hole in each area of the wing would allow easy injection. I was thinking
of
> running a carbonfiber inner core tube or beam of some sort thru the spars
to
> stiffen and strengthen them and use the foam injection to secure them in
> place. I don't think that would add much weight.
>
> A while back I read about one of the other kit planes (I don't remember
which
> one ) that was using a stiffening foam in their fabric covered wings for
> flotation and strength. I wish I had kept the article so I could contact
the
> company. Anyone remember reading about this? The plane also had folding
> wings and had two different wings that could be easily changed depending
on
> how the pilot wanted to use the plane.
>
> I could sure use some feed back from all of you creative builders on this
> idea.
>
> Steve
> orig FS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TopGun" <TopGunPI(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
I've just completed the installation of floats on a FS II , it's a
lot
of work , so rather than gamble , go with the FS II wings , you'll at least
be able to keep flying during the conversion .
John SE Ma.
topgunpi(at)att.net----- Original Message -----
From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I am in need of a FS2 wing GW. The wing kit that was for sale had already
> been sold so I am still trying to figure out a way to convert my orig FS
to a
> FS2 wing without ending up a statistic.
>
> Larry wrote:
> String heavy wires from the wingtips to the wheel axles ?? :-)
> Seriously, I think you and Ken Korenek need to have a talk............he
> went thru exactly the same thing, very recently, and did a huge amount of
> research on it. He went ahead and built the new FS2 wings. What does
that
> tell ya ?? Discouraging Lar.
>
>
> Woody responded:
>
>
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I am in need of a stronger wing (I need to go from an orig FS GW to a FS2
GW)
> >and have just had the idea that there must be a way to strengthen the
wing I
> >have (5 rib orig FS) instead of buying a new one and building that. $ is
the
> >major issue (isn't it always?).
>
>
> Time for one of my rude and crude repairs ideas. Inject the front and
> rear spars with insulating foam. This will act like a composite aircraft
> and greatly increase the strength of the tube. Remember Burt Rutans
> designs are just foam with some fiberglass on top. Neither one really
> strong untill you laminate them together. Concentrate more on the inboard
> ribs. That is where the stress and strains are. Either remove the fabric
> from the first two ribs and add in a couple more ribs there or do like you
> were thinking and slit the fabric and slide in some wing batons and rivit
> them on.
> These ideas are just thought experiments and may not work in the real
> world.
>
>
> My thoughts go along these lines:
> I like the idea of using a foam stiffener along with any and all other
> ideas, only not just in the spars but throughout the entire wing, if I can
> figure out a way to it without distorting everything. Flotation in the
event
> of a water landing appeals to me as I intend to put the FS on floats
> eventually and this would cover both the increase strength requirements
and
> the booboo factor of a water landing. My thought had been that if I could
> find a non-expanding injectable foam that would harden like a styrofoam or
> the insulation foam you mentioned, a small hole in each area of the wing
> would allow easy injection. I was thinking of running a carbonfiber inner
> core tube or beam of some sort thru the spars to stiffen and strengthen
them
> and use the foam injection to secure them in place. I don't think that
would
> add much weight.
>
> Can you give me an idea of what you went through, what did and didn't work
> out and why you went ahead and built the new wing instead of doing a
> conversion?
>
> Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
> I have been told that with the orig FS wing there is no need to consider
> adding ailron counter weights due to the larger full span vs the FS2 wing
> that does use them for flutter control at VNE.
> Steve
Steve/Gang:
Any unbalanced aileron has the probablility to flutter. It
does not necessarily have to be at VNE. However my
experience with flutter in the Ultrastar, Original Firestar,
and the Mark III was in the higher speed realm, usually
triggered by turbulence, but not necessarily.
Counterbalance weights cured the problem in the Mark III.
Never had them on my US and FS.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dale seitzer <dalemseitzer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Don't sell that Original Firestar |
The original Firestar is lighter and faster (with
identical engines) than a Firestar II. They handle
great and are tough easy flying planes. The control
mixers are better on the originals. Yea, you can't
put a 503 on the original but the 447 and an Ivo prop
will keep up to any Firestar II and the 503 and the
447 uses much less fuel. If you want the jump seat
then get the Firestar II but for pure ultralight fun
the original can't be beat.
Dale Seitzer
http://health.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FS to FS2 wing transformation
>
>
> > I have been told that with the orig FS wing there is no need to consider
> > adding ailron counter weights due to the larger full span vs the FS2
wing
> > that does use them for flutter control at VNE.
> > Steve
>
> Steve/Gang:
>
> Any unbalanced aileron has the probablility to flutter. It
> does not necessarily have to be at VNE. However my
> experience with flutter in the Ultrastar, Original Firestar,
> and the Mark III was in the higher speed realm, usually
> triggered by turbulence, but not necessarily.
>
> Counterbalance weights cured the problem in the Mark III.
> Never had them on my US and FS.
>
> john h
It would actually be a reason to set VNE where you set it. Even a well
balanced control surface can flutter... being balanced is a way to increase
the flutter speed and helps reduce the inertial forces that drive flutter.
but the other driving forces of aero and structural deflection can still get
you. the real reason that the FSI didn't flutter is because they are
slower, so the forces involved were smaller. being full span doesn't
necessarily help or hurt.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Any unbalanced aileron has the probablility to flutter. It
> does not necessarily have to be at VNE.
