Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dy
November 01, 2002 - November 18, 2002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Ignition Noise/Grounding |
> Not to point out the obvious but the
> shield must be grounded, I frame ground the shield at both ends of the > run.
> -Mick Fine
Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
grounded, not both. Might be in Tony Bingelis' book. I can
not remember. Maybe I am wrong.
I'll try to remember to see if I can find it.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Gentlemen:
In response to my posting concerning operations over gross weight a
number of folks asked whether I left the fatties sitting on the ramp. The
short answer is yes, I did. Much to the social embarrassment of my friend.
Interestingly enough, we are still friends and he has not lost any weight,
despite his doctors orders and FAA required cardiac cathederization to keep
his medical. We did ask the FBO at Williamsport if they would de-fuel the
plane. I had read that this is sometimes possible. After hemming and hawing
they said they would, but claimed they couldn't give us any credit for the
fuel because they would have to dispose of it as hazardous waste, they wanted
something like $100.00 to take 30 gallons of fuel out of the plane. The
fatties drove.
Much more interesting is John Williamson's response to my post
indicating that the max gross weight of the Kolbra per the factory literature
is 1100 lbs. I was not aware of that, probably because the info posted on
the Kolb web site still says 1000. I gather it has not been updated. I
apologize to John, and did not intend any disrespect. Having looked at the
Kolbra frame, I was unable to see any additional structure to justify the
change in spec. John, do you know what the factory did different on the
Kolbra to get you that additional 100 lbs?
Nevertheless, I stand by my initial observation, that it seems alot of
Kolbers view the gross weight limitation set by the factory as merely
advisory.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Carr" <dcarr(at)uniontel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
John and all:
John is correct, Shielding should only be gnded at one end. Connecting to
gnd at both ends causes gnd loops. A gnd loop causes current to flow within
the gnd ckt which is very bad. I cant remember the theory of what that
causes but it is not good.
Dave Carr
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Ignition Noise/Grounding
>
> > Not to point out the obvious but the
> > shield must be grounded, I frame ground the shield at both ends of the >
run.
>
> > -Mick Fine
>
> Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
> or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
> grounded, not both. Might be in Tony Bingelis' book. I can
> not remember. Maybe I am wrong.
>
> I'll try to remember to see if I can find it.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | In search of Charm on the JFK, Jr. trail |
Gentlemen:
I can tell its Fall here in Pennsylvania. The Boss gets that look in
her eye. She puts down the Martha Stewart magazine and says, "Can't we go
someplace charming?" This is a dangerous state of affairs which cannot be
cured by a nice ride in the Mark III, and the dinner special a Denny's.
Nope. Its time to gather up all the credit cards and low attitude enroute
charts and head on up the JFK, Jr. Trail to New England in search of that
which is "charming" and "quaint."
And you don't go in search of charm at 65 mph in your Kolb. No my
friends, you need in panel moving maps, mode C, standby vacuum and cabin
heat.
This years destination? Chatham, Massachusetts, about 10 miles east
of Hyanis, a town so charming and quaint your checkbook will swoon.
I call it the JFK , Jr. trail because if you draw a straight line from
New York to Hyanis on Cape Cod you get the route that JFK, Jr. was flying
when he lost it about 17 miles SW of the Marthas Vinyard VOR. I have flown
that route quite a bit over the years.
Its about 2 hours enroute from Philadelphia to Chatham and sunset was
at 5:46. The Boss promised she'd be out of her office at 2:00 on Friday
afternoon. With the Friday traffic slowing us getting to the airport I
figured we'd be in the air at 3:00 and be at Chatham around 5:00, with a
comfortable margin before sunset.
At 1:30 I was parked on the street in front of the Boss' office
building with our bags packed, ready to go. At 3:00 I was still parked,
waiting. I took that hour and a half I had sitting in my car to reflect on
the similarities between me and JFK, Jr. Our astonishing good looks,
personal wealth, beautiful wives, distinguished families, outstanding flying
skills. But there were other similarities which weren't so swell, we were
both trying to get to New England on a Friday afternoon before dark and were
delayed by women at work.
On top of that, the wind was shifting to the NE which would slow us
down and delay our arrival further yet.
We departed about 4:15 into a 1700 ft overcast and were cleared to
7000. We were in solid, but fairly smooth, IMC. I coupled the Garmin GNS
430 moving map to the auto pilot and sat back to listen to the radio chatter
as we headed for New York. We were sent directly over Kennedy. As we passed
over the airport a sucker hole opened up and we could look straight down at
the 747s lined up on the ramp. Quite a sight.
The clouds began to break up around Groton, Connecticut, and by the
time we were over New Bedford, MA, the sun was setting in the West and we
could see a broken layer at about 4000 covering Cape Cod. Cape Approach
cleared us direct to Chatham and descended us to 3000. We broke out in good
visibility west of Hyanis. By 6:15 it was dark, but smooth, and the Boss
picked up the beacon at Chatham 15 miles out. The ASOS at Chatham reported
the winds as calm, so I swung out over Nantucket Sound a bit to line up for a
straight in landing to the East.
The Boss gets a big charge out of turning on the pilot controlled
lighting. So with the runway in sight 4 miles out we just motored down the
big pink line on the GPS to an uneventful landing.
I pulled off the runway and parked on the grass. The FBO was closed
and there were no lights on anywhere. I had called ahead for a rental car,
and the guy I talked to said he'd leave it in the parking lot with the keys
in the glove box.
The Boss and I must have wandered around for 15 minutes with our
flashlights looking for that car, and the Boss was getting cold, which is
always a bad sign. I was ready to give up, when lo and behold what should I
see in the beam of my flashlight, but a beautiful red white and blue stars
and stripes pattern Kolb Firestar tied down in the grass along the taxiway.
Good thing we found the rental car before the Boss got too cold, because I
was thinking of taking the Firestar and taxiing into town.
So who has the Firestar at Chatham?
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Having looked at the
> Kolbra frame, I was unable to see any additional structure to justify the
> change in spec. John, do you know what the factory did different on the
> Kolbra to get you that additional 100 lbs?
>
> Nevertheless, I stand by my initial observation, that it seems alot of
> Kolbers view the gross weight limitation set by the factory as merely
> advisory.
>
> Mark R. Sellers
Good Morning Mark and the rest of you Kolbers:
I started, several times, to answer your original post, but
decided not too. Your most recent post, reference gross
weight, raises some questions on my part.
My first question is: How did Kolb come up with the gross
weight on the Mark III (this was determined, I think, by Old
Kolb)?
The Kolbra was designed and built at New Kolb. How did they
determine gross weight for it?
I do not recall ever hearing how max gross weight was
determined on any model Kolb aircraft. Did they sand bag
and test to destruction? Was it calculated, done on paper?
I don't know.
Dennis tested the Ultrastar wing to destruction in flight.
But was that an accurate test? A couple G Meters mounted in
an US airframe does not produce very accurate information,
especially after the aircraft hits the ground under a
parachute. The only information, to my knowledge, gained
was the left drag strut failed, and the Jim Handbury hand
deployed parachute worked.
I am unaware of any other physical stress tests of Kolb
models. But what do I know? Maybe they did.
I made several changes to my Mark III wing to increase
strength and durability:
-Noses of all main ribs reinforced, top and bottom, with
alum angle.
-Tails of the first four outboard main ribs reinforced, top
and bottom, with alum angle.
-All designed lateral bracing increased to 1/2" OD tubing,
plus additional 1/2" tube lateral bracing.
-Bow tip bracing beefed up to 1/2" tube with large gusset,
one 45 degrees and one 90 degrees to the leading edge. This
locks the bow tip in place. Does not flex with wing loading
in turbulent air. Also helps keep the leading edge of the
wing locked in place.
Tail section called for .032" wall tubing. I went with
.058" for the large tubes.
Lower vertical stabilizer entirely constructed of 4130
tubing welded together.
Additional 4130 tubing and some design changes in the
fuselage.
Redesigned landing gear and internal fuselage structure to
carry it.
My Mark III has been thoroughly tested at near gross weights
in violent air many times. It has stayed together for the
last 1,731.4 flight hours. If I remember correctly, Mark
grouped me with Rick Trader and his modified Twinstar. I do
not know how many hours Rick has on his Twinstar, but I
seriously doubt he has a fraction of the time Miss P'fer
has. You have to fly them to accumulate time. I have been
doing that for the last ten years.
The modifications on my Mark III were the result of
building, flying, breaking, modifying, testing, and
repairing Kolbs. I got a lot of experience flying the
Prototype Mark III. I flew off most of the initial 40 hours
during the test period on the Prototype. This experience
helped my brother Jim and I decide on what we needed to
change to my airplane, which was built and modified to make
the US perimeter and Alaska flight in 1994.
My normal take off weight during an extended cross country
flight is 1,105 lbs. My airplane is placarded at 1,200
lbs. Is that a realistic, safe gross weight for my
aircraft? Yes! Have I flown at this max gross weight?
Occasionally, when I carry a passenger that weighs aprx 230
lbs with full fuel. How does my Mark III perform at that
weight? Great!
Knowing that I have my Mark III placarded for 1,200 lbs,
Mark did not hesitate to strap in and go flying with me at
the Kolb Flyin. In fact, he looked quite confident and
relaxed during the flight.
So you see, I did not take a stock Mark III built according
to plans and arbitrarily pull a max gross weight out of the
air and stick on it. However, as the builder/manufacturer
of the Hauck/Kolb Mark III, SN: M3-011, I could have and
remained legal.
Mark, if I built a stock, out of the box, Mark III, I would
placard it for 1,000 lbs max gross weight.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans van Alphen" <HVA(at)bellsouth.net> |
>From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Struts (4130 Streamlined)
Hey Larry and All,
The Mark III Xtra has the round struts and vinyl streamline fairing, They
work just great with no vibration.... No need to build new struts.
I installed the fairings nine degrees offset to the bottom of the wing,
sothat in flight they do not add drag. Any other position is only giving
more drag with negligable lift.
Hans van Alphen
Mark III Xtra
BMW powered
80 hours.
>
>My Mk III kit from TOK came with round struts and slip-over plastic
fairings
>to streamline them. What's your thought on those ?? Long ago, someone
>wondered how to figure just what angle to put the struts at, for the least
>drag. I've kinda had in mind letting them "float," and pick their own
>angle. Thoughts ??? Lar.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, CA
>Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
>www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: In search of Charm |
>
> So who has the Firestar at Chatham?
>
>Mark R. Sellers
>Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
>
Mark,
It may be:
Chris Davis , FIRESTAR KXP, 503 SC, 490hrs
Chatham, MA, 508-945-1057, scrounge(at)attbi.com
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
<<<<<<<<<
I don't think they do, but you can buy extruded aluminum
streamlined tubing from Kolb and make up your own. The lift
strut fittings are bolted to the streamlined alum.
john h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i have round tubing with a plastic streemlined strut around
it.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
> Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
> or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
> grounded, not both. Might be in Tony Bingelis' book. I can
> not remember. Maybe I am wrong.
>
> I'll try to remember to see if I can find it.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
John,
Yes that is correct. Reason being is to prevent ground loops which carry
ignition noise. Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Every Citizen Should Be Outraged |
Disabled American Veterans -- Legislative Alerts and Updates
----- Original Message -----
From: lbogle-web(at)davmail.org
Subject: Every Citizen Should Be Outraged
Action Alert
Every Citizen Should Be Outraged
Although opponents have tried to cloud the issue by making misleading arguments,
legislation to authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability
compensation is a matter of simple justice. If a veteran earns retired
pay by serving faithfully in the Armed Forces for 20 or more years but must forfeit
a dollar of retired pay for each dollar of disability compensation received,
our country is in effect paying that disabled veteran nothing for the blindness,
loss of limbs, paralysis, or other service-connected disability he incurred
while serving his country. That is shameful. The Senate passed provisions
to remove this unjust provision in law that uses veterans' misfortune of suffering
service-connected disability as an excuse to strip them of their entitlement
to the retired pay they earned. However, the Bush Administration has threatened
to veto this legislation, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and his key lieutenants have refused to obey a motion unanimously adopted
by House members that instructs House conferees on the bill to agree to the Senate
provisions. That is shameful. Every citizen should be outraged.
Send this message to your elected representatives today.
October 30, 2002 Update on Concurrent Receipt
The defense authorization bill, containing concurrent receipt provisions, is still
being stalled by the House of Representatives. Keep up the pressure on concurrent
receipt. So far in the month of October alone, our DAV grassroots sent
more than 58,000 e-mails over the DAV legislative action service. A large majority
of these pertained to our quest for concurrent receipt legislation. In addition,
many of you have called or sent your own e-mails. Congress is in recess
for elections, but staff members are still in the Washington and local offices.
Congress must return after its recess to finish work on pending legislation,
including the defense authorization bill. Make concurrent receipt an issue
when legislators are campaigning in your area. If you are in a location where
the President will campaign for a senator or local member of the Congress, make
concurrent receipt an issue with the press and in any available public forums.
The President and House and Senate candidates must be confronted with the
importance of this issue when they talk to voters. If you have not already done
so, enter your zip code in the box above to send an e-mail regarding concurrent
receipt. Have your family members, fellow veterans, friends, and neighbors
send e-mails also.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cermakrone Muffler Coating |
You may want to file this away for future reference.
The coater we have used is High Performance Coatings in Oklahoma City.
Their web site is: http://www.hpcoatings.com/
They've done good work in the past although I do think they used to do a
little better.
We had them do our Kolb in 97 and my Hawk in 99, both exhaust systems look
like new. The coating we got was aluminum/silver colored. Really looks nice.
Note there is another outfit that comes up under performance coatings out
of Washington - that's not them. Be careful using places that strictly do
ONLY race car frames and headers. They can get carried away with prep
bead/sand blasting cleaning process on thin tubing.
Since doing the Kolb several other have had their systems coated by
them. Most of them had tried the various paints and paint on coating which
just didn't cut it. They finally gave up looking at their rusting masses
of metal and had them coated. So far even the used exhaust systems look
good and appear to be holding up just as well.
New or used they preclean the parts (bead blast). The process is similar
to powder coating. It's sprayed on powder process that is baked at a
higher temperature to create a smooth glazed finish - very tuff and hard.
Yes colors are available but there are some trade offs when you use such as
on an Rotax exhaust system - the aluminum/silver coating finish has the
best durability. It protects very well. Can anyone around the coast
confirm protection from salt air? When you get it back you need to shake
the muffler back and forth to get out the last remaining beads.
When you call them tell them you have a # piece Rotax exhaust system (typ.
manifold, elbow, and muffler) and whether it new run (better price) or used
(slightly higher charge for the extra clean up they have to do). Don't
bother sending springs or temp probe brass fittings, they remove and lose
them. Don't say anything about airplane, aircraft or ultralight. If they
ask it for a off road vehicle ATV or airboat. They'll probably still do it
if you say its aircraft parts as they do aircraft parts but it for sure
will cost you more. All airplane owners have deeeep pockets,
right. They've done good work in the past but expect a 10-14 day turn around.
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In search of Charm on the JFK, Jr. trail |
Aaahhh.................an aspiring novelist ! ! ! Good story, well told,
with a neat twist at the end. Thanks. Lar. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: In search of Charm on the JFK, Jr. trail
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I can tell its Fall here in Pennsylvania. The Boss gets that look
in
> her eye. She puts down the Martha Stewart magazine and says, "Can't we go
> someplace charming?" This is a dangerous state of affairs which cannot be
> cured by a nice ride in the Mark III, and the dinner special a Denny's.
> Nope. Its time to gather up all the credit cards and low attitude enroute
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
| Subject: | In search of Charm on the JFK, Jr. trail |
Were in PA are you.
I'm just out side of reading.
Ken James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
Yes, John H. it's best to grnd only one end.....and since grndg is more
black art then science, you may have to try either end.
Bob N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring Best Rate of Climb and Best Angle of Climb |
Thanks Vince and Robert Kearbey for your responses. Just what I needed!
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "vincenicely" <vincenicely(at)chartertn.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Measuring Best Rate of Climb and Best Angle of Climb
>
> There was a question on measuring the best rate of climb and angle of
climb.
> Sorry, I lost the message before replying as I intended. So, he is my
reply
> to what I think the question was.
>
> The FAA publishes a circular labeled AC 90-89a which can be found on the
> internet at:
>
> http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/amateur/ac90-89a.pdf
>
> Page 47 and 48 (shows as page 54 and 55 of the pdf document) show how to
> measure the best rate of climb and best angle of climb.
>
> BTW, AC 90-89a is the FAA's view of how to flight test your new ultralight
> or homebuilt aircraft for any who may not have found this circular and are
> thinking of testing their new plane.
>
> Vince Nicely
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
Does anyone have a little PolyTak, PolyBrush and PolySpray they care to sell?
I have only the left side and bottom of my MkIII cage to recover.
Got plenty of fabric, enough PolyTone, but short of chemicals. Instead of buying
all new for a little bit, could pay you for your extra instead.
Write back to this address if interested. Of course will pay your shipping too
- thanks.
John & Lynn Richmond
---------------------------------
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lloyd McFarlane" <lrmcf(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Streamline Struts |
I installed the vinyl stream line struts from Kolb over the standard round struts
on my FireStar II. Held in place with 4 rivets to the round strut. Vibrated
terribly. Filled them with expanding foam, stopped vibration and have been
great for 140 hours.
Lloyd McFarlane
Fullerton, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Struts (4130 Streamlined) |
Lar,
When I first put the sleeves over the struts I just epoxied them to the strut
tubes to minimize the number of holes in the strut tube. Then one day a GA
type guy was going to help me move my plane and he grabbed the strut and took
off. This broke the glue joint and the streamlined sleeve was free to rotate
on the strut tube. It seemed to always want to turn to the vertical position
so I ended up riveting it into place.
Steven
> How come ??
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SGreenpg(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Struts (4130 Streamlined)
>
>
> >
> >In a message dated 10/31/02 11:22:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> >biglar(at)gogittum.com writes:
> >
> >>. I've kinda had in mind letting them "float," and pick their own
> >>angle. Thoughts ??? Lar.
> >>
> >>Larry Bourne
> >>Palm Springs, CA
> >>Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> >>
> >
> >Nope, that doesn't work.
> >
> >Steven Green
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flooded MKIII |
In a message dated 11/1/02 1:06:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
froghair(at)gbronline.com writes:
> I don't have any shielding on my spark plug wires, just resistor plugs and
> non-resistor caps on a 503 point, single ignition engine. I did run
> shielded 20 gauge (2 conductor+shield) cable to my kill switch and another
> separate shielded cable to the tach. Not to point out the obvious but the
> shield must be grounded, I frame ground the shield at both ends of the run.
> I've seen guys run shielded cable but then snip the shield off nice and
> clean at both ends and then spend hours trying to fix the static in their
> radio!
>
Mike,
I used the same setup you described but I also use the resistor caps that
came standard on my 582 and I have never had any ignition noise on my radio
or intercom. One thing that is recommended is to ground the shield on only
one end. This prevents the possibility of the shield carrying any current if
there was any potential between the two places you had it grounded.
Steven G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2002 List Fund Raiser - Please Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
During November of each year, I have a voluntary Email List Fund Raiser to
support the continued operation, development, maintenance and upgrade of
the Email Forums sponsored here. Your Contributions go directly into
improvements in the systems that support the Lists and to pay for the
Internet connectivity primarily dedicated to supporting the Lists.
The traffic on the Lists continues to grow and the numbers are nothing
short of impressive! Here are some statistics that show much traffic the
Lists generated last year alone:
11/01/2001 - 10/31/2002
Web server hits: 8,700,000 (727,000/mo)
Incoming Email Posts: 51,259 (4,271/mo) *
* This number is multiplied by the total number of email addresses
subscribed to the given List. The actual number of email message processed
is in the 50,000,000 range for last year!!
The new Internet provider, Speakeasy, has been providing extremely fast and
reliable service over the last year, and this has certainly been a
refreshing change from previous providers!
There were a couple of new features added at the tail-end of last year
including the new List Browse Feature ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse
), and the List Photoshare which have been both very popular. Many people
have written to say how much they enjoy the on-line browsing capability of
current week's messages. The 184 new Photoshares (
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare ) added over the last year attests to
its acceptance and appreciation in the community as well.
I have upgraded both the email and web server OS systems recently to the
latest - well almost the latest - version of Redhat Linux and Kernel
2.4.19, both of which have been working very well and quite reliably.
What does the future hold? Well, something pretty exciting I'm
hoping... I am currently evaluating a new, commercially available software
package that runs under Linux and provides a complete web-based Email List
service akin to what those other guys use. The difference will be that
there won't be any annoying advertisements and popup ads on the Matronics
system!! The system will continue to be dedicated to furthering Lists
activities and not trying to sell you something you don't want. My hope is
to keep most if not all of the current functionality in place and add the
new software system over the top. Some of the system will be replaced
(like majordomo), but the lists will work much like they do today - only
BETTER! As I mentioned, I am currently in the evaluation stage of this and
have yet to select a final product. Suffice to say some facelifts are
definitely on the way!
Unlike many of the other "list servers" on the web these days, I have a
strict no-commercial-advertisement policy on the Matronics Lists and
associated List websites. I have been approached by a number of vendors
recently with advertising deals that have been very tempting. However, my
commitment to providing a grass-roots, non-commercial environment
prevails! Commercialism on the Internet seems to be increasing
exponentially every year with more and more SPAM and pop up ads, not to
mention the ever increasing Virus attacks. My goal with the Matronics List
Service is to provide my members with a commercial-free, safe, and
high-performance system in which to share information, ideas, and
camaraderie.
I recoup my upgrade, maintenance, and operating costs by having a List Fund
Raiser once a year during November. During this time, I ask List members
to donate a small amount of money to support the continued operation of the
Lists over the upcoming year. Contributions in the $20, $30, and $50 range
are common. This year I have completely revamped the Contribution website,
and have added the ability to use PayPal to make your Contribution in
addition to the traditional Visa/MC and Personal Check Options. Its easier
and faster than ever before to make your Contribution!! For those who are
accustomed to using PayPal to make Internet purchases, will appreciate the
ease and speed of using this handy method of payment to make their List
Contribution.
The best news this year, however, is that I have a couple of fantastic Gift
offers to support the List Fund Raiser! Andy Gold of The Builder's
Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ) will be generously donating a
FREE Jeppesen Flight Bag to anyone making a $50 or more List Contribution
during the Fund Raiser! This is a great bag and something you'll surely
what to get your hands on. Thanks Andy, for this great incentive!!
In addition to the great Flight Bag, I will also be offering a FREE
Matronics List Archive CDROM for a $50 or greater Contribution! This is a
complete set of archives for all Email Lists currently hosted by
Matronics. The Archives date back to the beginning of the each List. In
the case of the RV-List, for example, this includes archives all the way
back to 1990! That's about 133Mb alone! Also included on the CD is a copy
of Chip Gibbion's Windows Archive Search Utility and a precompiled
search-index for each archive on the CD.
Better yet?! You can get BOTH the Flight Bag AND the Archive CD for a
Contribution of $75 or more which is actually LESS than the combined retail
price on the two items!!! How can you go wrong? Get some great stuff AND
support your Lists at the same time!
Over the next month I'll be posting a few reminder messages about the List
Fund Raiser, and I ask for your patience and understanding during the
process. Remember that the Lists are *completely* funded through the
generous Contributions of its members. That's it! There's no support from
a bloated advertising budget or deep pockets somewhere. Its all made
possible through YOUR support!
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who supports the
List this year. Your generosity contributes directly to the quality of the
experience here.
To make your List Contribution using a Visa or MasterCard, PalPal, or with
a Personal Check, please go to the URL link below. Here you can find
additional details on this year's great free Gifts as well as additional
information on the various methods of payment.
SSL Secure Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Again, I would like to thank everyone who supports the Lists this
year! Your Contributions truly make it all possible!!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Struts (4130 Streamlined) |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
A way to get around that Larry is to rivet a thin aluminium plate on the
back side of the sleeve, to make sure it weather vanes with the slip stream.
He did bring up a good point though, that it wouldn't work the way it came
from TNK.
============================
>
> Gotcha ! ! !
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Struts (4130 Streamlined)
>
>
>
>>
>>> How come ??
>> because the airfoil is not stable at the pivot point that is imposed by
> the
>> round tube underneath. there isn't a weathervaneing force because there
> is
>> as much area in front of the pivot point as behind. with no stability it
> is
>> a bad idea to let it spin free cause it might just spin.
>>
>> this is serious by the way, do not try it, you might not live through the
>> experiment.
>>
>> Topher
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
In a message dated 11/1/02 8:09:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, jhauck(at)sw.rr.com
writes:
> Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
> or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
> grounded, not both.
True. You'll get a "ground loop", causing noise.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Tonry" <rtonry(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
Tie only one end. The engine end is better. A current gets induced onto the
shield. Grounding it at the engine will send this to the source end of the
noise, not your radio end.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Ignition Noise/Grounding
>
> > Not to point out the obvious but the
> > shield must be grounded, I frame ground the shield at both ends of the >
run.
>
> > -Mick Fine
>
> Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
> or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
> grounded, not both. Might be in Tony Bingelis' book. I can
> not remember. Maybe I am wrong.
>
> I'll try to remember to see if I can find it.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cermakrone Muffler Coating |
With the present state of the economy, High Performance Coatings might be
getting a little hungry so this may be the right time to get your system
done over the late fall, winter months.
I called their Oklahoma City branch which done ours and talked to a
Steve. Told him I need a 3 piece Rotax exhaust system coated. - He asked
me what it was for, an ultralight or what. I told him an off the road
vehicle. He came back with $35 for the 2-1 manifold, $10-$ for the elbow,
and $45 for the muffler. Add $20 if the muffler wasn't new and had been
run. So for about $95-$115 plus you pay the shipping each way, they will
coat your system. Not to bad and worth it if it will keep it from rusting
away.
Their web site is: http://www.hpcoatings.com/
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: got leftovers? |
Watch out you may have to pay a hazardous fee charge for shipping parcels
UPS containing flammable chemicals. Our UPS center is now requires their
inspection of the contains under the pretense assuring the contents have
been properly packed. It's kind of like the airlines using the law to show
your ID. when checking in for a flight and gain the benefit refusing to
honor the ticket if the holder is not the named party on the ticket where
they immediately take advantage of the situation forcing you to buy a new
ticket at the same day walk up fare rate. Talk about a monopoly.
jerb
>
>
>Does anyone have a little PolyTak, PolyBrush and PolySpray they care to
>sell? I have only the left side and bottom of my MkIII cage to recover.
>
>Got plenty of fabric, enough PolyTone, but short of chemicals. Instead of
>buying all new for a little bit, could pay you for your extra instead.
>
>Write back to this address if interested. Of course will pay your
>shipping too - thanks.
>
>
>John & Lynn Richmond
>
>
>---------------------------------
>HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
John:
I was very interested to read about all of the modifications you did
to your plane. In fact, I think that is the first time I have ever seen all
of them described in one place. I do, however, have a few questions.
First, lets keep our eye on the ball here. We were talking about
gross weight increases. Common sense suggests, and Dennis Souder confirms,
that the gross weight of the Mark III is limited by the strength of the wing
spar.
So lets go through your list of modifications with that in mind: You
stiffened the nose ribs and the outboard ribs with aluminum angle. (I did
my last outboard rib as well per the supplemental drawing.) How does that
bear on the ability of the wing spar to carry a load?
You stiffened the tip bows. (I did that as well.) I think this is a
very sensible modification for folks flying out of unimproved fields, but can
you explain how that would improve the ability of the wing spar to resist
bending under load?
Your modifications to the tail and fuselage, while sensible, probably
have no impact on the spars either.
Let me repeat a story that informs my view of this question. I have a
good friend Phil, who is an engineer. Back in the day, Phil sold and
supported and enormously expensive engineering software package (to folks
like Boeing and Lockheed) that did structural analysis of aircraft
structures. Phil owned Firestar serial #1 and did aerobatics in it until the
rivets in the H sections loosened up to the point where he didn't feel so
good about flying it anymore, so he bought a Titan kit.
As an engineer, Phil felt a little uncomfortable about his plan to do
aerobatics in the Titan because the front D section of the wing was nothing
more than a piece of styrofoam covered by a piece of curving sheet metal. So
Phil spent a month of Sundays plugging all the values and configurations for
the plane into the software package he sold to make a model for the plane.
Then with click of a mouse began stressing the model. His expectation was
that the first thing to fail would be the wings. What the model showed, to
his great surprise, was that at something like 1.5 VNE (I don't recall
precisely) the steel tube supporting the passenger seat deformed.
Naturally, Phil gave this priceless engineering info to Titan for free and
they changed the cage.
The lesson learned was this: sometimes the thing that is going to
break under stress is not the thing your intuition suggests. If Phil had
spent alot of energy strengthing the wings on his Titan all he would have
done would be to have made his airplane heavier (not stronger). While all
the modifications you listed for your plane make alot of sense to me, I don't
see how they strengthen wing spar (and by extension permit you to raise the
gross weight of the plane). Indeed, when Ferguson came out with his "beefed
up" Mark III Dennis Souder's general reaction was that he had merely
succeeded in making a heavier plane, not a better one.
I'm no engineer, lawyers just sweep up the twisted metal and broken
bodies. But logically, if the spar is the limiting factor wouldn't increased
strength come from greater wall thickness on the tube? How about a longer H
section with a truss design? How about solid rivets instead of pop rivets?
I'm just asking questions here, looking for something other than intuition
and shade tree engineering.
The other thing that continues to trouble me is that what will always
put us over gross is not fuel or baggage, but a passenger. And no passenger
that I have ever flown has been very interested in testing aircraft
structures.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Davis - Comcast <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
When I ordered a "starter Kit" from Aircraft Technical Support, I found out
that as long as the quantity is below a threshold (1 qt, I believe) it does
not require shipping as harardous material. I received MEK, PolyTak,
PolyBrush and PolySpray. You may want to call them and order directly. If
you only need a small amount, it's much more straightforward then trying to
deal with hazmat regulations on your own (and paying for hazmat shipping).
Chuck
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: got leftovers?
Watch out you may have to pay a hazardous fee charge for shipping parcels
UPS containing flammable chemicals. Our UPS center is now requires their
inspection of the contains under the pretense assuring the contents have
been properly packed. It's kind of like the airlines using the law to show
your ID. when checking in for a flight and gain the benefit refusing to
honor the ticket if the holder is not the named party on the ticket where
they immediately take advantage of the situation forcing you to buy a new
ticket at the same day walk up fare rate. Talk about a monopoly.
jerb
>
>
>Does anyone have a little PolyTak, PolyBrush and PolySpray they care to
>sell? I have only the left side and bottom of my MkIII cage to recover.
>
>Got plenty of fabric, enough PolyTone, but short of chemicals. Instead of
>buying all new for a little bit, could pay you for your extra instead.
>
>Write back to this address if interested. Of course will pay your
>shipping too - thanks.
>
>
>John & Lynn Richmond
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>snip>
> Let me repeat a story that informs my view of this question.
> I have a good friend Phil, who is an engineer. Back in the day, Phil
sold
> and supported and enormously expensive engineering software package (to
> folks like Boeing and Lockheed) that did structural analysis of
aircraft
> structures. Phil owned Firestar serial #1 and did aerobatics in it
> until the rivets in the H sections loosened up to the point where he
didn't
> feel so good about flying it anymore, so he bought a Titan kit.
>snip>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
Mark,
Were these rivets in the wing H-section or the fuselage tube H-section?
If they were in the wings, how did this engineer happen to notice they
were loose?
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Mark/Gents:
Since it is too cold this morning to fly, and I still don't
know if I can push the Mark III out of the hanger with a
recovering hamstring, I'll take a little time and see if I
can answer some of your questions.
First, let me qualify myself again. I am not an engineer,
not even a shade tree engineer. What I have learned about
these little airplanes, I learned from others, my own
mistakes, experimentation, and utilization. What I have to
say about my airplanes and my experiences are mine alone. I
speak for myself and no one else. I am responsible for me
and no one else. I can not advise or tell anyone else how
to build or fly their Kolb.
> First, lets keep our eye on the ball here. We were talking about
> gross weight increases. Common sense suggests, and Dennis Souder confirms,
> that the gross weight of the Mark III is limited by the strength of the wing
> spar.
Wrong on all of the above, in my case and my experience.
And I think you have misunderstood Dennis Souder. Having
tested a 1986 Firestar five main rib wing to destruction of
both wings in flight, I believe the noses of the main ribs
are the weakest and limiting factor in the Kolb wing. That
is what failed on my Firestar. All ten of them on both
wings. That is why I beefed up the noses of all ten ribs on
each wing of my Mark III. In addition, the inboard rib on
my Mark III is 4130 to include the nose. The 6 inch main
spar of the Mark III wing is the strongest part of the
wing. There is no way one can stress it to failure in
flight. Can not prove that, but it is my belief. The six
inch main spar is a tremendous overkill. For that matter, I
do not think you can overstress a 5 inch main spar. I
believe the Bede 5 uses a 5 inch main spar tube in its
cantilever wing. It is a much heavier, faster aircraft than
any of the Kolbs.
> So lets go through your list of modifications with that in mind: You
> stiffened the nose ribs and the outboard ribs with aluminum angle. (I did
> my last outboard rib as well per the supplemental drawing.) How does that
> bear on the ability of the wing spar to carry a load?