I'm considering the installation of dual sticks in my Mark 3. Can the extra
enertia generated due to the extra mass in the aeleron control system under
flutter conditions add to the flutter amplitude or increase the chances of a
control linkage break? It would be nice to have the dual sticks as my
brother flys with me. However I know that keeping it simple is best....Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Korenek" <ken-foi(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FS to FS2 wing transformation
>
> Woody wrote:
>
> >
> > Since that was my statement I will back it up and say that you
would
> > double the strength of the tube by filling it with foam.
depends on what you mean by strength. for tubing you have bending as a
spar, shear across the cross section, compression and tension across the
cross section and compression and tension along the length.
adding foam would increase the bending strength and compression in cross
section and length of the tube by increasing the resistance to buckling. it
would do nearly nothing for shear or tension in any direction. in our
application the spar tubes are used almost entirely in bending and
compression inboard of the lift strut, so they would be improved by filling
with foam. the ribs are trusses which put all the members in pure tension
or compression, so ~half the tubes would be helped by being filled with
foam. Filling the whole wing with foam would support the ribs externally
but with a material that is not good at taking concentrated loads, so when a
rib tried to fail the little tubes would just tear through the foam.
plus at 2 pounds per cubic foot your talking about 2*24X4X.7/2=~70 pounds of
foam... good idea?
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
the real reason that the FSI didn't flutter is because they
are
> slower, so the forces involved were smaller. being full span doesn't
> necessarily help or hurt.
>
> Topher
Topher/Gang:
On the contrary, Kolb ailerons flutter. The reason mine
were so susceptible was weight of the aileron. I always
went heavy on the dope and paint. The increased unbalanced
weight and speed coupled with rough air set the stage for
flutter.
Extreme flutter, which can get you in a split second, is a
terrifying experience. The control stick is immediately
snatched out of your hand and will beat you to death if you
do not get the airspeed reduced in a hurry. Been there and
done that more than once. Slow learner back in the early
days. :-(
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
> I'm considering the installation of dual sticks in my Mark 3. Can the extra
> enertia generated due to the extra mass in the aeleron control system under
> flutter conditions add to the flutter amplitude or increase the chances of a
> control linkage break? Kirk
Kirk/Gang:
I am not an engineer. I learned a little by experimenting,
flying long hours, and getting caught up in some bad
situations.
Install counterbalance weights and forget flutter problem.
Plagued with flutter the first couple hundred hours in my MK
III. Installed counterbalance weights. No inclination of
flutter the last 1500+ hours in all kinds of different
flying situations.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Are the Kolb ailerons any more prone to flutter due to the long control
tube vs the cable controlled types of ailerons? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Are the Kolb ailerons any more prone to flutter due to the long control
> tube vs the cable controlled types of ailerons? Kirk
Kirk/Gents:
Early on with the airleron flutter problem I thought it was
caused by loose rod end bearings, slop in bushings, etc.
When I got to the MK III I was changing rod ends every 25
hours attempting prevent entry into flutter. Extremely
tight control linkage without balance weights helped a
"little". After counter balance weights on the Mark III, as
I explained in the previous msg ref flutter, there has been
no flutter.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Kirk/Gents:
>
> Early on with the airleron flutter problem I thought it was
> caused by loose rod end bearings, slop in bushings, etc.
> When I got to the MK III I was changing rod ends every 25
> hours attempting prevent entry into flutter. Extremely
> tight control linkage without balance weights helped a
> "little". After counter balance weights on the Mark III, as
> I explained in the previous msg ref flutter, there has been
> no flutter.
>
> john h
I'd like to see some pics of how you did that. Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Are the Kolb ailerons any more prone to flutter due to the long control
tube vs the cable controlled types of ailerons? Kirk
Kirk and others,
The Original Firestar never had counterbalancers on the ailerons and I have never
had a problem with flutter. This is not to say that I will never have a problem,
but the difference between the Original Firestar and other models is the
full-span ailerons AND the dual bell crank linkage system that is not on the
new models.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
-----> > Topher
>
> Topher/Gang:
>
> On the contrary, Kolb ailerons flutter. The reason mine
> were so susceptible was weight of the aileron. I always
> went heavy on the dope and paint. The increased unbalanced
> weight and speed coupled with rough air set the stage for
> flutter.
Was that in a FS I staying below 80 mph? I havent heard of a FSI that
fluttered below 80. I know the FS II and the MK III will flutter above 80
without the balances and I wont be flying my plane (FSII) without them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shakin stick |
BB/Gents:
Counter balance weights for ailerons are like ballistic
recovery parachutes. We all do not need them. All of us
that have them will never use them, but..............when
you need that sucker, if you don't have it........kiss your
behind goodbye.
> Does TNK include them or recommend them in a new mkIII kit?
I don't know, but you can purchase them from Kolb. There
are instructions in the archives on how to install after the
fabric in on the aileron, doped and painted. In fact, that
is the way I prefer to do mine, and that's the way I did
mine.
> Should a new bird builder just see how it goes and add them as
> necessary?
I'll answer that question with a question. Do you need a
BRS? Would you go fly first to see if you needed one?
Will a low power combo be more likely to avoid the
> problem? and finally is there a way to create balances that don't
> look too ugly? -BB
Airspeed and turbulence usually trigger aileron flutter in a
Kolb. I do not think they look ugly. Been on my airplane
the last 8 years.
Take 'em or leave 'em. It is your choice.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
> Was that in a FS I staying below 80 mph?
Topher:
I don't have personal experience with the FSI, but the US,
Original FS, and the Mark III will flutter and not
necessarily above 80 mph. When the right conditions are
met, whether it is 60, 70, 80, or 90 mph, they will
flutter. My recommendation and what I do is fly with
balanced ailerons. No matter how sloppy my control linkage
gets, no matter what the airspeed and turbulence, I do not
get into flutter.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
You guys are just messing around, RIGHT?
Richard Harris
MK3 N912RH
Arkansas
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FS to FS2 wing transformation
>
> In a message dated 7/21/02 11:14:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ken-foi(at)attbi.com writes:
>
>
> > This is off list.
> >
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, it's not.........
> Shack
> SC
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
Fellow flyers, i will be at the air show on thur. this
year. i would like to meet some of you guys, i know i will
find john h. in the morning getting his coffee at the ul
barn. i will probably have to buy a kolb hat or something to
be spotted, or maybe i will just wear my john deere hat,
can't miss that. let me know if you are going to meet at a
particular place and time. i have a lot of stuff to puchase
and will be on the run thur. morning.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Don't sell that Original Firestar |
I agree ... the original FireStars were and ... still are delightful
handling aircraft - not that they couldn't be spoiled by adding too much
weight. But if kept light, they were almost magic.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "dale seitzer" <dalemseitzer(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Don't sell that Original Firestar
>
> The original Firestar is lighter and faster (with
> identical engines) than a Firestar II. They handle
> great and are tough easy flying planes. The control
> mixers are better on the originals. Yea, you can't
> put a 503 on the original but the 447 and an Ivo prop
> will keep up to any Firestar II and the 503 and the
> 447 uses much less fuel. If you want the jump seat
> then get the Firestar II but for pure ultralight fun
> the original can't be beat.
>
> Dale Seitzer
>
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Jones" <jeffrey.jones(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Wanted: Mark III |
I am in the market for a Mark III. If you know of or have one for sale,
please contact me off the list. Considering completed or uncompleted.
Jeff
Burlington KY
jeffrey.jones(at)fuse.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: shakin stick |
Before I put my aileron counterweights on, as the speed got into the upper
80's, I could look out and watch the right aileron start to buzz. Couldn't
feel it in the stick, but looking out there and watching it buzz was like
watching a loathsome thing.
The point is, the buzz started before I was obvious at the stick.
If I had not been looking; if I had waited for the stick to give me a heads
up, ...
Balance the ailerons.
Over.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
>
>You witnessed a test or have data to support? Column buckling or just "sag?"
>
>I take what you say at face value. I know that putting foam between two
>pieces
>of paper increases the strenght over paper. The strength of the paper
>and the
>strenght of the foam are in the same magnitude, so the two together are
>stronger
>than one.
No tests but knowing that covering a piece of foam with one layer of
glass either side makes an incredibly strong chunk of material I will
assume (rightly or wrongly) that the same principle will be true in a
round tube. The foam prevents the outer material from compressing or
expanding while it is being bent. either fiberglass sheet or metal tube. I
wish some one on the list had access to materials and equipment to
determine this. Aircraft designer Bob Hovey used this foam filled method in
some of his designs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Aircraft designer Bob Hovey used this foam filled method
in
> some of his designs.
Hey Woody/Gents:
Yep. And Bert Howland used foam ribs bordered with a sheet
aluminum edge. In Bert's case the foam, it seems to me as a
layman and not an engineer, is carrying the load in a much
larger area than, say, a Kolb leading edge tube. When mine
failed, it failed directly in the center of the rib bay
where the top and bottom false ribs are drilled and
riveted. Don't know how much strength the foam filled
leading edge would contribute when it is being compressed in
a very small area, like a knife edge.
Anyhow, there is an appropriate way to do it, the way Homer
intended it to be built.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber" <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Non-Kolb: Challenger for Sale |
Hello,
The guy in the hangar next to mine is selling his Challenger 1 to build a
two place Titan. The people on this list probably won't be interested, but
you might know someone who is. This is a very nice, clean plane. It is
located at Camarillo airport in Southern California and has always been
hangared.
Stits covering
Rotax 447 w low hours since rebuild
Upholstered cockpit
Flap-a-rons
Built in I-com S200
GPS
Electric start
Strobes
N-Numbered
Other stuff to numerous to mention.
He is selling for $12500 firm - a good price for this plane.
I can send a picture by private email
Cheers!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FS to FS2 wing transformation |
Thanks for the info Dennis, the discussion about modifying the FS wing into
a FS2 wing was brought up by me. I was hoping that I could modify mine to
increase the GW up to the GW of a FS2. It is my understanding that the wing
is the only thing that needs to be changed to do this. Is that correct? Are
there any other concerns that I should be aware of?
Based upon the feedback from the site, I have come to the conclusion that
modifying the wing is not going to work and I am going to have to buy a FS2
wing to be able to handle an increase in GW with my orig FS. Do you know of
a good used FS2 wing for sale - built or not?