The above does nothing for the main spar to carry a load.
However, the main spar will not fly with the main rib noses
perpendicular to the bottom of the wing. The noses are the
weakest part.
> You stiffened the tip bows. (I did that as well.) I think this is a
> very sensible modification for folks flying out of unimproved fields, but can
> you explain how that would improve the ability of the wing spar to resist
> bending under load?
The above mod does not have anything to do with "the ability
of the wing spar to resist bending under load". What it
does is improve the flight characteristics when flying in
severely turbulent air and it helps keep the noses of the
main ribs in column. When the noses of the main ribs are
pushed/pulled out of column, they fail. In addition, I
increased lateral bracing of the leading edges to give them
more strength to keep the rib noses in column.
> Your modifications to the tail and fuselage, while sensible, probably
> have no impact on the spars either.
Yes they do. The wings and spars don't fly without the
tail. Remember, we moved the main gear on my Mark III 8"
forward of the original position. This places aprx'ly 100
lbs on the tail wheel. The tail wheel is part of the tail
section. My experience flying the prototype Mark III
enlightened me to the fact that slightly loose tailwires
created some harmonic vibrations in the leading edges of the
horizontal and vertical tail sections. Kinda scary looking
back there and watching all this dancing of parts going on.
I feel more comfortable with the increased strength of my
tail section. A couple 3 or 4 hundred hours ago, the
leading edge of the upper vertical stabilizer broke at the
mid point where the tube is drilled 1/8" on both sides for
gussets. That was a .058 tube. A lot of hours wears out
parts. Keep your eyes on them if you accumulate a lot of
hours on your aircraft. We also welded up the lower
vertical stab entirely of 4130 to beef up the load carrying
capability of the tail wheel. I broke the aluminum leading
edge of the lower vertical stabilizer on Fat Albert, the
original prototype of the Mark III, at Oshkosh some years
ago.
> Phil owned Firestar serial #1 and did aerobatics in it until the
> rivets in the H sections loosened up to the point where he didn't feel so
> good about flying it anymore, so he bought a Titan kit.
Your friend Phil was flying a very poorly constructed
Firestar, or one that had had the sh_t flown out of it. In
other words, severely abused. In all the hours I put on my
Ultrastar, Firestar, and my Mark III, I have never had a
loose rivet in an "H" brace in the main spars or tailboom.
Flying aerobatics in a Firestar will not loosen up main spar
"H" section rivets.
> What the model showed, to
> his great surprise, was that at something like 1.5 VNE (I don't recall
> precisely) the steel tube supporting the passenger seat deformed.
Mark, you don't have to worry about breaking your Kolb by
flying 1.5 VNE. Probably could not get it to fly that fast
in a 90 degree dive, WOT. My testing did not use a computer
model. It used me and the airplane.
> The lesson learned was this: sometimes the thing that is going to
> break under stress is not the thing your intuition suggests.
The above I agree with. That is what I learned when the
wings on my Firestar failed. Last thing I ever expected to
fail.
> While all
> the modifications you listed for your plane make alot of sense to me, I don't
> see how they strengthen wing spar (and by extension permit you to raise the
> gross weight of the plane).
First Mark, the main spar of the Mark III or any model Kolb
does not have to be strengthened. The main spars are gross
over kills in strength. The mods we made to my Mark III
were not intended to strengthen the main spar but to
strengthen the entire package, the whole airplane. I
believe we did that based on what my Mark III has
accomplished during its lifetime. I could have raised the
gross weight on my Mark III without making a single change
from the kit and plans. As an individual
homebuilder/manufacturer of the Hauck/Kolb Mark III, that is
my choice. But I didn't do it based on no changes. I did
it based on some pretty realistic esperimentation, testing
and utilization over a period of a lot of years.
> Indeed, when Ferguson came out with his "beefed
> up" Mark III Dennis Souder's general reaction was that he had merely
> succeeded in making a heavier plane, not a better one.
Ferguson did not beef up Homer's Mark II. He changed some
things to include the wing ribs. I personally did not like
the Ferguson designed wing rib because I felt it was much
weaker than Homer's. Knowledge gained from a Ferguson crash
a few years ago indicates that the Ferguson modifications
rendered the aircraft grossly less crash worthy than the
standard Mark III.
> But logically, if the spar is the limiting factor wouldn't increased
> strength come from greater wall thickness on the tube? How about a longer H
> section with a truss design? How about solid rivets instead of pop rivets?
There is nothing wrong with the strength of the main spar or
the "H" section or the pop rivets. I feel, and Dennis
Souder will back me up (I theeeeenk) that the strength of
the main spar, "H" section, and rivets, is an overkill.
> I'm just asking questions here, looking for something other than intuition
> and shade tree engineering.
I base my actions on experience with the aircraft. If you
want "other than intuition and shade tree engineering" you
probably need to go talk to your engineer friend Phil. What
I have shared with you, above, is based on "doing". Some of
it right, some of it wrong, but all of it based on
experience of succeeding and failing, getting back up,
brushing off the dirt and dust, and trying something else
until it works. What I have now works for me. And again I
will say that I did not see any indication of hesitation, on
your part, to hop right in Miss P'fer and commit aviation
with us. :-)
> The other thing that continues to trouble me is that what will always
> put us over gross is not fuel or baggage, but a passenger. And no passenger
> that I have ever flown has been very interested in testing aircraft
> structures.
Mark, you will not have to worry about being a tester if you
decide you want to fly with me and Miss P'fer in the
future. I think most of the testing has already been done.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/2/02 7:41Cavuontop(at)aol.com
> wall thickness on the tube? How about a longer H
> section with a truss design?
==================================
Yes those would, and a stronger drag strut would help keep all of that in
place. One way to get around some of those problems is to go to 2024 t3
alloy. In fact the last couple of times I run out of tubing I ordered 2024
T3 from aircraft spruce. It is much stronger in all aspects than 6061 that
the Kolb is designed with. Its not going to make the 6061 parts any stronger
but the sections made out 2024 will be stronger and stiffer. Were I to do
these wings over again I would go to thicker walls on the main spar (problem
with that is that I will have to fabricate my own H spar as the stock one
wont fit), and the rest of the tubes would be 2024 Al. It would be somewhat
heavier but much stronger and stiffer. The Horizontal stabilizer that I will
be remaking as soon as I am done with the ailrons, will be metalized, with
.016 2024 alloy over the truss design. I have been looking at the wings
wondering about metalizing them as well. :-)
However since I do want to have something flying sometime soon I will hold
off on any major mods until I have something done and flying, and only then
tinker with that time permitting.
Ron(FHU)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
> One way to get around some of those problems is to go to 2024 t3
> alloy.
Ron/Gang:
Isn't 2024 more susceptible to stress cracking from
vibration than 6061?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
| Subject: | Specification Shift |
> One way to get around some of those problems is to go to 2024 t3
> alloy.
Ron/Gang:
Isn't 2024 more susceptible to stress cracking from
vibration than 6061?
john h
And it is MUCH more susceptible to corrosion, hence the reason it would
usually be primed. It is also much more expensive (relative to 6061)
and like has been said already, if that's not a weak point your not
making a stronger chain...just a stronger link up or down stream from
the break...
;-)
Personally, and this is just my opinion, and NOT intended to offend. I
think the "metalized" tail is a bad idea, due to adding extra weight at
the end of a LOOOOONG moment arm to the rear of a plane that tends to be
aft CG with a light pilot and no passenger (especially with a 912 or
other heavy engine. But I'm sure you've already considered this...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
Hey Lar,
Why not fly Vamoose? ;
) (I should talk. My Twinstar lies under a
tarp!)
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Big Lar's new job message of Thu, 31 Oct 2002
Startin' to
plan for SnF.................in fact, it's planned - to go, anyway -
question is, how ?? Should I fly commercial ?? Or should I drive the
truck/camper ??
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/2/02 9:37John Hauck
> Isn't 2024 more susceptible to stress cracking from
> vibration than 6061?
========================
That is true, but to get to failure mode with a 2024, a 6061 has already got
done broken, and that is the interesting catch. :-) I thought about it a bit
a while ago. Notice however that I have not recommended changing the spar
from 6061 ( among the reasons would be the cost, and where to find it).
another way of looking at it would be to consider rubber and wood, the wood
will crack before the rubber but the rubber has already lost any resemblence
to anything. In terms of severe vibrations causing cracks in 2024, yes crack
*I* *think* will happen in 2024 first, but not lot long thereafter 6061 will
crack too. In other words my x broke at 480hrs in service and y broke at 560
hrs in service. My Beech has close to 6500 hrs on it and it is entirely out
of 2024t3. there are some Cessnas outhere flying trafic patrol with over 20K
on them, and they are all 2024 (not to mention DC-3's and the rest of the
big iron). Its the design of the stracture that would make the difference.
trust me when I say if 2024 will reach failure 6061 will get there much
before, or if it has to do with heavy severe vibes very soon after. Looking
at the Kolb I don't see anywhere were that sort of vibe friquency would be
present. When I look at something I want to change I think about the things
you mentioned inclusive of the vibration. Kolb put steel around the engine,
and thats where you will get things to break from the those strong and sharp
vibes. Out in the wings you will get things to break from Compression,
tension, and sheer, and over stess, something which the 2024 has a much
higher capacity. In those areas 2024 is about 30% stronger, at least this is
what I deduce by reading the tables. I suppose if Kolb were to sell an M3X
from 2024 it would cost about 1K more on account of the metal. Oh its also a
bit heavier than 6061, which could be the reason that some who have to stay
under 252 lbr may have to use 6061. Let me cover my butt, and say I do not
recommend it for anything at all, inclusive of cooking pans. :-)
while I am on one of my favorit subjects let me mention 7075 t3 aluminum, if
I had the money I would build my M3X out of it (excluding spar). A/S was out
of it when I was looking for gusset material at their Corona facility, it
was available in Atlanta. :-)
Man I am outta breath with this one..
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/2/02 10:25Jeremy Casey
> But I'm sure you've already considered this...
>
> Jeremy Casey
> jrcasey(at)ldl.net
=======================
Indeed I have. I will work around that problem *if* it indeed is a problem.
The sheet covering does not amount to even a pound with the .016 2024. I
will have the originals, to fly with while I figure things out. It aint "all
or nothing". :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
Doing research here, Have planed a trip to the factory in the next few weeks.
After looking at the ROTAX engine options, I have learned that the 582 is water
cooled. Can, or has anyone used the engine coolant to create a cabin heater?
Thanks
Paul Petty
Future Kolb/Owner Pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Gross Weight, Vne, and Modifications |
Kolbers,
With all the discussion about Gross weights I haven't heard much about flying
speeds vs gross weight. It is possible to breakup a plane that is loaded
less than gross simply by flying in severe turbulence above maneuvering
speed. So the 912S pilots that are flying 95-100 mph or the 912 guys in a
slight dive flying 95 - 100 mph or even us 582 flyers going straight down at
WOT doing 95 - 100 are at risk of failing the structure even if at less than
gross weight.
I completely agree with whoever said that a heavier plane has to be stronger.
When we beef up a portion of our planes we are making the situation worse
unless we are strengthening THE weak link.
I believe Homer and Dennis did a superb job of designing these planes and I
am not smart enough to second guess what they have done. Just smart enough
to buy one.
Steven Green
MkIII N58SG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
Fat Albert Returns
I meant to send this message when I completed restoring Fat Albert about
18 months ago, but for some reason that didn't happen. I then left the
list for a while (too much work combined with too many emails). Now,
about 100 happy flying hours later I have more time on my hands, so I've
re-joined the list and I'm sending it. Better late than never?
After I discovered I didn't have time build my first kit from scratch,
three years ago at Sun-N-Fun '99 I bought Kolb's Mk. III Classic demo
plane nicknamed "Fat Albert". A thoroughly
tried-and-tested-flying-aircraft. My prior "project" was bought by
Woody (a long-time list member) who 'popped down' from Canada (to Miami)
with a check in one hand and a six-pack in the other, loaded up, and
drove back home to finish what I had barely been able to start.
I then immediately proceeded to start flying my new toy... NOT!
Why I couldn't leave well enough alone I don't know. It started small.
An adjustment here and a change there, but before I knew it I had pieces
of airplane all over the place and with no more time on my hands than I
had had during my first attempt at building, the job started to collect
dust.
My buddy Rich then came into the picture with a paint gun in one hand
and an arrest warrant in the other (he's a cop), and threatened to lock
me up for being "Cruel to Kolbs". That forced me to find the time to get
flying again. From that day onwards, Sundays became "Kolb day". A
sacred-not-to-be-messed-with-time during which I ceased to exist for my
family. (Needless to say, Rich is not at the head of the popularity
charts in my wife's books, but that's his problem. I needed a scapegoat
and he fit the bill).
Little by little, the pieces started to come together again.
By the end of the ordeal, the following had been performed:
* I didn't like the flimsy Lexan wing gap seal, so I redesigned
and built a new one. What I came up with is a permanently installed
aluminum gap seal that permits easy folding and unfolding of the wings
without the need to remove it. It also gives me additional
overhead instrument panel space. For major work it can still be removed
in about 15 minutes. (See link to photos below).
* When I changed the windshield and doors, I also changed the door
piano-hinges for stainless-steel 'loose-joint hinges'. (See photos).
Each door can now be removed entirely in about two seconds. Putting
them back on takes a bit longer (about 10 seconds each). It took a lot
of searching to find suitable hinges for this, and when I did, I was
forced to buy 2 dozen of them in order to get them for a reasonable unit
price even though although I only needed three for each door. If any of
you want any, let me know. The price is $7.00 each while they last.
* The 750 Lb. BRS Chute that Kolb had been flying it with was
changed for a freshly repacked 1,200 Lb. BRS-5 model that I found at a
good price.
* The Rotax 912 was brought up to date on all applicable bulletins
by Lockwood Aviation (what a $hocking experience that turned out to
be!!!)
* The tail wheel was upgraded to Kolb's steerable /
fully-castering option. (Expensive, but well worth the price).
* The fuel tanks were replaced, a gascolator was added, a Facet
fuel pump was added, an intercom was permanently installed and an
above-head (gap seal) panel was added.
* All fabric tears & cuts were patched.
* All surfaces were sanded, primed, and re-sprayed. For
the sake of tradition I was going to go with the original paint scheme
in which "MY" Mk. III appeared in all the Kolb advertising materials,
but I ultimately decided against it and instead went with Cub yellow.
* The windshield and doors were replaced with new (green-tinted)
Lexan.
* I installed a Lexan "sound barrier" behind the cockpit. (This
made a tremendous difference in the cockpit noise level!).
* All hardware, hoses, cables, wires and anything that looked less
than new was replaced.
* I bought a boat trailer and modified it extensively to enable
easy one-man loading and unloading. (Some of you asked me to post
pictures of the trailer a long time ago. I apologize for having taken
so long to get my act together). The trailer includes
supports and attachment points for extra fuel tanks, struts, folding
ramps, a removable box that supports the boom tube and wings, a drink
cooler, and a fire extinguisher. Future modifications may include an
awning and built-in folding seats.
* As a last minute thought, Rich suggested that a checkerboard
rudder might be a good addition to the paint job. It took us about 3
seconds to agree on the idea, but that added about three more weeks to
the project.
The pictures at the following link show the items described in the order
indicated.
1. Kolb "Lawn Ornament". (The finished product).
2. Rich showing off his (my?) rudder artwork.
3. LAFA Logo. (I liked my flying club's logo so much, I made it an
integral part of the new paint job).
4. Lexan sound barrier (an absolute necessity in my opinion!). My
DAR grimaced at the font combination I used for the word "Experimental",
but he let it slide.
5. Yours truly as passenger with Test Pilot Andy after first flight
since rebuild.
6. Wing Gap Seal (1)
7. Wing Gap Seal (2)
8. Removable Hinges (1)
9. Removable Hinges (2)
10. Trailer
11. Trailer during loading (winch at front allows for easy loading
by one person)
12. Trailer wheel support (it took me a while to design and build
this support, but it was worth the effort. This attachment method has
proved itself to be simple to use, yet it holds the plane securely
without putting stress on anything delicate).
13. Trailer "Boom Box" (after the plane is on the trailer, this box
holds the boom and folded wings securely in place).
14. Kolb on trailer (before the wings get folded).
15. Despite all the modifications. She still flies!!
Peter Volum
Kolb Mk. III
N710KA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
The HTML link to the photos in my last message didn't come out on the
plain text version of the message.
Here it is again. To see the photos, just copy and paste them into your
browser:
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Volum [mailto:pvolum(at)etsmiami.com]
Subject: Fat ALbert
Fat Albert Returns
I meant to send this message when I completed restoring Fat Albert about
18 months ago, but for some reason that didn't happen. I then left the
list for a while (too much work combined with too many emails). Now,
about 100 happy flying hours later I have more time on my hands, so I've
re-joined the list and I'm sending it. Better late than never?
After I discovered I didn't have time build my first kit from scratch,
three years ago at Sun-N-Fun '99 I bought Kolb's Mk. III Classic demo
plane nicknamed "Fat Albert". A thoroughly
tried-and-tested-flying-aircraft. My prior "project" was bought by
Woody (a long-time list member) who 'popped down' from Canada (to Miami)
with a check in one hand and a six-pack in the other, loaded up, and
drove back home to finish what I had barely been able to start.
I then immediately proceeded to start flying my new toy... NOT!
Why I couldn't leave well enough alone I don't know. It started small.
An adjustment here and a change there, but before I knew it I had pieces
of airplane all over the place and with no more time on my hands than I
had had during my first attempt at building, the job started to collect
dust.
My buddy Rich then came into the picture with a paint gun in one hand
and an arrest warrant in the other (he's a cop), and threatened to lock
me up for being "Cruel to Kolbs". That forced me to find the time to get
flying again. From that day onwards, Sundays became "Kolb day". A
sacred-not-to-be-messed-with-time during which I ceased to exist for my
family. (Needless to say, Rich is not at the head of the popularity
charts in my wife's books, but that's his problem. I needed a scapegoat
and he fit the bill).
Little by little, the pieces started to come together again.
By the end of the ordeal, the following had been performed:
. I didn't like the flimsy Lexan wing gap seal, so I redesigned and
built a new one. What I came up with is a permanently installed aluminum
gap seal that permits easy folding and unfolding of the wings without
the need to remove it. It also gives me additional overhead instrument
panel space. For major work it can still be removed in about 15
minutes. (See link to photos below).
. When I changed the windshield and doors, I also changed the door
piano-hinges for stainless-steel 'loose-joint hinges'. (See photos).
Each door can now be removed entirely in about two seconds. Putting
them back on takes a bit longer (about 10 seconds each). It took a lot
of searching to find suitable hinges for this, and when I did, I was
forced to buy 2 dozen of them in order to get them for a reasonable unit
price even though although I only needed three for each door. If any of
you want any, let me know. The price is $7.00 each while they last.
. The 750 Lb. BRS Chute that Kolb had been flying it with was changed
for a freshly repacked 1,200 Lb. BRS-5 model that I found at a good
price.
. The Rotax 912 was brought up to date on all applicable bulletins by
Lockwood Aviation (what a $hocking experience that turned out to be!!!)
. The tail wheel was upgraded to Kolb's steerable / fully-castering
option. (Expensive, but well worth the price).
. The fuel tanks were replaced, a gascolator was added, a Facet fuel
pump was added, an intercom was permanently installed and an above-head
(gap seal) panel was added.
. All fabric tears & cuts were patched.
. All surfaces were sanded, primed, and re-sprayed. For the sake of
tradition I was going to go with the original paint scheme in which "MY"
Mk. III appeared in all the Kolb advertising materials, but I ultimately
decided against it and instead went with Cub yellow.
. The windshield and doors were replaced with new (green-tinted) Lexan.
. I installed a Lexan "sound barrier" behind the cockpit. (This made a
tremendous difference in the cockpit noise level!).
. All hardware, hoses, cables, wires and anything that looked less than
new was replaced.
. I bought a boat trailer and modified it extensively to enable easy
one-man loading and unloading. (Some of you asked me to post pictures
of the trailer a long time ago. I apologize for having taken so long to
get my act together). The trailer includes supports and attachment
points for extra fuel tanks, struts, folding ramps, a removable box that
supports the boom tube and wings, a drink cooler, and a fire
extinguisher. Future modifications may include an awning and built-in
folding seats.
. As a last minute thought, Rich suggested that a checkerboard rudder
might be a good addition to the paint job. It took us about 3 seconds
to agree on the idea, but that added about three more weeks to the
project.
The pictures at the following link show the items described in the order
indicated.
1. Kolb "Lawn Ornament". (The finished product).
2. Rich showing off his (my?) rudder artwork.
3. LAFA Logo. (I liked my flying club's logo so much, I made it an
integral part of the new paint job).
4. Lexan sound barrier (an absolute necessity in my opinion!). My DAR
grimaced at the font combination I used for the word "Experimental", but
he let it slide.
5. Yours truly as passenger with Test Pilot Andy after first flight
since rebuild.
6. Wing Gap Seal (1)
7. Wing Gap Seal (2)
8. Removable Hinges (1)
9. Removable Hinges (2)
10. Trailer
11. Trailer during loading (winch at front allows for easy loading by
one person)
12. Trailer wheel support (it took me a while to design and build this
support, but it was worth the effort. This attachment method has proved
itself to be simple to use, yet it holds the plane securely without
putting stress on anything delicate).
13. Trailer "Boom Box" (after the plane is on the trailer, this box
holds the boom and folded wings securely in place).
14. Kolb on trailer (before the wings get folded).
15. Despite all the modifications. She still flies!!
Peter Volum
Kolb Mk. III
N710KA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling/Heating |
Yep, and it keeps your toes nice and warm. How well it keeps the rest of
you warm depends on how many air leaks there are in your cockpit. We used
it today when we went leaf looking this afternoon in the clear cold East
Tennessee air.
Check it out at
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Click on "Adding a Heater"
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Doing research here, Have planed a trip to the factory in the next few
>weeks. After looking at the ROTAX engine options, I have learned that the
>582 is water cooled. Can, or has anyone used the engine coolant to create a
>cabin heater?
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul Petty
>Future Kolb/Owner Pilot
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I know you're teasing, but in all serious-ness................I've got too
many toys, and not enuf time. Gotta get some room out there, to work on the
re-drive, and time to go up to the high desert to pick up the wings. Slowly
working toward that...............then will just need to cover the fuselage
pod, de-bug the whole thing, (the biggie) and go fly. It's a-gonna take a
while, and tho' I expect to have it flying by SnF, it certainly won't be
fully tested and de-bugged. Also a bad time of year to try a cross-country
of those proportions with limited time available. Hopefully, TNK next year.
Soon to Gittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Big Lar/SnF
>
> Hey Lar,
>
> Why not fly Vamoose? ;
> ) (I should talk. My Twinstar lies under a
> tarp!)
>
> Ed in JXN
> MkII/503
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Big Lar's new job message of Thu, 31 Oct 2002
>
>
> Startin' to
> plan for SnF.................in fact, it's planned - to go, anyway -
> question is, how ?? Should I fly commercial ?? Or should I drive the
> truck/camper ??
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Fat Albert's third try |
Why the @#$%
&*!! does my link disappear from my message every time it
gets posted? Even when I write the message in plain text??
Must be Mat's way of avoiding links to sites with viruses or something.
Here it is yet again, but this time in two parts. If it arrives this
time, join it up before putting it in your browser:
http://
After all this work I'll be surprised if anybody bothers to look at the
pictures!
Whew!
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Volum
Subject: Kolb-List: FW: Fat ALbert
The HTML link to the photos in my last message didn't come out on the
plain text version of the message.
Here it is again. To see the photos, just copy and paste them into your
browser:
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Volum [mailto:pvolum(at)etsmiami.com]
Subject: Fat ALbert
Fat Albert Returns
I meant to send this message when I completed restoring Fat Albert about
18 months ago, but for some reason that didn't happen. I then left the
list for a while (too much work combined with too many emails). Now,
about 100 happy flying hours later I have more time on my hands, so I've
re-joined the list and I'm sending it. Better late than never?
After I discovered I didn't have time build my first kit from scratch,
three years ago at Sun-N-Fun '99 I bought Kolb's Mk. III Classic demo
plane nicknamed "Fat Albert". A thoroughly
tried-and-tested-flying-aircraft. My prior "project" was bought by
Woody (a long-time list member) who 'popped down' from Canada (to Miami)
with a check in one hand and a six-pack in the other, loaded up, and
drove back home to finish what I had barely been able to start.
I then immediately proceeded to start flying my new toy... NOT!
Why I couldn't leave well enough alone I don't know. It started small.
An adjustment here and a change there, but before I knew it I had pieces
of airplane all over the place and with no more time on my hands than I
had had during my first attempt at building, the job started to collect
dust.
My buddy Rich then came into the picture with a paint gun in one hand
and an arrest warrant in the other (he's a cop), and threatened to lock
me up for being "Cruel to Kolbs". That forced me to find the time to get
flying again. From that day onwards, Sundays became "Kolb day". A
sacred-not-to-be-messed-with-time during which I ceased to exist for my
family. (Needless to say, Rich is not at the head of the popularity
charts in my wife's books, but that's his problem. I needed a scapegoat
and he fit the bill).
Little by little, the pieces started to come together again.
By the end of the ordeal, the following had been performed:
. I didn't like the flimsy Lexan wing gap seal, so I redesigned and
built a new one. What I came up with is a permanently installed aluminum
gap seal that permits easy folding and unfolding of the wings without
the need to remove it. It also gives me additional overhead
instrument
panel space. For major work it can still be removed in about 15
minutes. (See link to photos below).
. When I changed the windshield and doors, I also changed the door
piano-hinges for stainless-steel 'loose-joint hinges'. (See photos).
Each door can now be removed entirely in about two seconds. Putting
them back on takes a bit longer (about 10 seconds each). It took a lot
of searching to find suitable hinges for this, and when I did, I was
forced to buy 2 dozen of them in order to get them for a reasonable unit
price even though although I only needed three for each door. If any of
you want any, let me know. The price is $7.00 each while they last.
. The 750 Lb. BRS Chute that Kolb had been flying it with was changed
for a freshly repacked 1,200 Lb. BRS-5 model that I found at a good
price.
. The Rotax 912 was brought up to date on all applicable bulletins by
Lockwood Aviation (what a $hocking experience that turned out to be!!!)
. The tail wheel was upgraded to Kolb's steerable / fully-castering
option. (Expensive, but well worth the price).
. The fuel tanks were replaced, a gascolator was added, a Facet fuel
pump was added, an intercom was permanently installed and an above-head
(gap seal) panel was added.
. All fabric tears & cuts were patched.
. All surfaces were sanded, primed, and re-sprayed. For the sake
of
tradition I was going to go with the original paint scheme in which "MY"
Mk. III appeared in all the Kolb advertising materials, but I ultimately
decided against it and instead went with Cub yellow.
. The windshield and doors were replaced with new (green-tinted) Lexan.
. I installed a Lexan "sound barrier" behind the cockpit. (This made a
tremendous difference in the cockpit noise level!).
. All hardware, hoses, cables, wires and anything that looked less than
new was replaced.
. I bought a boat trailer and modified it extensively to enable easy
one-man loading and unloading. (Some of you asked me to post pictures
of the trailer a long time ago. I apologize for having taken so long to
get my act together). The trailer includes supports and
attachment
points for extra fuel tanks, struts, folding ramps, a removable box that
supports the boom tube and wings, a drink cooler, and a fire
extinguisher. Future modifications may include an awning and built-in
folding seats.
. As a last minute thought, Rich suggested that a checkerboard rudder
might be a good addition to the paint job. It took us about 3 seconds
to agree on the idea, but that added about three more weeks to the
project.
The pictures at the following link show the items described in the order
indicated.
1. Kolb "Lawn Ornament". (The finished product).
2. Rich showing off his (my?) rudder artwork.
3. LAFA Logo. (I liked my flying club's logo so much, I made it an
integral part of the new paint job).
4. Lexan sound barrier (an absolute necessity in my opinion!). My DAR
grimaced at the font combination I used for the word "Experimental", but
he let it slide.
5. Yours truly as passenger with Test Pilot Andy after first flight
since rebuild.
6. Wing Gap Seal (1)
7. Wing Gap Seal (2)
8. Removable Hinges (1)
9. Removable Hinges (2)
10. Trailer
11. Trailer during loading (winch at front allows for easy loading by
one person)
12. Trailer wheel support (it took me a while to design and build this
support, but it was worth the effort. This attachment method has proved
itself to be simple to use, yet it holds the plane securely without
putting stress on anything delicate).
13. Trailer "Boom Box" (after the plane is on the trailer, this box
holds the boom and folded wings securely in place).
14. Kolb on trailer (before the wings get folded).
15. Despite all the modifications. She still flies!!
Peter Volum
Kolb Mk. III
N710KA
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
Link to Richard Pike's plane:
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Link to my plane:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
I need to add some fluid to my compass, can someone tell me what the fluid
is.
Thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass fluid?? |
Geez, Tim, we went over this like a political debate a coupla years ago.
You can buy (I hate that word) really pricey stuff outa T-A-P, or you
can use plain mineral spirits (like from paint store--don't say
airplane!) or some nice clean clear lamp oil (kerosene). Since the wx is
pretty cool, don't fill to very top. Ck the archives.
Bob N.---an don't flame me!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Fat Albert gives up! |
I have no idea why the link to my plane vanishes from messages to the
Kolb list!
Some of you have asked me to send the link to you directly and it has
arrived OK, so if anybody else wants to see the pictures of my
modifications (removable hinges, permanent gap seal, trailer, etc...)
just let me know and I'll also send you the link directly.
It's time to go get a drink of something strong!
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Volum
Subject: Kolb-List: Test
Link to Richard Pike's plane:
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Link to my plane:
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M. Domenic Perez" <perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net> |
| Subject: | Peter Volum's photo link-maybe |
I'm trying to forward Peter's photo link to the list. I've forwarded a
message he sent me off-list. Let's see if that works.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb hinges, I'd like some
> Hello Domenic.
>
> Yes, I still have some. You are the first to ask for any.
>
> They are left / right, so I presume you would want three left and three
> right? (That's what I used on my set-up).
>
> Take a look at the pictures (the ones I'm having trouble posting in my
> messages to the list) at this link:
>
>
> (I hope it appears above on my message to you).
>
> If you want them, let me know your address and I'll give you mine so you
> can send a check.
>
> Take care,
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Domenic Perez [mailto:perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 7:23 PM
> To: pvolum(at)etsmiami.com
> Subject: Kolb hinges, I'd like some
>
> Peter,
> I recently bought a Firestar II that was already built, but without
> the
> windshield or doors installed. Although I prefer open air flying, I also
> like to fly in the winter, and find the dead calm and super thick air of
> a
> super cold day very interesting. In other words, I will eventually add
> the
> full enclosure and it sounds like you have a better idea. I'd like to
> buy 6
> of them from you, unless you see any reason they wouldn't work on a
> Firestar. I presume they are all identical (no right/left). If you still
> have 6, let me know where to send a check to you.
> M. Domenic Perez
> New Mexico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Peter Volum wrote:
>
>
>Link to Richard Pike's plane:
>http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
>
>Link to my plane:
>do do do do do (twilight zone theme) heh heh heh heh
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Albert gives up! |
Hey Hey Hey Peter!
I bet one of my advertisment filters is picking it up! Email the link
directly at dralle(at)matronics.com and I'll have a look. Likely I can get it
to show up again.
Sorry about that!
Matt Dralle
At 06:03 PM 11/2/2002 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>I have no idea why the link to my plane vanishes from messages to the
>Kolb list!
>
>Some of you have asked me to send the link to you directly and it has
>arrived OK, so if anybody else wants to see the pictures of my
>modifications (removable hinges, permanent gap seal, trailer, etc...)
>just let me know and I'll also send you the link directly.
>
>It's time to go get a drink of something strong!
>
>Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dixieshack(at)webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford) |
| Subject: | Re:Tim's compass |
Used to be kerosene, Tim......old timers sometimes had troubles finding
kerosene but always had a bottle hid somewhere, and at some point
someone found that whiskey could be used to fill/refill......hence the
name "whiskey" compass. Modern day equipment......?? Jump in there
guys...Topher??
Hillbilly Mike in WV
FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
In a message dated 11/1/02 8:09:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, jhauck(at)sw.rr.com
writes:
> Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
> or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
> grounded, not both. Might be in Tony Bingelis' book. I can
> not remember. Maybe I am wrong.
>
> I'll try to remember to see if I can find it.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
>
Usually shields are only grounded only at the source end, however, there are
cases which require ground at both ends for best noise rejection.
George Randolph
firestar driver in Akron, Oh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DCBooth <JetDr2(at)ATTGLOBAL.NET> |
| Subject: | Re:Tim's compass message of Sat, 2 Nov 2002 23:50:01 |
-0800
You've got to be careful with kerosene though..
It'll turn to varnish after awhile......
That'd really make the compass useful....
Mike and Dixie Shackelford wrote:
>
>Used to be kerosene, Tim......old timers sometimes had troubles finding
>kerosene but always had a bottle hid somewhere, and at some point
>someone found that whiskey could be used to fill/refill......hence the
>name "whiskey" compass. Modern day equipment......?? Jump in there
>guys...Topher??