You also caution about added weight changing the flying charecteristics of
the orig FS, can you elaborate on what I should expect if I fly at a FS2 GW
(after changing to the FS2 wing).
Thanks,
Steve
orig FS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
Hi Boyd,
I am interested in the carbs if they will work on a 503
Rotax like the ones I
see advertised in the Ultralight Flying etc. Maybe CPS or
one of the other
dealers can tell us the differences, if they will work for
us the same as
their high alt. comp ones, if they need to be tweaked to fit
or work and how.
Anyone out there in KolbLand know anything about this that
might help?
Steve
=======================================
i have looked at the carbs and the only diference i can see
from the ones on the 912 is that the float bowl screws on
instead of the wire clip... and they are a bit smaller over
all .... what size are the ends of the carb where it
mounts into the manifold boot.... they originaly mounted
into a rubber boot on the motorcycle... but i am not sure
the size. i will check it out tommorow when i am out to
the shop...
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 07/21/02 |
Thanks Ken. As much as it breaks my heart to think of
having to wait a
couple more years to get back in the air, it looks as though
reality is
rearing its ugly head once again.
=======================================
it seems you have a fs1 wing and want a fs2 wing.......
well dont sit around for 2 years.... fly the plane as a fs1
till you can make the change.....
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ John ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: John
Subject: Firestar II on Floats in SE Ma.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/TopGunPI@worldnet.att.net.07.22.2002/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: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Gary,
Someone suggested meeting at 2:00 PM, at the Kolb display. I will be
there Wednesday through Friday.
John Jung
Firestar II
U.P. of Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gearheart <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 07/21/02 |
I would surely like to own a Fire Star 1. Herb in Ky
b young wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Ken. As much as it breaks my heart to think of
> having to wait a
> couple more years to get back in the air, it looks as though
> reality is
> rearing its ugly head once again.
> =======================================
>
> it seems you have a fs1 wing and want a fs2 wing.......
> well dont sit around for 2 years.... fly the plane as a fs1
> till you can make the change.....
>
> boyd
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shackmania..... |
In a message dated 7/21/02 12:06:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, HShack(at)aol.com
writes:
<<
> Well....Mike....I'm confused....you're from West Virginia and the other
one
> is from Alabama...er...what?...and are you related...er..all I wannano is
> what's goin on here? Well, I guess you're not related and my presumptions
> are
>
Howard is from SC. Mike & I aren't related [far as I know]. But we both
are
handsome devils.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
>>
ok ok ok.....so now I know that you two are different and purdy....probably
smart too....well, ...er...maybe, my imp has gone too far there....
I went flyin a coupla days ago in "By George" the Firestar... after my son
shot 6 perfect landings for the first time in his life and he went home. He's
32 but I still see him as a lil one and he says things that I still think are
cute. I asked him what he felt of his achievement ...thinking that he would
have bombarded me with superlatives....but instead he let me know that he was
"scared of the jiggles up there" ...seemed like he would lose control
sometimes. Said he would speed up to "punch through them". (the Jiggles). I
was proud of him for reaching such a conclusion, but I told him that I
usually slow down when smitten by the "jiggles" if I have a lot of altitude
and am flying around 50mph. But I do as he suggested if close to the ground.
Well, I considered that episode a success so he left and I went flying myself
and found myself at 1200' and experiencing the Jiggles too. ....well, I'm an
ol glider pilot and thought that they might actually be thermals ...so I went
into glider mode by turning into the raised wing and sho nuff, I gained 50
feet...then 100, kept turning and found 200, then 300 ft gain.
I cut the engine back to idle 2500 RPM and found the altitude had gone to
1700 ft....now I was absorbed and totally in glider mode and noticed that ol
kolb was sitting on a column of air and going up like an elevator...I took my
eyes off the altimeter for just a coupla seconds while still turning really
very tightly although with very little bank and was amazed to see the ground
disappearing in the mist of OHIO!...gimme a break, nobody soars in Ohio...do
they?
I looked around for the tell tale forming cumulus and found none, only some
streaks of clouds ....looked almost like streets...and didn't even see any
birds....ie, I was on my own. Well, I stuck with it and finally got up to
4000 ft from the original 1200 in about 15 minutes. Finally looking down from
there brought the ol lonely feeling I get when I'm way up, away from
civilization, so I came down somewhat pronto.
1 It is almost impossible to find a thermal in Ohio where I live by the
normal means
2 The ground temperature was 94 so the "cold" temperature at 3000 and up was
chilly but nice
3 I had almost forgotten what it was like to soar....very nice indeed!!
George Randolph...the ol glider pilot from NM where the thermals bounce sand
off the bottom of your wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Kirk,
Understand your concern for safety but there a couple other things you need
to accept. Complexity increases the likelihood of failure. This has been
proven by owners and builders trying to add redundancy and creating other
failure points. I heard of several people that added redundant fuel pumps
and then had engine outs right afterwards and ended up busting there
airplanes. KISS is still the best method and has been time proven. The
other thing is weight, keep it light, adding more junk increases weight
which increases your stall speed. In cases of impact the lighter and the
slower, the better. Most incidents happen from people trying to
re-engineer a time proven design. Build it to plans and go fly. The most
dangerous part of flying it is the drive to and from the airport. Ralph's
post says it as it is. Listen to the man.
jerryb
>
>It seems that the most likely situation in which a fuel line would
>hemorage would be a crash in which it could be hooked and torn loose or
>sliced open. In the case of being torn loose I'm not sure weather the
>re-enforced hose or aluminum would be better. To resist a slicing action
>aluminum would seem the best . Then there is the stainless steel which
>is probably the best of the three. For the small amount used it may be
>the best. However it can still be hooked. So routing would be important
>. If it is torn loose in a crash, it would most likely be near the
>engine. So fuel could still be pumping out and onto the hot engine. This
>is the area I would be most concerned about. Maybe an impact detector
>could shut off the fuel pump in that situation. ................Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "perfect" streamline definition??? |
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
07/23/2002 11:58:38 AM
Topher, and interested others, a question...
What is the easiest way to define/draw a "perfect" streamline shape. In
other words, how should I start to draw the shape I want to use to build
fairings around round objects like gear legs, etc? Is there an exact
definition of the streamline, on-line or in a text somewhere? I do have
access to a couple different drawing programs to actually draw or plot it
out, no matter how complex or mathematical the definition is. I am
assuming that once designed, it can be scaled up or down to fit whatever
object you wish to cover, is that correct within reason (for objects found
on our planes like 0.5" to a foot across)? Any ideas here?
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
And how do you plumb it in, parallel or series, what about fuel pressure,
pressure regulator, check valves, manifold, the complexity go on and on.
A few of my most concerns are using rubber grommets in the bottom of a fuel
tank, proper routing of the vent line, securely fastening the tank down
with straps, not with bungee cords, and using a fragile "tee" in main fuel
supply line to feed the hand primer. If that little 1/8" barb for the
primer line breaks or cracks, your sucking air. The Tee needs to be of the
metal variety or should utilize separate pickups.
I'm installing a new tank - I made a tank manifold that has 3 tubes going
into the tank. One is a 1/4" for the vent and ends just inside the tank,
the other is a 1/4" tube going near the bottom where it has a slit cut into
it to prevent fuel supply be shut off by debris being sucked flat against
the end. The last is a 1/8" primer line down near the bottom for suppling
the hand primer. This keeps the primer and the main fuel supply circuits
separate. If some thing happens to the main supply line, you stand a
chance of keeping the engine going using the hand primer to reach a safe
landing area. It's been done before.
jerryb
>
>
> > If the crash is severe enough to ignite a fire, the crashed engine would
> > be the fuel shut-off valve.
>
>
>In the case of an electric booster pump? Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
-> Kirk,
> Understand your concern for safety but there a couple other things you
need
> to accept. Complexity increases the likelihood of failure. This has been
> proven by owners and builders trying to add redundancy and creating other
> failure points. I heard of several people that added redundant fuel pumps
> and then had engine outs right afterwards and ended up busting there
> airplanes. KISS is still the best method and has been time proven. The
> other thing is weight, keep it light, adding more junk increases weight
> which increases your stall speed. In cases of impact the lighter and the
> slower, the better. Most incidents happen from people trying to
> re-engineer a time proven design. Build it to plans and go fly. The most
> dangerous part of flying it is the drive to and from the airport.
Ralph's
> post says it as it is. Listen to the man.
> jerryb
>
I understand your concern for wanting to set me straight. However I think
you need to look at the reality of what I have stated as merely ideas and
what you have projected as your view of who I am and what I'm trying to
accomplish. Your opinions are no better nor worse than mine. There are only
opinions. I put my opinions on the list for constructive analysis and
critique. I resent personal criticism founded on false projections, a
superior attitude, and a condescending tone. If you want to critique my
ideas I welcome that. If you want to tell me what I need or don't need you
can put it in the part of you where the sun don't shine . ............As far
as KISS goes....put that on my ass.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
The one thing I have found that having clear lines is you can see if your
getting bubbles in the fuel line which means an air leak. With all the
connections using black hose you would never see it.
jerryb
>
>John H. has recommended the neoprene auto fuel lines in the past, so I went
>to them too. Not quite as sexy, but...........! ! ! Just last night , I
>was talking to a friend on the phone, who's building an amphibian, and he's
>got a strong fuel smell in the cockpit. He says the black fuel hose he
>bought is "weeping" or "oozing" thru the rubber. Enuf to have melted the
>adhesive on the aluminum duct tape he wrapped around it to try and stop the
>smell. Anyone ever heard of this ?? What kind of black hose might he have
>bought ?? He's.......uh.......a "thrifty" person, so it could be anything,
>but I've never heard of this. I recommended he go to NAPA, and buy
>"automotive neoprene fuel hose." Puzzled Lar.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, Ca.
>Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
>http://www.gogittum.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
>
> >
> > Hi Kirk,
> >
> > Is there any concern about the vibration factor with alum or stan. steel
>fuel
> > lines? How would you connect them to the carbs (with a piece of regular
>fuel
> > line?)? I have wondered about using the thick auto fuel lines Vs the
>clear
> > or blue ones we usually use. It seems you seldom hear of a problem with
>auto
> > fuel lines and they take more abuse than an ultralight would give them.