>
>Hillbilly Mike in WV
>FSII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Albert gives up! |
Try this URL
You will get the following message from Yahoo photos, click on the URL they
suggest.
Sorry, the page you requested was not found.
Please check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization. You may also
update your bookmarks accordingly. If you're still having trouble locating a
you're looking for if you try searching below.
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "louis friedman" <lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
Whether one side or both should be grounded depends on the frequency of the
noise. A shield grounded at one end can become a noise antenna, depending on
the wavelength of the noise and the length of the shield. Groundloops are
dependent on the impedence of the shield between the two grounds. The book,
High Speed Digital Design, A Handbook of Black Magic (Johnson & Graham), is
a great source for anyone wishing to investigate this issue.
Like the title implies, there's a bit of magic involved. If anyone is
interested, I always start by grounding both sides of the shield. If I have
a problem with noise or groundloops, then I might open the shield on either
side to start my troubleshooting. Sometimes it's acceptable to use an
appropriately sized cap on one side of the shield. Determining the
appropriate size cap can be difficult without some pretty specialized
equipment.
If all grounds are at the same potential, generally there will be no
groundloops. Shields are generally not a good way of accomplishing this.
There must be a difference of potential and an impedence between two points
to generate a current. Lowering the potential, and eliminating the impedence
between grounds is generally considered a better solution than isolating the
paths. Short straps between all the grounds will help. Make sure the
connections, and connectors are good conductors. Many antennas require the
shield to be grounded at both ends to work properly. Opening the shield
on one end of a system designed for a quarterwave antenna, for instance, may
result in damage
to a tranceiver, or just poor operation. YMMV
Lou
----- Original Message -----
From: <GeoR38(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ignition Noise/Grounding
>
> In a message dated 11/1/02 8:09:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)sw.rr.com
> writes:
>
> > Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind I remember reading
> > or hearing that only one end of the shielded cable should be
> > grounded, not both. Might be in Tony Bingelis' book. I can
> > not remember. Maybe I am wrong.
> >
> > I'll try to remember to see if I can find it.
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> > john h
> >
> >
> >
>
> Usually shields are only grounded only at the source end, however, there
are
> cases which require ground at both ends for best noise rejection.
>
> George Randolph
> firestar driver in Akron, Oh
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Tim's compass message of Sat, 2 Nov 2002 |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
The presribed compass fluid is paraphin. I am not sure where one gets that.
:-)
Ron(FHU)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | Fat ALbert Returns (With link!) |
[Kolb Listers, my List spam filter was in fact stripping the links
out!! Sorry about that!! FYI, if you ever notice that some text is
missing from your post, be sure to let me know directly at
dralle(at)matronics.com so that I can "tune the strippers" - Hum, that's some
good work if you can get it... :-) Enjoy! -Matt Dralle]
[Oh, one more thing... Don't forget about the List
Photoshare!!! http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Share all your favorite
photos with other list members. All you have to do is email your photos to
pictures(at)matronics.com along with some descriptions and I'll see that they
get added to the Photoshare. And did I mention no pop or banner no ads? I
think I did... :-) -Matt]
<http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/lafanut/lst?.dir=/Kolb&.view=t>http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/lafanut/lst?.dir=/Kolb&.view=t
Fat Albert Returns
I meant to send this message when I completed restoring Fat Albert about 18
months ago, but for some reason that didn t happen. I then left the list
for a while (too much work combined with too many emails). Now, about 100
happy flying hours later I have more time on my hands, so I ve re-joined
the list and I m sending it. Better late than never?
After I discovered I didn t have time build my first kit from scratch,
three years ago at Sun-N-Fun 99 I bought Kolb s Mk. III Classic demo plane
nicknamed Fat Albert . A thoroughly tried-and-tested-flying-aircraft. My
prior project was bought by Woody (a long-time list member) who popped down
from Canada (to Miami) with a check in one hand and a six-pack in the
other, loaded up, and drove back home to finish what I had barely been able
to start.
I then immediately proceeded to start flying my new toy... NOT!
Why I couldn t leave well enough alone I don t know. It started small. An
adjustment here and a change there, but before I knew it I had pieces of
airplane all over the place and with no more time on my hands than I had
had during my first attempt at building, the job started to collect dust.
My buddy Rich then came into the picture with a paint gun in one hand and
an arrest warrant in the other (he s a cop), and threatened to lock me up
for being Cruel to Kolbs . That forced me to find the time to get flying
again. From that day onwards, Sundays became Kolb day . A
sacred-not-to-be-messed-with-time during which I ceased to exist for my
family. (Needless to say, Rich is not at the head of the popularity charts
in my wife s books, but that s his problem. I needed a scapegoat and he
fit the bill).
Little by little, the pieces started to come together again.
By the end of the ordeal, the following had been performed:
* I didn t like the flimsy Lexan wing gap seal, so I redesigned and
built a new one. What I came up with is a permanently installed aluminum
gap seal that permits easy folding and unfolding of the wings without the
need to remove it. It also gives me additional overhead instrument
panel space. For major work it can still be removed in about 15 minutes.
(See link to photos below).
* When I changed the windshield and doors, I also changed the door
piano-hinges for stainless-steel loose-joint hinges . (See photos). Each
door can now be removed entirely in about two seconds. Putting them back
on takes a bit longer (about 10 seconds each). It took a lot of searching
to find suitable hinges for this, and when I did, I was forced to buy 2
dozen of them in order to get them for a reasonable unit price even though
I only needed three for each door. If any of you want any, let me
know. The price is $7.00 each while they last.
* The 750 Lb. BRS Chute that Kolb had been flying it with was changed
for a freshly repacked 1,200 Lb. BRS-5 model that I found at a good price.
* The Rotax 912 was brought up to date on all applicable bulletins by
Lockwood Aviation (what a $hocking experience that turned out to be!!!)
* The tail wheel was upgraded to Kolb s steerable / fully-castering
option. (Expensive, but well worth the price).
* The fuel tanks were replaced, a gascolator was added, a Facet fuel
pump was added, an intercom was permanently installed and an above-head
(gap seal) panel was added.
* All fabric tears & cuts were patched.
* All surfaces were sanded, primed, and re-sprayed. For the
sake of tradition I was going to go with the original paint scheme in which
MY Mk. III appeared in all the Kolb advertising materials, but I ultimately
decided against it and instead went with Cub yellow.
* The windshield and doors were replaced with new (green-tinted) Lexan.
* I installed a Lexan sound barrier behind the cockpit. (This made a
tremendous difference in the cockpit noise level!).
* All hardware, hoses, cables, wires and anything that looked less than
new was replaced.
* I bought a boat trailer and modified it extensively to enable easy
one-man loading and unloading. (Some of you asked me to post pictures of
the trailer a long time ago. I apologize for having taken so long to get
my act together). The trailer includes supports and attachment
points for extra fuel tanks, struts, folding ramps, a removable box that
supports the boom tube and wings, a drink cooler, and a fire
extinguisher. Future modifications may include an awning and built-in
folding seats.
* As a last minute thought, Rich suggested that a checkerboard rudder
might be a good addition to the paint job. It took us about 3 seconds to
agree on the idea, but that added about three more weeks to the project.
The pictures at the following link show the items described in the order
indicated.
<http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/lafanut/lst?.dir=/Kolb&.view=t>http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/lafanut/lst?.dir=/Kolb&.view=t
* Kolb Lawn Ornament . (The finished product).
* Rich showing off his (my?) rudder artwork.
* LAFA Logo. (I liked my flying club s logo so much, I made it an
integral part of the new paint job).
* Lexan sound barrier (an absolute necessity in my opinion!). My DAR
grimaced at the font combination I used for the word Experimental , but he
let it slide.
* Yours truly as passenger with Test Pilot Andy after first flight
since rebuild.
* Wing Gap Seal (1)
* Wing Gap Seal (2)
* Removable Hinges (1)
* Removable Hinges (2)
* Trailer
* Trailer during loading (winch at front allows for easy loading by one
person)
* Trailer wheel support (it took me a while to design and build this
support, but it was worth the effort. This attachment method has proved
itself to be simple to use, yet it holds the plane securely without putting
stress on anything delicate).
* Trailer Boom Box (after the plane is on the trailer, this box holds
the boom and folded wings securely in place).
* Kolb on trailer (before the wings get folded).
* Despite all the modifications& She still flies!!
Peter Volum
Kolb Mk. III
N710KA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat ALbert Returns (With link!) |
Peter/Gents:
Ole Fat Albert turned out great. I like the Cub Yellow
paint and the checkered rudder too.
john h
PS: Was able to get Miss P'fer out of the hanger yesterday,
and get my bum leg in the cockpit with me. First flight in
four weeks. How good it is.............!!! to be flying
again. I know how Peter felt when he got his back off the
ground.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Davis - Comcast <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
It took a while (37 years) but today, I soloed.
My instructor (Jim Spadafora) and I took his MKII from South Jersey Regional
over to a local grass strip (Red Wing) and did 4 landings. He decided I was
ready to go, so we flew back, and he ferried my Firefly back to Red Wing (I
drove).
After 4 times around the pattern at 1000 ft, and 2 360 turns (useful
practice - see below) I made 2 practice approaches, and then nailed the
landing. Notice I skipped the take off. Suffice it to say I go into the
air with out hitting anything. That's why you go do deserted strips for
this. :)
My second take off was much smoother, and I took the plane back to South
Jersey, where I had a Cessna cut me off in the pattern. I had to do a 360
way from him as he did base, and slipped in behind him on final. Nailed that
one too!
Thanks to every one on the list. This is a great source of knowledge and
experiance. Thanks to Dennis Souder, who designed a hell of a plane. The
Firefly just wants to go, go, go. Throttling back enough to keep it from
climbing was a major activity!
Don't let the current NJ address fool you. I'm from Alabama. Now that I've
flown myself, I'll feel free to write ahead to John H. next summer when we
head to to see the family in Montonmery, AL. After that detailed
description of the mods he made to it, I may want to see Miss P'fer for
myself.
Chuck Davis
Firefly #028
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Tim's compass message of Sat, 2 Nov 2002 |
> I'll be ordering one for my Ritchie (marine) this week. Don't
> know what flavor of fluid it is, but Ritchie guarantees it for their
> compasses, so I imagine it'll prob'ly work. Lar.
Larry/Compasseers:
I don't waste my money on store bought refill kits. I use
mineral spirits. Can buy a gal for a couple bucks. Enough
for 300 compasses. Parifin oil is mineral spirits next door
neighbor. You can use JP4 or 5, Jet A. Probably go out to
the airport and get way more than you need by draining a
little out of the hose. I imagine gin or vodka would also
work, but probably not provide quite as much dampening.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Kolbers,
It has been very interesting viewing your comments and suggestions to one another
here. I notice that there are several regulars that share and veterans of the
list that return to share their experiences. After much research, I have decided
to go with the Kolb Mark III xtra with the 582 ROTAX. On the Kolb website
they offer ready to fly Mark III xtra's via Lite Speed Aviation. Have any of
you purchased from these folks? If so how did it go? I have studied the subject
somewhat, and ponder these questions.
1.The Factory claims that a MIIIxtra can be built for under $17,500.00. I realize
that this does not include radios,mods,paint ect... However, The MIIIxtra that
was won by Mr. Belt sold on e-bay for $15.200.00.
2. The quick build option is not priced and to be honest, I really have no desire
to build my own unless the cost for doing so is a huge savings. I want a safe,
well constructed aircraft, but trying to get a feel of the final cost of owning
this type of light aircraft.
I currently fly with my CFI/Father in a nice Cessna 150 and we are both looking
into the Kolb's. Let's chat numbers if you will.
Thanks
pp..
future kolber
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
> It's a-gonna take a
>while, and tho' I expect to have it flying by SnF,
we got it in writing folks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
Paul, building from scratch requires serious commitment and time, not to
mention a suitable workshop. If you even "think" you might not like to
build one, odds are you won't finish it. If you look long enough, you
will find good deals on used ones, but unless you build it (or unless
you are an A&P), you won't be able to do your own maintenance.
PV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Petty
Subject: Kolb-List: Build or Buy?
Hello Kolbers,
It has been very interesting viewing your comments and suggestions to
one another here. I notice that there are several regulars that share
and veterans of the list that return to share their experiences. After
much research, I have decided to go with the Kolb Mark III xtra with the
582 ROTAX. On the Kolb website they offer ready to fly Mark III xtra's
via Lite Speed Aviation. Have any of you purchased from these folks? If
so how did it go? I have studied the subject somewhat, and ponder these
questions.
1.The Factory claims that a MIIIxtra can be built for under $17,500.00.
I realize that this does not include radios,mods,paint ect... However,
The MIIIxtra that was won by Mr. Belt sold on e-bay for $15.200.00.
2. The quick build option is not priced and to be honest, I really have
no desire to build my own unless the cost for doing so is a huge
savings. I want a safe, well constructed aircraft, but trying to get a
feel of the final cost of owning this type of light aircraft.
I currently fly with my CFI/Father in a nice Cessna 150 and we are both
looking into the Kolb's. Let's chat numbers if you will.
Thanks
pp..
future kolber
==
Contribution
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Build or Buy? |
Thanks Peter,
Have very suitable workshop, 5000 sq ft with bath and fridge. Pops is an A&P
and has a ongoing p47 rep. and a RV-8 ready for paint. I'm just trying to
get a feel for cost factors here. Big difference's between factory prices
and sold aircraft. plus the company I mentioned I can't seem to get any
online info about. thanks for the reply
pp...
archive if you wish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Build or Buy?
>
> Paul, building from scratch requires serious commitment and time, not to
> mention a suitable workshop. If you even "think" you might not like to
> build one, odds are you won't finish it. If you look long enough, you
> will find good deals on used ones, but unless you build it (or unless
> you are an A&P), you won't be able to do your own maintenance.
>
> PV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Petty
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Build or Buy?
>
>
> Hello Kolbers,
> It has been very interesting viewing your comments and suggestions to
> one another here. I notice that there are several regulars that share
> and veterans of the list that return to share their experiences. After
> much research, I have decided to go with the Kolb Mark III xtra with the
> 582 ROTAX. On the Kolb website they offer ready to fly Mark III xtra's
> via Lite Speed Aviation. Have any of you purchased from these folks? If
> so how did it go? I have studied the subject somewhat, and ponder these
> questions.
> 1.The Factory claims that a MIIIxtra can be built for under $17,500.00.
> I realize that this does not include radios,mods,paint ect... However,
> The MIIIxtra that was won by Mr. Belt sold on e-bay for $15.200.00.
> 2. The quick build option is not priced and to be honest, I really have
> no desire to build my own unless the cost for doing so is a huge
> savings. I want a safe, well constructed aircraft, but trying to get a
> feel of the final cost of owning this type of light aircraft.
> I currently fly with my CFI/Father in a nice Cessna 150 and we are both
> looking into the Kolb's. Let's chat numbers if you will.
>
> Thanks
> pp..
> future kolber
>
>
> ==
> Contribution
> > > > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Julian Warren <jgw300(at)webolium.com> |
I am asking a question I have not seen and answer to on the List. Have
any of you tried the EARTH MATE GPS unit shown in the following Web
page:
http://www.delorme.com/earthmate/default.asp
My son works for Marathon Motor Coach and says that this GPS is used in
many motor homes, but that it would also work at altitude. He is buying
me one from his source of supply, and I will be trying it out in a
rental aircraft. I will be experimenting with a laptop and a Palm
Pilot. Also have a look at:
http://www.delorme.com/gps.htm
The cost of a GPS is significant, and this would appear to be a real
potential replacement.
Julian Warren
Eugene, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
Some thots on taking the Significant Other for a ride...
Saturday was gorgeous after a week of rain, but a tad windy. Planned a
flight out and back to look at fall colors, about 75 miles to an airport
out west, then back with the late afternoon sun behind us, expecting
gorgeous colors. Turned out a bit bumpy, the kind that suddenly drop the
airplane out from underneath you. Sweet Thing not complaining, but
obviously startled more than once. And the last half of the 75 mile trip
westward was across a multiple line of ridges....
We landed at a friendly airport about 35 miles out, just this side of the
Evil Ridges, got a Mountain Dew, and killed about an hour looking at old
restored Ercoupes and talking to various other pilots. By the time we took
off again, the wind had dropped to about half what it was, very gentle
ride, and we still came home with the golden sun behind us lighting up the
ridges. She was happy.
The perfect flight is not obtained by determination, but by yielding. Enjoy
the Ride.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Tim's compass message of Sat, 2 Nov 2002 23:50:01 |
-0800
Jump in there
> guys...Topher??
>
> Hillbilly Mike in WV
> FSII
It has to be single malt scotch or I wont fly behind it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "louis friedman" <lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Noise/Grounding |
Mick,
First rule:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I debated with myself for many days about responding on this issue. I've
never built a plane,
until now, but as a ham for almost 30 years, and a design engineer I've
tackled many noise
issues at a system, board, and chip level. It's part science, part black
magic. Noise, more often
than not, can be traced to a bad ground system. So can groundloops.