>The
> > only problem I have ever heard concern about is the possibility of the
>inside
> > flaking off and clogging up something downstream if they are not changed
> > periodically (something we have to do with the clear stuff anyway). They
>are
> > thicker, have stronger pressure capability, less prone to UV degradation
>and
> > are more abrasion resistant. Why don't we see them used more often?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
You bring up another interesting point. With the poly tanks, I have not
noticed any condensation occurring resulting in water in the bottom of the
tanks. Having owners a plane with metal tanks, I frequency found water
when draining the sump.
jerryb
>
>Steve/gang
>
> Another added benefit of metal tanks and lines is that they greatly
>reduce the potential for a static charge igniting the fuel because it brings
>the fuel closer to ground potential ( Aircraft ground) electrically. Very
>difficult for a charge to build up this way..........one other reason I'm
>not real fond of plastic tanks and lines....Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Kirk,
Understand your concern for safety but there a couple other things you need
to accept. Complexity increases the likelihood of failure. This has been
proven by owners and builders trying to add redundancy and creating other
failure points. I heard of several people that added redundant fuel pumps
and then had engine outs right afterwards and ended up busting there
airplanes. KISS is still the best method and has been time proven. The
other thing is weight, keep it light, adding more junk increases weight
which increases your stall speed. In cases of impact the lighter and the
slower, the better. Most incidents happen from people trying to
re-engineer a time proven design. Build it to plans and go fly. The most
dangerous part of flying it is the drive to and from the airport. Ralph's
post says it as it is. Listen to the man.
jerryb
Thanks Jerry,
Homer Kolb and Dennis Souder made a fine light aircraft for simple safe flying.
There is no need to make modifications. If a person builds the plane per plan
and learns to fly it safely, he/she will have a fun plane to fly. I am living
proof of that and there are many others on this list who have done the same.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
(I'm just an average guy who wanted to realize my dream of flying)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
John,
I have heard there has been some experience of separation with premix being
run thru the black hoses. Perhaps it brand associated but I recall it has
been reported on UL list. May be like the blue tubing, the Brinks stuff is
OK but don't run the other brands, they harden up in short order.
jerryb
>
> The
> > only problem I have ever heard concern about is the possibility of the
> inside
> > flaking off and clogging up something downstream if they are not changed
> > periodically (something we have to do with the clear stuff
> anyway). They are
> > thicker, have stronger pressure capability, less prone to UV
> degradation and
> > are more abrasion resistant. Why don't we see them used more often?
> >
> > Steve
>
>Steve/Gang:
>
>I use it on my airplane. Good quality Gates heavy duty
>neoprene fuel line does not come apart inside. I have used
>in on my 351W powered ancient boat for years without
>problem. Same same on my 32 year old Toyota Landcruiser.
>
>When I started out in ULs I used what was being used,
>polyurethane fuel line. I used it for many years. It can
>create many problems for me compared to neoprene. The
>biggest advantage is it is almost immune to UV light.
>Plastic line is extremely prone to UV damage.
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
>
>
>Actually risked my life in the name of freedom and the
> > right to pursue our wonderful hobby and express our opinions freely as you
> > have just done. :o) KIRK
>
>Kirk,
>Were you drafted or did you volunteer? Not that it matters, Just wondering.
>
>As for the tank rupture, fuel line failure (due to vibration I guess) Are
>you building a KOLB or a tank? do you plan on hitting alot of hard stuff??
>
>Plastic, Aluminum, Tin, whatever you want to build your fuel tank out of,
>can and will create static and can spark if not properly grounded to the
>fueling vessel prior to beginning the refueling process. So simply making
>your tank out of metal will not insure you wont have a fire.
>Just for your information. All Snowmobiles manufactured today have plastic
>fuel tanks. Usually about 10 gallons each and located right between your
>legs! That puts it between you and the motor.
>
>I question if a Kolb is the right project for you. You seem to take issue
>with almost all aspects of it's design from the control design (or lack of a
>canard),the shody slip performance, the plastic fuel tanks, the fuel
>lines, even the thrust line is wrong??? What gives??? Have you finished your
>Mark III you started in 93? Have you flown it??? I realize that in the
>experimental arena anything is fair game for change, but with so many issues
>with the current design maybe it's just not what your looking for???
>
>Just my earned .02 worth.
>Guy Swenson
>Semper Fi
Amen, right to point, well said.
jerryb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> I have heard there has been some experience of separation with premix being
> run thru the black hoses. Perhaps it brand associated but I recall it has
> been reported on UL list.
jerryb/Gang:
What kind of explanation did these folks with fuel oil
seperation give when "premix is run through black hoses"?
How did they know it was the "black hose" that caused the
seperation?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerryb" <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel lines
>
> >
> >
> >Actually risked my life in the name of freedom and the
> > > right to pursue our wonderful hobby and express our opinions freely as
you
> > > have just done. :o) KIRK
> >
> >Kirk,
> >Were you drafted or did you volunteer? Not that it matters, Just
wondering.
> >
> >As for the tank rupture, fuel line failure (due to vibration I guess) Are
> >you building a KOLB or a tank? do you plan on hitting alot of hard
stuff??
> >
> >Plastic, Aluminum, Tin, whatever you want to build your fuel tank out of,
> >can and will create static and can spark if not properly grounded to the
> >fueling vessel prior to beginning the refueling process. So simply making
> >your tank out of metal will not insure you wont have a fire.
> >Just for your information. All Snowmobiles manufactured today have
plastic
> >fuel tanks. Usually about 10 gallons each and located right between your
> >legs! That puts it between you and the motor.
> >
> >I question if a Kolb is the right project for you. You seem to take issue
> >with almost all aspects of it's design from the control design (or lack
of a
> >canard),the shody slip performance, the plastic fuel tanks, the fuel
> >lines, even the thrust line is wrong??? What gives??? Have you finished
your
> >Mark III you started in 93? Have you flown it??? I realize that in the
> >experimental arena anything is fair game for change, but with so many
issues
> >with the current design maybe it's just not what your looking for???
> >
> >Just my earned .02 worth.
> >Guy Swenson
> >Semper Fi
>
> Amen, right to point, well said.
> jerryb
Gee wizz! You have obviously taken a passionate interest in educating me . I
really appreciate you spending your valuable time correcting my papers.
Thanks Jerry!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "perfect" streamline definition??? |
I read a while back in one of the GA mags that their tests indicated that a
4.5 - 5 to 1 ratio provided the best streamline of a round tube. That was for
wing struts and I suppose for any other horizontal or verticle tube or wire.
You could run some simple tests by taking a sample length of tube and various
streamlining sizes and shapes, attach a scale to it and running down the
freeway with it in the wind. The less effective the streamline the greater
the "weight" (or push or pull ) should be.
At the risk of being "flamed" for not sticking with "as originally designed"
struts and off the shelf available slip on covers ( and in the interest of
the advancement of our sport) - I would like to mention that I also read
about a gentleman who had designed a very STOL version of his high wing spam
can by turning his wing struts into small wings by making the struts
streamlining in the shape of a wing thus creating lifting airfoils where once
only drag existed. I am sure there is more involved, like balancing the lift
from the front with the necessary down force on the tail, etc., but once
done he was able to get off the ground in 75 feet with a GA spam can. Can
you imagine what we could do if we could do the same sort of thing!
Positively scary.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
For me, the value of this site lies in the ability to obtain a variety of
opinions and ideas about the many subjects that we pilots and builders are
faced with in the course of our adventures.
Much of what we will accept and use or pass on and disregard will be
dependant upon the type of flying and individual needs, wants, and desires of
the individual pilot/builder. As a part 103 UL only pilot the "as designed
and intented by Holmer" responce is fine, but for those out there who see
their Kolb as a "little airplane" and who would like to use it as they would
a "little" GA airplane, with all that has to offer with the tecknology
available today - modifications are going to be made. That is the beauty of
both being a builder and of having a Kolb. Some see the Kolb as a great
finished product and some see it as a great base to start with in creating
what they ultimately want it to be.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> For me, the value of this site lies in the ability to obtain a variety of
> opinions and ideas about the many subjects that we pilots and builders are
> faced with in the course of our adventures.
>
> Much of what we will accept and use or pass on and disregard will be
> dependant upon the type of flying and individual needs, wants, and desires
of
> the individual pilot/builder. As a part 103 UL only pilot the "as
designed
> and intented by Holmer" responce is fine, but for those out there who see
> their Kolb as a "little airplane" and who would like to use it as they
would
> a "little" GA airplane, with all that has to offer with the tecknology
> available today - modifications are going to be made. That is the beauty
of
> both being a builder and of having a Kolb. Some see the Kolb as a great
> finished product and some see it as a great base to start with in creating
> what they ultimately want it to be.
Excellent point Steve. I've also noticed another factor in the building and
owning of Kolbs that I hadn't really noticed before. There is a symbiotic
relationship that many of the Kolb pilots have with their airplanes due to
the fact that they have experienced the almost orgiastic joy of being one
with their birds. Dare I say ladies? I have yet to experience that and I
still pretty much relate to my Kolb as a machine and not a lady I love. I
wouldn't like anybody messing with my lover either. Learn something new
everyday. :o)..............Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
I understand your concern for wanting to set me straight. However I think
you need to look at the reality of what I have stated as merely ideas and
what you have projected as your view of who I am and what I'm trying to
accomplish. Your opinions are no better nor worse than mine. There are only
opinions. I put my opinions on the list for constructive analysis and
critique. I resent personal criticism founded on false projections, a
superior attitude, and a condescending tone. If you want to critique my
ideas I welcome that. If you want to tell me what I need or don't need you
can put it in the part of you where the sun don't shine . ............As far
as KISS goes....put that on my ass.
Kirk,
I have seen a few guys like yourself with a lot of ideas to change the Kolb designs,
BUT they either never finish their projects OR find out after all is said
and done, the plane is not safe and end up finding someone that will take it
off their hands.
I do not understand why you want to risk tampering with success? If you are an
aeronautical engineer like Topher, then yes go ahead and do your thing. Changing
the design is flirting with danger if you don't know what you are doing.
Play safe and be happy with a stock Kolb and you will have a better chance of surviving.
I'm serious about this guy. Don't mess with the design!