Lou
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mick Fine" <froghair(at)gbronline.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ignition Noise/Grounding
>
> >
> >...Whether one side or both should be grounded depends on the frequency
of
> the
> >noise. ....
>
> Thanks Lou,
>
> Just before reading your message, I was headed for the hangar dikes in
> hand, ready to rip out my entire electrical system despite the fact that
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
John:
I'd like to take a step back from the debate about the gross weight
limitation on Mark IIIs to make a couple of observations. I invite you to
consider the example of the good Reverend Pike. He believes in the efficacy
of prayer and the historical reality of Jesus Christ. He is convinced of
these propositions, and independent "scientific" confirmation of the facts,
if such a thing were even possible, while perhaps nice, would have no
significant impact on his convictions. This state of mind is usually
referred to as Faith.
On the other hand, the proposition that water boils at 212 f. at
standard pressure is something that we can verify independently and repeat.
To say that the main spar in the Mark II is "overkill" is unquantified. At
some level of loading the Mark III spar will deform but return to its
original shape, at another it will yield (deform but not return to its
original shape) and at another it will fail altogether and break. All of
these data points are measurable and can be expressed as numbers. Faith is
not required.
This is precisely the testing that production aircraft are required to
undergo before certification. There is no need to debate the load bearing
properties of the wing of your Cherokee, (assuming, of course, that your now
30 year old Piper product hasn't corroded, the rivets haven't seriously
loosened, and the guys in Lock Haven weren't hung over the morning they put
it together), they have been measured and quantified.
What our debate lacks is numbers . . . and that's what troubling me.
My very primitive understanding of the forces that act on aircraft is that
they sometimes increase exponentially with speed and weight. To suggest, as
you did in your last post, that I couldn't break the spar on my Mark III if I
tried, needs to be recognized for what it is: an expression of faith, not a
proposition that has been tested in any quantifiable way.
Just to compare and contrast, the design maneuvering speed (Va) of the
Cherokee Archer I fly is LESS than what you cruise at in your Mark III, and
the Cherokee weighs three times what your plane does empty, and has a max
gross weight of 2550 lbs. You wanna tell me you can't build up some serious
loads fast with weight and speed?
I hasten to point out that the history of aviation is littered with
examples of the slide rule guys getting it wrong. The V tail on the early
Bonanzas, the DeHaviland Comet, the wing spar on the Commander aircraft.
I sure would like to believe you are right, John, about loading your
plane to 1200. Lord Knows, I have Faith. Geez, every time I go flying on my
2 stroke 582 I think I demonstrate that. I had a great time flying with you,
but I'd feel alot better if I could see the numbers.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincehallam(at)aol.com |
neat alcohhol is clean and should do. That is what was in my old raf compass
vnz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
If numbers are what you want to see, then you are looking at and flying the
wrong type of aircraft. Kit producers and plans designers for homebuilt
aircraft are not required to test their designs to the level of
"certificated" aircraft. That is one of the big marketing differences
between the kit builders, some analysis and test and some don't. Since that
type data has not been produced for our viewing, I have to assume that we
are in the "fly it and watch it" category.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
N49KK, Kolb Kolbra, Jabiru 2200, 108 hours
http://home.attbi.com/~kolbrapilot/
NO NOT ARCHIVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
11/04/2002 09:29:48 AM
>Doing research here, Have planed a trip to the factory in the next few
weeks. After looking at the ROTAX engine options, I have >learned that the
582 is water cooled. Can, or has anyone used the engine coolant to create a
cabin heater?
>Thanks
>Paul Petty
I am using a cabin heater also from the 582. Coolant based, "T"d into
cooling system. I will warn you, there is not much heat available from the
582 to begin with, so once you get to about 25 degrees F, and you have 3/4
of your radiators covered with cardboard and duct tape (this is problematic
on the ground also), and you're getting barely enough heat to actually feel
it in the leaky cabin, you may wonder why you bothered. It does, as
someone said, keep your feet warm assuming you put it in the nose.
When I first installed it, I put in valves to control the flow, for turning
it off in summer. Later for simplicity I removed the valves and now allow
coolant flow full-time year 'round. It does not produce any noticable
cabin heat when the blower is not running, even though the heater core has
hot coolant flowing thru it. Now my system is simpler and starting this
next year will be entirely metal fittings (no plastic).
I described this heater setup sometime in the past so check archives for
details.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
First let me say that I have NO experience with the 582, so I'm just passing
on third hand what I found out from the factory rep when I was at Oshkosh
this year,
Their was a great debate about cold shocking the 582 by pulling power off
gliding then going back on power and the engine seized because the front
cylinder cooled to fast,
Pulling heat from the engine on a cold day may have some adverse effects and
I would see what the factory would have to say about it.
You could try a 12 volt car heater (after market) I used one to defrost a
back window and was surprise how much heat it put out.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
In a message dated 11/2/2002 10:00:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes:
> Were these rivets in the wing H-section or the fuselage tube H-section?
> If they were in the wings, how did this engineer happen to notice they
> were loose?
>
Ralph:
Phil did Sportman's Class aerobatics in Firestar serial #1. He
reported that it was built by an A&P mechanic in Maryland who sold it to him
with virtually no time on it because the guy was too scared to fly it. Phil
wrung it out for 3 or 4 years and reported that the wings "loosened up." I
don't think he ever attempted to measure it in any meaningful way, but it was
his plane and he maintained and knew it pretty well. When he would be
assembling it he would stand at the end of the wing and lift it up and down
and push it back and forth, and apparently began to feel some flexibility
that he didn't like. His contention was that over time the pop rivets
loosened, to the point where he didn't want to use it for aerobatics anymore.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Guys,
I know that an air-cooled 503 pumps out plenty of heat by just using duct
tape and a dryer flexible vent hose. A temporary heater system can be
made by wrapping lots of duct tape to the hose on top of the engine
shroud. Route the hose into the rear of the cabin.
Two of us went flying one winter day when it was 20 deg below zero in a
Mark II. We were toasty warm with the heat coming out of the vent hose
between us. CHT's were fine. The setup can be easily dismantled when
springtime comes. Very cheap to make.
Ralph
writes:
>
>
> First let me say that I have NO experience with the 582, so I'm just
> passing
> on third hand what I found out from the factory rep when I was at
> Oshkosh
> this year,
>
> Their was a great debate about cold shocking the 582 by pulling
> power off
> gliding then going back on power and the engine seized because the
> front
> cylinder cooled to fast,
>
> Pulling heat from the engine on a cold day may have some adverse
> effects and
> I would see what the factory would have to say about it.
>
> You could try a 12 volt car heater (after market) I used one to
> defrost a
> back window and was surprise how much heat it put out.
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
=
> Contribution
> Gifts!
> Admin.
> _->
>
> messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
On 10-31-02, Mick Fine wrote:
<< Not to point out the obvious but the shield must be grounded, I frame
ground the shield at both ends of the run. >>
Mick, and Kolbers,
I've always heard that the benefit from shielding AC wires comes from
grounding only ONE end of the shield, not both. Reason: Grounding both ends
allows the introduction of a "ground loop" in the circuit, which introduces
another form of radio noise.
Anyone else heard of this?
Dennis Kirby
Mk-3, Verner-powered in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
> On another matter can you explain to me how you reinforced your keading edge
> tube to the ribs?
>
> I couldn't figure out from your description how you did that. Ron
Ron/Gents:
Here's some pics of my original Mark III wings that show the
bracing on the bow tip well, but not so good for the bracing
of the nose ribs.
This pic shows the bow tip bracing and the aluminum angle
bracing on the rear of the first four outboard ribs. If you
look closely, you can see the angle braces on the top of the
nose ribs:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-01.JPG
This one shows the tails of the four outboard ribs:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-02%20.JPG
Bow tip bracing and Whelen strobe light mount:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-03.JPG
Bow tip bracing with the wing right side up:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-04.JPG
You will notice, on this orginal wing, we fabricated a 4130
outboard rib, just like the inboard rib. However, after we
demolished the original wings, decided not to pursue this
overkill, but reinforce the noses and tails of the first
four OB ribs.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
John and Dennis,
All of the speculations involved in acceptable gross weights has brought up a
question I am a bit curious about - why don't the Kolb people just actually
run the standard tests (how expensive is it really for a bunch of sand bags)?
and give us some real answers using the basic industry standards for testing
general aviation aircraft? These don't have to be phrased as legal
guarantees, just general guidelines based on standard testing procedures of a
factory built unit rather than an "I once flew my bird at 200mph, pulled it
up hard and it didn't (or did) rip the wings off" type of statement.
Yes, I know that there are always going to be variables caused by the amateur
builder, yes I know that these are kit/homebuilts, yes I know there is a wear
and tear factor, yes I know that they don't want any implied liability, yes I
know that if I am that concerned about it I can always buy a Piper, etc etc
etc - but at least it would give substantiated numbers to use as a baseline.
It seems to me that if the company can afford to give away a unit as a door
prize then they can afford to give up a unit to actual testing so that we
(their customers whose lives depend on accurate information) can make more
intelligent decisions about how far and in what directions we can tweak
before we break.
Denis, if you read this please get back to me off list when you get a chance
regarding the "many changes" you spoke of between the 1985 plans FS and the
FS2. I have stopped my rebuild after your comment and would like to find out
what you were talking about before I finish it or give up on it and move on.
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
Gang:
Made a mistake, duhhhhhhhhh!
This pic is a second generation wing for Miss P'fer and does
not have a 4130 rib as I stated previous msg:
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-01.JPG
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann-g(at)talnet.is> |
| Subject: | Fuel tank for a Firestar |
Hello Listmembers.
My friend up here in Iceland is bound for Minneapolis next Thursday,
and would like to know if anyone knows if he can purchase a plastic fuel
tank like the one sold with the Kolb kit for a Firestar.
His short trip does not allow him to order from Kolb and have it sent to the hotel.
He has only one tank, and would like to extend his endurance
with the second tank.
This kind of plastic tank is not available in Iceland.
Any help would be appreciated.
Best wishes,
Johann G.
Iceland.
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/4/02 12:28John Hauck
>
>
>> On another matter can you explain to me how you reinforced your keading edge
>> tube to the ribs?
>>
>> I couldn't figure out from your description how you did that. Ron
>
> Ron/Gents:
>
> Here's some pics of my original Mark III wings that show the
> bracing on the bow tip well, but not so good for the bracing
> of the nose ribs.
>
> This pic shows the bow tip bracing and the aluminum angle
> bracing on the rear of the first four outboard ribs. If you
> look closely, you can see the angle braces on the top of the
> nose ribs:
>
> http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-01.
> JPG
>
> This one shows the tails of the four outboard ribs:
>
> http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-02%
> 20.JPG
>
> Bow tip bracing and Whelen strobe light mount:
>
> http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-03.
> JPG
>
> Bow tip bracing with the wing right side up:
>
> http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-04.
> JPG
>
> You will notice, on this orginal wing, we fabricated a 4130
> outboard rib, just like the inboard rib. However, after we
> demolished the original wings, decided not to pursue this
> overkill, but reinforce the noses and tails of the first
> four OB ribs.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
=======================================================================
Well I printed out the first pic. You really went and beefed up the tips,,
with looks like 4130 for the end rib, what was the reason for that? I still
don't see where the angle is on the tips. I have looked at mine yesteday
thinking that you have a good idea but cannot figure out how to put them
there without distorting the airfoil. I have photo's of your Aerial SUV, :-)
from the TNK fly in and I see no unusual things with the leading edge. I was
impressed with the build on it.
By the way you got more trees and water in your yard then I have in the
whole county overhere.
Do the tips flex much? I am thinking of adding bracing as you have if there
is flex.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/4/02 12:37John Hauck
>
> Gang:
>
> Made a mistake, duhhhhhhhhh!
>
> This pic is a second generation wing for Miss P'fer and does
> not have a 4130 rib as I stated previous msg:
>
> http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Wing-01.
> JPG
>
> john h
>
>==================================================
>
>
>
Ok I think I see it, its about a 1.5 inch alum L angle flush against the
bottom lapping the top ribs?
Mmmm if thats the case it will also increas the strength of the leading edge
by at least 80% + for flexing I would guess. How much weight penalty?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "louis friedman" <lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires |
Dennis,
The real answer is in the circuit under test. Ground both sides, listen for
the noise, open one then the other. If you can't tell the difference, my
opinion is to leave both sides grounded.
An electrostatic shield, or Faraday cage, works on the principal that a
field cannot cross a zero potential conductor. If the shield is not at
ground potential, it will not block a field. If one end of a shield is
grounded, and the conductor has any resistance (which it does), the
ungrounded end of the braid will be at a potential higher then the grounded
end. Any opening in the braid larger than 1/10 wavelength of a frequency,
will have no blocking affect on the signal. Since the spectral content of
noise is high, the ungrounded end could be a large source of noise.
Many common antennas use the ground as part of the reflecting structure. If
these are not grounded, they do not work. Many tranceivers have internal
connections that share a common ground between their coax and power supply.
If you do not install the connector properly, ie create a pigtail from the
shield and solder it instead of combing the braid and spacing it evenly
around the full circumference of the connector, you don't have a shield.
If you have both ends of the shield at different potentials, ie one of them
is not at ground, you will create groundloops, and don't have an effective
ground system. Current will always take the path of least resistence, and no
current can be generated if there isn't a difference of potential. Connect a
lower resistance path between the two ends of the shield, and the current
will take the shorter path.
I believe, and this is worth what you paid for it (YMMV), that if you have
a good structural ground system, you can ground both ends of the shield and
have a very quiet setup. If you have groundloops when you secure both ends,
this is an indication of the problem, not the problem itself.
Many of the o'scopes I've used have required that both ends of the probe be
grounded in order to measure low level signals (shielded probes). The radio
in my car has both ends of the coax grounded. All of my ham radio antennas
have had both ends grounded, although I have had to strap the bumper to the
frame of the car with a large braid on a bumper mount antenna.
When I'm trying to troubleshoot noise problems, I think of a boat with many
holes in it. If I plugged, and then unplugged every potential source of
leak, one at a time, I would never find the sources of all of the leaks. I
ground everything, and then use an appropriate sniffer to try to localize
where my noise source is. Noise can be conducted, and radiated. It will be
stronger at the source.
Are you having a particular problem?
Lou
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: Shielded Wires
>
> On 10-31-02, Mick Fine wrote:
> << Not to point out the obvious but the shield must be grounded, I frame
> ground the shield at both ends of the run. >>
>
> Mick, and Kolbers,
> I've always heard that the benefit from shielding AC wires comes from
> grounding only ONE end of the shield, not both. Reason: Grounding both
ends
> allows the introduction of a "ground loop" in the circuit, which
introduces
> another form of radio noise.
> Anyone else heard of this?
> Dennis Kirby
> Mk-3, Verner-powered in
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
John,
Could you give us some idea of how many takeoffs and landings and flights
you have performed at gross without the wings falling off Miss P'fer. There
just has to be some repeatability here for all these engineers. Give em some
real numbers to put into their calculators to prove that the wings didn't
fall off and the spars didn't kink. hehehehehehehehe
________________________________________________________________________________
you can buy something called a max heater.
it is made my a man in minnesota, it works
great. I don't have one, but my friends do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
Ron?Gang:
> Well I printed out the first pic. You really went and beefed up the tips,,
> with looks like 4130 for the end rib, what was the reason for that?
We felt the 4130 outboard rig would prevent the outboard
rear quarter of the wing from over flexing, plus beef up the
leading edge of the wing. That wing only flew a few hours
before it was wasted, along with the other wing.
> I have photo's of your Aerial SUV, :-)
> from the TNK fly in and I see no unusual things with the leading edge.
That's cause you're not supposed to, and there aren't any.
My wings are strictly stock on the outside.
> I was impressed with the build on it.
Thank you very much for the compliment. It was not built by
a scientist or an engineer, but a couple of shade tree home
builders. :-)
> Do the tips flex much? I am thinking of adding bracing as you have if there
> is flex.
Reach up and grab someone's bow tip some time and see for
yourself. Yes, that is why I beefed them up. I can pick up
the near main gear by pushing up on the bow tip tube without
any give in the bow tip or wing. Don't try that on a stock
built wing.