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years of success flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Kolbers, occasionally a few unpleasantries are sent out. As John H.
has said, this list is about and for Kolbs and Kolbers. The good part
has been that it hasn't been discriminatory- whether you bought it or
built it, whether it is kept simple or amazingly complex. Good
natured kidding (bigLar) is part of the picture as this is a social club
as well as a tech resource. You guys are a refreshing break from
the common world of SUVs, golf, and (ecchhhh) tv sports.
OK, off the soapbox, crack me a beer and go contemplate my
fine aircraft for the next attack of craftmanship. -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "perfect" streamline definition??? |
Steve,
Back in the '80s, there was an UL design that incorporated wings as lift
struts. I read a report that the design was discontinued because of
stability problems in turns. The I remeber it, the struts vectors of lift
were problematic in severe banks. The idea has been tried several times
for sure, but it never has taken hold in a successful way that I know of.
...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: <SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: "perfect" streamline definition???
>
> I read a while back in one of the GA mags that their tests indicated that
a
> 4.5 - 5 to 1 ratio provided the best streamline of a round tube. That was
for
> wing struts and I suppose for any other horizontal or verticle tube or
wire.
> You could run some simple tests by taking a sample length of tube and
various
> streamlining sizes and shapes, attach a scale to it and running down the
> freeway with it in the wind. The less effective the streamline the
greater
> the "weight" (or push or pull ) should be.
>
> At the risk of being "flamed" for not sticking with "as originally
designed"
> struts and off the shelf available slip on covers ( and in the interest of
> the advancement of our sport) - I would like to mention that I also read
> about a gentleman who had designed a very STOL version of his high wing
spam
> can by turning his wing struts into small wings by making the struts
> streamlining in the shape of a wing thus creating lifting airfoils where
once
> only drag existed. I am sure there is more involved, like balancing the
lift
> from the front with the necessary down force on the tail, etc., but once
> done he was able to get off the ground in 75 feet with a GA spam can. Can
> you imagine what we could do if we could do the same sort of thing!
> Positively scary.
>
> Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
Some see the Kolb as a great
> finished product and some see it as a great base to start with in
creating
> what they ultimately want it to be.
Excellent point Steve. I've also noticed another factor in the building
and
owning of Kolbs that I hadn't really noticed before. There is a
symbiotic
relationship that many of the Kolb pilots have with their airplanes due
to
the fact that they have experienced the almost orgiastic joy of being
one
with their birds. Dare I say ladies? I have yet to experience that and I
still pretty much relate to my Kolb as a machine and not a lady I love.
I
wouldn't like anybody messing with my lover either. Learn something new
everyday. :o)..............Kirk
________________________________--
Well Kirk,
It goes a little farther than that....there are those that have
built several Kolbs and those like myself who are building our first
(although I am a repeat offender to the crime of airplane building...)
Quite frankly there are those who have reinvented the wheel and those
that are trying too. The "old guard" get lot's of chuckles when they
speak from experience and try to keep us from following the road to
nowhere that has already been traveled, and then we hike off down it
anyway. Personally the local flyer's around me wish I'd just build the
plane cause they would like the flying company when they go off to some
fly-in every Saturday. No the Kolb's aren't perfect, but it's quite
funny to those that have followed the Kolb's over the years and watched
the cycle the "new" builders go in... most come up with great "new"
ideas and when it's all said and done, they end up realizing that the
Kolb guys, (Homer and Dennis Souder) pretty much had it figured out from
the start. So go ahead and wave the flag of creativity and ingenuity
and go ahead and "re"invent the wheel. RARELY there are a few tweaks
that get a little squeak of improvement out of the design (Richard
Pike's new radiator scoop comes to mind) but more often than not those
trying to "improve" the design end up flying around with some weight
that is of no use, and certainly the flying is put off farther down the
calendar with every "Improvement" the builder puts into it. Me
personally, I "reinvented" the wingtip bows, and the seat design, and
the fuel tank (for more capacity, not cause I thought the original
design was unsafe). And quite frankly, I've about decided that the seat
design wasn't worth the time and effort, and for simplicity and weight,
the factory setup can't be beat. The wingtips won't flex as much as the
plans way, but the plans way was fine and would have been a heck of a
lot easier to build, and the fuel tank has been a royal pain in the
rear. I have probably doubled the build time that would have been
required to get to the stage I'm at in the building process. Sooooo,
all that to say this....It's not some hokey pokey cult-like love affair
with the Kolb designers, it's a hokey pokey cult-like RESPECT for them
after trying to "improve" their design. Now take it for what you paid
for it, but what would you think about the Kolb's if everyone you knew
that flew and/or built one gave you a laundry list of things they hated
about it, or told you to do different??? I would have walked away from
it and built something else....
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
P.S. One more example...from the automotive world. KISS works...even
the gadgets that you put in a vehicle can actually cause more danger
than the "problem" they were supposed to fix.
'95 "unnamed make/model" pickup truck...the manufacturer decided to
replace the time tested (simple) push-button switch in the door jamb (to
tell the truck that the door was shut) with an electronic "eye" inside
the latch mechanism. (I'm sure there had to be a good reason to make
the change...but I have no idea why...electronic eye salesman was very
persuading?) Anyway, this "improved" system worked great for about 6
July 12, 2002 - July 23, 2002
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dr