OK. Here is a diagram of the rib nose. The highlighted
material is the aluminum angle. Knocked that diagram out,
down and dirty, just so you could see how to install the
braces. Rear of main rib is braced in the same manner.
http://home.sw.rr.com/jhauck/Miss%20P'fer/Miss%20P'fer%20Construction/Rib%20Brace-01.JPG
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
> Heard of one guy that had the wings fold
> cause he forgot the H sections in the spars and the lift strut bolts pulled
> out of the spar. Kirk
Kirk/Gents:
First I heard of the above incident. However, a gentleman
died during his test flight of Twinstar, IIRC, when he did
not install the 3/8" bolts in the "H" braces and lift strut
tang. Only thing holding the lift strut tang was the half
dozen 1/8" pop rivets whose purpose is to keep the lift
strut tang from rotating. Amazing he was able to fly for a
while before they finally pulled loose. I good illustration
of how much strength those little rivets have when they have
a few of their buddies helping to hold the load. I also
believe this Twinstar was inspected and signed off prior to
flight, but can not remember for sure. This happened up in
Dennis Souder's area of PA.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
In a message dated 11/2/02 11:19:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
CaptainRon(at)theriver.com writes:
11/2/02 7:41Cavuontop(at)aol.com
> wall thickness on the tube? How about a longer H
> section with a truss design?
==================================
>>
I have never understood why someone would change wall thickness and grades of
aluminum when there have been no know failures on the MK. 111 wing.
Tom Overholt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim and Phyllis Hefner" <hefners_tucson(at)hotmail.com> |
> It took a while (37 years) but today, I soloed.
Nice going Chuck!! Welcome to Firefly'ing. They are a great flying plane for
sure. I just solo'd mine Jan 6 and have about 60hrs in so far. I can related
to your first take-off... the toughest and scariest part of solo'ing a FF. Another
20' and I would have been knocking down a few weeds in mine first time.
Landing is a piece of cake with such great visibility. The flaperons really
work great, once you get the hang of it. I bent my left gear first time I tried
an idle landing... didn't know about the lack of momentum once you flare...
you need to be at 2' when you flare cause it's done flying faster than you can
blink once you level off...
Please explain more about the 37 yrs part... I met a guy at Copperstate that worked
on building a biplane for 29 years (longest project I ever heard of), so
hopefully your 37 years story has a diff meaning... doubt if you have been building
or taking lessons that long....
Good luck and safe flying!
Jim Hefner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
In a message dated 11/4/02 8:55:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ken-foi(at)attbi.com writes:
>
> I would love to see Mr. Chestnut spend some cash on structural integrity
> testing- but that won't happen. I would settle for a glance at the stress
> analysis that I know was done on the FS design- but that's not for public
> consumption, either, if it still exists after all these years and for as
> many
> times as the company has been sold.
>
> So, we look at the track record of the airframe and invest in some of the
> old
> fashioned "faith" that was mentioned before and we go out and have the time
> of
> our lives "committing aviation."
>
>
>
.....and .....so.....we are right back to the origin of this thread....should
we use a parachute or not.....well......after all this non-numerical
analysis.....I suggest......yes!
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Hey George,
So how do we find out about what happened to those old stress analysis papers
on the FS? Maybe Dennis or John (or even Homer) knows about them? If they
have a copy of them perhaps they can anonymously "leak" them to some of us
owners of the old FS units. At this point I am sure there is no longer a
liability factor so there should be no reason not to.
As far as the other post about the cost to test these units, I was not
suggesting that the FAA need be involved or that the Kolb co. go thru the
certification process - only that they take one of each of the units that
they sell and actually obtain real numbers for the public that buys their
products. If they don't turn out as good as they think they should or as
high as they have been questimated - so be it. At least we and future buyers
would have a truthful base on which to build and fly. I personally do not
feel that ignorance is bliss regarding this issue and I would rather have an
honest low number than a false or misleading high one.
I agree with you about the chute. I remember my father talking about car
wrecks and wearing seat belts Vs not wearing them. "I've crashed with them
and I've crashed without them, if I have to crash again I would prefer to do
it with them". For me, the same sentiment applies to the appropriate
application of a chute. I cannot imagine ever saying to myself "jeepers, I
sure wish that I hadn't put a chute on this thing" - but I have been caught
in a couple of situations where I most certainly was glad that I had it as an
option in case the doodoo got any deeper and the "faith" factor failed.
Anyone have a line on those old stress analysis studies?
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New List Digest Feature!! [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
I've added a new feature to the Digest format of the Lists tonight. At the
top of each digest you will find a new Index Listing of all of the messages
found within that Digest including the Message Number, Subject, Poster, and
Time of Day posted.
I've also added a "Message Number" header to each message within the Digest
so that its easy to find 'just the message' you were looking for!
Sorry for the double posting of the digests tonight - the first time I
didn't quite have the code right and a few "bogus" entries made it into the
Index. I went ahead and reposted the Digest so that everyone could see how
the Index-to-Message mapping really worked.
Special 'thanks' to Gary Hall for not only suggesting a Digest Index, but
also supplying a few samples on how it might look. Gary, I think you'll be
quite pleased with the format!
Don't forget that were right in the middle of this year's List Fund Raiser
and if you haven't already made your Contribution, you own it to yourself
to check out the great free Gifts that are available this year with your
qualifying Contribution.
The Lists are operated completely though the support of it members, and so
its up to YOU to get that credit card out and make that $20, $30, or $50
show of support for the continued operation of the Lists.
Won't you take a couple of minutes and make a quick Contribution on the all
new, streamlined List Support web site? I've also added a
Payment-through-PayPal option this year, and this is proving a very popular
method of payment. Don't forget to check out the great free gifts you can
get with a qualifying Contribution this year. I can't believe how popular
they've been this year! Hurry and get your's today and support the Lists
at the same time!
Here's the SSL Secure URL for making your Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your Support!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Kolbers,
I replaced my 503 with a 532 and now have some items for sale:
Rotax 503 DCDI, 180 SMOH, with electric start, carbs, and 3 blade 66" GSC prop.
Runs great, flew with it up to replacement with 532.
Also have a radiator for a 582 (twin type) used only 10 hours, a tachometer, and
a Kuntzelman double strobe driver.
And for the GA pilots on the list I have a Morroy traffic warning (collision avoidance)
system which is portable - plugs into cigarette lighter.
email me off list for more info or call me at 704-510-1339
Jim
Mark III
Charlotte, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
I forgot to mention that the 503 includes the complete exhaust system.
Jim
Mark III
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
Most engineers would be much happier with data collected accurately from
in-flight testing of a wing versus the standard sand bag or Wiffle tree
tests. the reason is that the loading is actually correct instead of some
approximation to the loading. the flight test to failure of the ultrastar
is extremely valuable data that was used to improve the weakest link in the
wings structure, to the point where a correctly built and properly flown
Kolb aircraft should be completely safe from wing failures.
Those of you who think that a sand bag loading would be better data are
wrong. (It makes the FAA happy cause it is really controlled and the paper
work is so neat and no body might die in the inflight testing) a sand bag
test to the g loading that failed the ultrastar wing would probably not have
failed the wing because the failure was in the drag strut, in response to
the drag of the wing, not just the lift bending moment. a sand bag test
probably would not duplicate the nose rib failure experienced by hauck (who
was flying more aggressively then the structure was designed for) because
the drag force was significant in that one as well. some of you tend to
oversimplify the structures and loadings and tend to think that you can
improve on them by inspection. Homer an Dennis developed these structures
through years of building, testing and study. sure there are a couple of
areas that are optimized for weight and performance, not overly built, that
one can stiffen up. like the bow tip and the lateral bracing of the nose
ribs. but your adding weight and reducing the performance of the plane.
you get to choose... but understand that these are not safety issues. flown
properly and ground handled with care they are not necessary. lift your
main gear off the ground by the bow tip and there is a good reason to
strengthen it... but why on earth would you want to do that? do loops in
your plane and you should strengthen the whole structure to 9 g's ... but
again why? go get yourself an aerobatic plane. fly under 3 g's as you are
suppose to , (which is easy) and handle by the hard points on the ground
( I hope you know where the hardpoints are) and you will be fine.
If you are not an engineer, your likely to weaken a complex structural
system by adding something to it. ( I would say that folks like the Hauck
brothers are engineers. They have significant data, experience and
knowledge gained through experiment ( flying all over hell, and breaking the
things) and have based their improvements on that knowledge, not based on
simple inspection of the structure.) I hereby decree J and J Hauck with
BSKFM degrees (Bachelor of Science in Kolb Flying Machines.)
anyway it is amusing to hear about people putting heavy stuff on perfectly
good structures, leading to heavier, worse performing planes and probably
premature failure of the part you didn't look at.
Now I'm in for it...
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "louis friedman" <lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kolb structure |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: kolb structure
Topher,
I would only add that the engineer needs to be trained in aviation related
strutures, there are all kinds of engineers. A civil engineer could work on
the waste system, and an electrical engineer might work on the wiring.
I second the motion to award John a been there done that degree. I bought
my Kolb after meeting him and spending the week talking with him at Sun'n
Fun. I still hang on every word he says/writes. Good post, thanks.
Lou
>
> Now I'm in for it...
>
> Topher
>
>
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
| Subject: | 1.7 ounce compared to 2.7 ounce fabric |
Kolbers,
I am about to start the covering process on my Firestar II project. Just starting
the ordering process(thinking about) for my Fabric kit and wanted to get some
suggestions.
Uncle Craig and myself had already covered his Mark III Extra project with 2.7
ounce fabric. This is tough stuff and wondered if I should pay a little extra
to get 2.7 ounce for my Firestar instead of the 1.7 ounce suggested for the Firestar.
I will be folding trailering and unfolding pretty much everytime I go flying, and
wondered if I should invest in the tougher/heavier fabric? I know Mark III's
used to be covered in 1.7 ounce fabric, is this true.
Firestar owners, how has your 1.7 ounce fabric held up? Any punctures, and wear
that would warrant that I should place heavier, thicker, tougher 2.7 ounce fabric
on my Firestar?
Sure appreciate some thoughts and input.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: louis friedman [mailto:lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rib Bracing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
In a message dated 11/5/2002 12:19:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
snuffy(at)usol.com writes:
> My point is that TNK may never release that data or may not
> even have it because it could be used in a law suit to put them out of
> business like TEAM aircraft was in Tennessee.
Snuffy:
Take it from somebody who works there. You don't need test data to
put an aviation company out of business. A number of my clients have done a
great job all by themselves without it.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry" <tswartz(at)hydrosoft.net> |
| Subject: | Specification Shift |
And your proud of that?
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Specification Shift
In a message dated 11/5/2002 12:19:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
snuffy(at)usol.com writes:
> My point is that TNK may never release that data or may not
> even have it because it could be used in a law suit to put them out of
> business like TEAM aircraft was in Tennessee.
Snuffy:
Take it from somebody who works there. You don't need test data to
put an aviation company out of business. A number of my clients have done a
great job all by themselves without it.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1.7 ounce compared to 2.7 ounce fabric |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
>
> Kolbers,
> I am about to start the covering process on my Firestar II project.
> Just starting the ordering process(thinking about) for my Fabric kit
> and wanted to get some suggestions.
>
> Uncle Craig and myself had already covered his Mark III Extra
> project with 2.7 ounce fabric. This is tough stuff and wondered if
> I should pay a little extra to get 2.7 ounce for my Firestar instead
> of the 1.7 ounce suggested for the Firestar.
>
> I will be folding trailering and unfolding pretty much everytime I
> go flying, and wondered if I should invest in the tougher/heavier
> fabric? I know Mark III's used to be covered in 1.7 ounce fabric,
> is this true.
>
> Firestar owners, how has your 1.7 ounce fabric held up? Any
> punctures, and wear that would warrant that I should place heavier,
> thicker, tougher 2.7 ounce fabric on my Firestar?
>
> Sure appreciate some thoughts and input.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
Tim,
I have the 1.6 ounce fabric on my 16 year old Firestar and seems to be
just fine. I cannot vouch for a Mark III. I would think it should be
heavier fabric. What does John H have? Go with the same material he's
got.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Penn <deanpenn(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Specification Shift |
Terry,
If you look at the mail header you can see that Mark
did not send this message...
Guys, please don't get political and lets keep the
topics on flying and the Kolb networking... We are
stronger together.
--- Terry wrote:
>
>
> And your proud of that?
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
> Behalf Of
> Cavuontop(at)aol.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Specification Shift
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/5/2002 12:19:21 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> snuffy(at)usol.com writes:
>
>
> > My point is that TNK may never release that data
> or may not
> > even have it because it could be used in a law
> suit to put them out of
> > business like TEAM aircraft was in Tennessee.
>
> Snuffy:
>
> Take it from somebody who works there. You
> don't need test data to
> put an aviation company out of business. A number
> of my clients have done a
> great job all by themselves without it.
>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
>
>
>
> Month --
> Gifts!)
> Click on the Contribution
> Terrific Free Gifts!
> Dralle, List Admin.
> _->
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Snuffy:
Proud of it? C'mon buddy. I guess you haven't been around the list
very long. I'm an aviation DEFENSE lawyer. Just to spell it out a little
more plainly for you-- and just to be clear, I was making a joke-- after ten
years of principally representing aviation related businesses I think I can
say with some authority that the overwhelming majority that I have seen tank
have been because of self inflicted wounds.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight.Kottke(at)hti.htch.com |
11/05/2002 02:22:19 PM,
Serialize complete at 11/05/2002 02:22:19 PM,
Itemize by SMTP Server on HUDOMGW1/HTI(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002)
at
11/05/2002 02:22:39 PM,
Serialize by Router on HUDOMGW1/HTI(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at
11/05/2002
02:24:53 PM,
Serialize complete at 11/05/2002 02:24:53 PM
Dear Ralph Burlingame, what's going on? For the past 12 months we've been
reading posts from you about your "15" year old Firestar. Now today
there's one about the fabric on your "16" year old Firestar. Another year
older, a momentous occasion like this should be celebrated. How about it
fellow Listers, free beer and steaks at the Burlingame house to honor one
of the oldest flying Kolbs!
The Flying Farmer
Do Not Achive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kolb structure |
In a message dated 11/5/02 11:18:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cen33475(at)centurytel.net writes:
>
> If you are not an engineer, your likely to weaken a complex structural
> system by adding something to it. ( I would say that folks like the Hauck
> brothers are engineers. They have significant data, experience and
> knowledge gained through experiment ( flying all over hell, and breaking
> the
> things) and have based their improvements on that knowledge, not based on
> simple inspection of the structure.) I hereby decree J and J Hauck with
> BSKFM degrees (Bachelor of Science in Kolb Flying Machines.)
>
> anyway it is amusing to hear about people putting heavy stuff on perfectly
> good structures, leading to heavier, worse performing planes and probably
> premature failure of the part you didn't look at.
>
> Now I'm in for it...
>
> Topher
>
>
>
Hear! Hear! ...i second the motion!!
George Randolph
firestar driver from Akron, O
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
In a message dated 11/5/02 11:46:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, herbgh(at)juno.com
writes:
> :-)
>
> In recent years, as our society becomes more feminized, I have
> noticed that "Fear" has become one of the main selling tools for products
> and Politicians! Emotions are our number one mental resident. I admire
> those who have them in check. Wish I had more often!:-)
>
> Herb in Ky
>
> Boy! No truer words....I relate!!...wish I had said that.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Mark,
I didn't say that. ( Proud of it) Was somebody else. I understood your
point precisely. Kirk
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Specification Shift
>
> Snuffy:
>
> Proud of it? C'mon buddy. I guess you haven't been around the
list
> very long. I'm an aviation DEFENSE lawyer. Just to spell it out a little
> more plainly for you-- and just to be clear, I was making a joke-- after
ten
> years of principally representing aviation related businesses I think I
can
> say with some authority that the overwhelming majority that I have seen
tank
> have been because of self inflicted wounds.
>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
> http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
Thoughts on Kolbs and lawyers-
Mark, I don't believe that you should be personally affronted by others views
of lawyers. It would be difficult to argue that the legal profession has
obtained its reputation (good or bad) the old fashioned way - they earned it.
Good or bad, that groups reputation is universally applied to all of the
individuals who participate in that particular profession. If you feel that
reputation is good then pat yourself and others in the field on the back and
keep up the good work. If you feel the reputation is bad then work to change
it by working to influence the character and actions of the others in your
field.
We have an adversarial legal system and lawyers are our societies version of
hired guns and hit men (people) - ethics and matters of right/wrong or
good/bad do not appear to be part of the equation to your particular
profession (I have not personally met a single exception to that rule in
over 20 years of occupational contact with hundreds of attorneys and from my
experiences as a professional witness in the legal system - but then again I
am only 50 years old and there is yet time). I have heard it debated that
this adversarial system of law makes lawyers a profession of greedy
sociopaths unable to discern right from wrong and interested only in personal
gain regardless of the consequences to other individuals, businesses or
society as a whole and I have heard it argued that if they were not that way,
it would be difficult for many people to find justice and attorneys are
simply an essential product of the system under which they operate. We will
all have to come to our own conclusions on that debate
That being said - I feel it is a sad commentary on our legal system and
those that represent it when businesses like Kolb are forced to consider the
potential legal consequences to be more important factors in the release of
potentially lifesaving information (stress analysis reports, affects of
modifications on structural integrity etc.) than the lives and safety of the
people who buy and build their products.
Once again I wonder - have we met the enemy and he is us?
Just a couple of random thoughts, take it for what its worth because its
worth what you paid for it.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Modifications & Spec Shift |
>
>
>99% of the people on earth are agreeable with what they have. Two percent of
>the people are not. All of mankind's progress is because of that two percent
>of malcontants.
>
>We try to improve because we want better, even if its already good enough.
>:-)
Of all my modifications I did on the MK111 I did not beef anything up
except the wing tip bows because I built carrying handles in them. Not
having heard of any serious structural failures in Kolbs I saw no reason to
improve on anything. I was tempted to move the spar/lift strut attach point
out a bit farther to increase the spar strength but as I said before there
are no significant structural failures. Forgetting bolts or doing
acrobatics do not count. If John can't break it after all his hours then it
safe for fair weather flyers like me.
I think Molt Taylor said it best when he said that to sell an aeroplane
you must give a guarantee to kill declaration with it. If the aircraft
doesn't kill you you just need to give it more time. If it kills you then
he fulfilled his guarantee. If this scares you away from his flying
machines then you are not the kind of person who should be flying.
The Kolb with the cast iron spars will be the safest Kolb because it
won't get off the ground. :)
Oh by the way the Kolb design has only been sold once as far as I know. A
lot different from a lot of other designs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 1.7 ounce compared to 2.7 ounce fabric |
Tim, use the 1.7. The heavier the fabric, the more it will bend your airframe
when you shrink it. As far as how strong the 1.7 is, I'm 6'3",265 lbs and I
couldn't get a small tear started on a small piece.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1.7 ounce compared to 2.7 ounce fabric |
The places that get the extra wear and tear are the leading edges of the
wings, the wingtips, and the edges of the tail . Use the lighter cloth and
be generous with the finishing tapes on places where you think abrasion
might be likely.(Like the edges of the fuselage where you climb in and out
- what will touch somewhere when you trailer it- etc.) Protect it from UV
light either by keeping it sheltered or by a silver undercoat and enjoy the
weight savings. A local A&P who specializes in recovering fabric airplanes
told me that a "standard" dope and fabric finish on a Cub weighs about 25
pounds. Cutting that figure in half is worth a patch here or there.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Kolbers,
>I am about to start the covering process on my Firestar II project. Just
>starting the ordering process(thinking about) for my Fabric kit and wanted
>to get some suggestions.
>
>Uncle Craig and myself had already covered his Mark III Extra project with
>2.7 ounce fabric. This is tough stuff and wondered if I should pay a little
>extra to get 2.7 ounce for my Firestar instead of the 1.7 ounce suggested
>for the Firestar.
>
>I will be folding trailering and unfolding pretty much everytime I go
>flying, and wondered if I should invest in the tougher/heavier fabric? I
>know Mark III's used to be covered in 1.7 ounce fabric, is this true.
>
>Firestar owners, how has your 1.7 ounce fabric held up? Any punctures, and
>wear that would warrant that I should place heavier, thicker, tougher 2.7
>ounce fabric on my Firestar?
>
>Sure appreciate some thoughts and input.
>
>Thanks,
>Tim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: louis friedman [mailto:lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com]
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rib Bracing
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1.7 ounce compared to 2.7 ounce fabric |
Speed, suction, and pressure loads like the bottom of the wing are factors
that determine the weight of fabric required. As your weight goes up, your
wings have a higher loading, thus there becomes a point where you need
stronger fabric. Certified aircraft (small single engine) use 2.7
oz. UL's use 1.7 oz. to reduce weight and because of their slower speed
and light wing loading do not require the strength of the heavier fabric.
jerb
>
> >
> >
> > Kolbers,
> > I am about to start the covering process on my Firestar II project.
> > Just starting the ordering process(thinking about) for my Fabric kit
> > and wanted to get some suggestions.
> >
> > Uncle Craig and myself had already covered his Mark III Extra
> > project with 2.7 ounce fabric. This is tough stuff and wondered if
> > I should pay a little extra to get 2.7 ounce for my Firestar instead
> > of the 1.7 ounce suggested for the Firestar.
> >
> > I will be folding trailering and unfolding pretty much everytime I
> > go flying, and wondered if I should invest in the tougher/heavier
> > fabric? I know Mark III's used to be covered in 1.7 ounce fabric,
> > is this true.
> >
> > Firestar owners, how has your 1.7 ounce fabric held up? Any
> > punctures, and wear that would warrant that I should place heavier,
> > thicker, tougher 2.7 ounce fabric on my Firestar?
> >
> > Sure appreciate some thoughts and input.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tim
>
>Tim,
>
>I have the 1.6 ounce fabric on my 16 year old Firestar and seems to be
>just fine. I cannot vouch for a Mark III. I would think it should be
>heavier fabric. What does John H have? Go with the same material he's
>got.
>
>Ralph
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specification Shift |
In a message dated 11/5/02 1:53:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com
writes:
>
> Hey George,
>
> So how do we find out about what happened to those old stress analysis
> papers
> on the FS? Maybe Dennis or John (or even Homer) knows about them? If they
>
> have a copy of them perhaps they can anonymously "leak" them to some of us
> owners of the old FS units. At this point I am sure there is no longer a
> liability factor so there should be no reason not to.
>
>
If anyone knows about the "numbers" my guess is that Dennis Souder would have
a story on them...he is the one that put his life on the line ...and on the
numbers...and he is the most recent guardian of the numbers in his position
of executive at the old Kolb. The summary of "the numbers" would be reflected
in the G ratings of the Firestars, and I can't remember what they were now. I
have, not an original, but the 1st KX 5 rib, bought at SNF or OSH in '91 I
think it was. It was soooo first that it doesn't even have the new horizontal
stab hinge system, but the old hinge/pin system of the original. So I have a
bit of a hybrid, i guess.....don't make no difference to me.
I enjoyed building it in my garage, and I enjoy flying it very much...even as
my weight has increased from 190 to 215...which I gotta shed!!
The only "mod" that I did was a trim tab on the horizontal stab to enable me
to fly it without elevator control if necessary, by using throttle
alone.....I think this is an important CYA feature.
Been flyin it for 10 years! no accidents, no incidents....other than the loss
of a plug wire which screwed off in flight near the field....but I am a
glider pilot anyway, so it just added to my joy that day. And I love to soar
that puppy too...oh well....so many stories....
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron, Oh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Ancient Indian Aircraft Technology.htm |
http://ebe.allwebco.com/Sections/AncientVisitors/Archive/Indian_Tech.shtml
Here's something for you to study.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ancient Indian Aircraft Technology.htm |
Ah yesss. Zis aunty-grabby-tayshunnul teeory hass bean goink arount fer
zometimes now. Zee Injins haff ge-learnt aboud dis flyink ting frum
vatchink peegs flyink. Joos te udder day I hav seen tree peegs go offer
my tee-pee flyink in lef etch-ill-lon, squawkink seven eight hunnert.
Boob N. effer vatchfull
pliz dont arkive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tiffany Pitra <tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com> |
Does anybody have a firestar cockpit cage damaged or repairable or not? I would
like to purchase. tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com
---------------------------------
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Insight122(at)wmconnect.com |
I've sent two emails to the New Kolb company. No replys! Maybe someone on the
list can tell me if they just don't care or what. The question was: What is
the glide ratio of a Firestar?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>I've sent two emails to the New Kolb company. No replys! Maybe someone on the
>list can tell me if they just don't care or what. The question was: What is
>the glide ratio of a Firestar?
>Thanks
They probably don't know what your asking. What's the glide ratio of
Bob's Firestar or Larry's or My "thing"?
Which Firestar - "Orginal" , "XP", what altitude, what temp
Engine idling or engine out, how much do you weigh etc. etc.???
Best guess is from 7 to 1 minimum - to 10 to 1 maximum.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
>======================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Sunday Flight Report |
The wind was 5 to 10 when Partner and I took off for 30 mile trip to Glenn Rinck's
strip.
My partner was flying with son in an "X-aire". It was a strange little 582 tractor
powered, two seater, made in India (?). Top speed ~ 55mph.
It was a little bumpy when we got in the air but flyable. As we approached the
forest area we went to three thousand then to 3800'. Everything above 2000 was
glassy smooth. When we approached Glenn's strip I found that it got very rough
below 1500. I got down without bending anything but the lesson I re-learned
was that the wind can vary wildly at different altitudes.
We were their just in time to look over the finer points of Glenn's latest project,
a twin engine ($100,000) Air Cam. It looked like a B-17 sitting next to my
FireFly. Glenn is a master builder with about 72 planes completed so he doesn't
hesitate to tackle big projects. He has my respect as a craftsman.
When we departed the bumps had smoothed out some and above 2000 was still smooth.
Back home it was choppy again but I proved once again that my little Fly can
still do her stuff in a 12 mph crosswind.
Duane the plane, Tallahassee, FL FireFly 447, IVO, Mk3/912 almost ready.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org> |
They could at least answer!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of possums
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: TNK emails
>
>I've sent two emails to the New Kolb company. No replys! Maybe someone on
the
>list can tell me if they just don't care or what. The question was: What is
>the glide ratio of a Firestar?
>Thanks
They probably don't know what your asking. What's the glide ratio of
Bob's Firestar or Larry's or My "thing"?
Which Firestar - "Orginal" , "XP", what altitude, what temp
Engine idling or engine out, how much do you weigh etc. etc.???
Best guess is from 7 to 1 minimum - to 10 to 1 maximum.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
>======================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dale seitzer <dalemseitzer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Repaired Original Firestar Cage |
I have fianlly repaired the spare Original Firestar
cage and it is for sale to anyone who needs it. It
all started in 1984 when the plane was
built--somewhere along the way someone had a very hard
landing and bent most of the tubes in the landing gear
area--they were repaired but not well. On a engine
out on take off I landed very hard on a hill at the
end of the runway and bent it again. I bought an
unused Original Firestar cage from Tom Kuffel in
Montana and put mine back together. I finally got
around to the repair. I repaired it according to the
FAA plane repair rules using an oxy aceletene welding
and normalized all welds. The cage is a couple of
pounds heavier because of the required over
lapping--the first repair had zero overlap. Please
archive this so it is available to someone in the
future. Cost-- $500 plus shipping costs.
651-387-0229, 651-649-1532, Dale Seitzer
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "louis friedman" <lfriedman2001(at)attbi.com> |
Its been my experience that when things get busy, Kolb doesn't check email
as often. When I need an answer in a hurry, I've always been satisfied with
the response by telephone.
Lou
>
>
> >
> >I've sent two emails to the New Kolb company. No replys! Maybe someone on
> the
> >list can tell me if they just don't care or what. The question was: What
is
> >the glide ratio of a Firestar?
> >Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DMe5430944(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 11/06/02 |
What???
Don Mekeel
FF002
El Paso, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser - What Listers Are Saying... |
Dear Listers,
First, I'd like say *thank you* to everyone that's already made a
Contribution to this year's List Fund Raiser! Thank you! If you haven't
already made a Contribution, won't you take a movement and show your
support for these valuable services? Since there's no advertising or other
forms of direct commercialism on the forums to support the Lists, its soley
YOUR GENEROSITY that keeps them running!!
Won't please take a minute and make a Contribution via the SSL secure web
site via Credit Card, Paypal, or personal check. Here's the URL:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
This year, I've been getting some *really* nice comments from Contributors
and I thought I'd pass along a few of them below. What does the List mean
to *you*?
Thank you for your support!!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
_________________ What your fellow Listers are saying... _________________
...great service!!
Greg B.
They have been a great assistance to me in building my RV-8.
Kevin H.
...very much appreciated.
Donald M.
Great site...
Angus F.
...invaluable resource.
Ronald C
[The List] has played a big part in continuing my project at
those times when I got stuck for some reason.
Jeff D.
Although I am only a reader, I find the list very helpful.
Oswaldo F.
The lists are a fantastic resource and are helping me very much...
Kenyon B.
The list is part of my life.
Ron C.
The CD will free up some hard disk space on my personal PC.
Jeff D.
...unbelievably useful.
Dan O.
...dependable and valued source of builder information.
Jerry C.
My daily lifeline!
Owen B.
...frequently get questions answered on the List.
Billy W.
Don't know how any first-time builder could get by without the lists.
Rick R.
...great source of information and motivation.
Jef V.
Super resource!
David P.
The information presented is very helpful to the building process.
James B.
Wonderful Service!
Wendell D.
The lists are great!
F. Robert M.
...very valuable to this builder.
William C.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Yep, calling works for me.
jerb
>
>Its been my experience that when things get busy, Kolb doesn't check email
>as often. When I need an answer in a hurry, I've always been satisfied with
>the response by telephone.
>Lou
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I've sent two emails to the New Kolb company. No replys! Maybe someone on
> > the
> > >list can tell me if they just don't care or what. The question was: What
>is
> > >the glide ratio of a Firestar?
> > >Thanks
>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
there are alot of people who are not bound to there computers and feel that
checking e-mails around once aevery couple of months is more then
adiquate... it is my impression that that is the attitude of thk management.
use the phone and they seem to be more timely in reasponces.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Repaired Original Firestar Cage |
Hi Dale, This is Chris Armstrong over in Osceola WI, which is fairly nearby
you I. I might like to pick up your cage. for a non-Kolb project. It has
the high sides on it right? AN doesn't have the back seat capability?
Can you send a jpeg of it?
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
I had the same experience with no replies to email sent to TNK co. to the
point that I was starting to wonder if they were still in business.
When I did reach them I was left with the strong impression that they had
abandoned all customer support and parts sales for the earlier lines of Kolbs
(FS), were really only interested in pushing their new line of products and
that rather than maintaining customer support they were focusing entirely on
new sales. Being a Firestar man since 1991 and having had nothing but praise
for the wonderful service I had received for all these years, this really
caught me by surprise. I have no doubt that the new owners are wonderful
people, but perhaps this is one of the reasons they are not doing as well as
they should be.
In considering the purchase of the Kolb company I would have thought that the
sales of parts for all these old units would have been a consideration and
that keeping the current customer base would be important for future sales
for upgrades and replacements.
I think that with the Kolb reputation, the longevity of the company, the
history of quality of the Kolb line, their competitive pricing, the number of
Kolb aircraft/UL that are out there acting as sales ambassadors and the near
cult like following of most Kolb owners, they should be one of the best
selling aircraft in the entire aviation field.
I noted that it has been suggested to the company that they monitor this
group to keep a finger on the pulse of current Kolbdom. I hope they have
done this as this site and this group of owners is not only the companies
past but also one of the keys to its future success or failure.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
Dog gone I got the same problem with Big Lar, I send him stuff off line..
And never here nothin, I don't tink he loves me anymore...
Richard Harris
MK3 N912RH
Arkansas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: TNK emails
>
> You're exactly right ! ! ! I've had emails into Sony & Olympus technical
> support for 2 weeks now, and no reply. This is the 2nd time with Olympus.
> It's infuriating. I did get a reply back from Chrysler Financial about my
> truck, but it took nearly a week. Makes you wonder about buying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
<<<<<<
You could try a 12 volt car heater (after market) I used one
to defrost a
back window and was surprise how much heat it put out.
Ken >>>>>>
how many amps does it use?
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
Someone sent me a virus and you may now have it because you are in my
address book. It is passed by contact. Please check your computer
so you don't pass it to anyone else. It is easy to delete with the
following instructions. The virus called (jdbgmgr.exe) is not detected by Norton
or Macaffee
anti-virus programs. It sits dormant for 14 days before damaging the system.
It is
sent automatically by e-mail to the contacts in your address book whether or not
you sent
e-mails to your contacts.
Here's how to get rid of the virus.
1. Go to START, click on "search file or folder"
2. In the "file/folder, type the filename: jdbgmgr.exe
3. Be sure you search your C: drive and all sub-folders and other drives
you have.
4. Click "find or search"
5. The virus has a teddybear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe
6. Go to "edit" on the menu bar and choose "select all" to highlight
the file without opening it
7. Go to "File" on the menu bar and select "delete" It will then go to
the recycle bin where you can safely delete it.
You should notify the people in your address book if you find the virus so they
can delete it also.
Sorry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
It's a hoax. Don't delete the file.
J.D. Stewart
Internet Nebraska-Norfolk
http://www.inebraska.com
UltraFun AirSports
http://www.ultrafunairsports.com
Challenger Owners E-mail list and Website Administrator
http://challenger.inebraska.com
>
>
> Someone sent me a virus and you may now have it because you are in my
> address book. It is passed by contact. Please check your computer
> so you don't pass it to anyone else. It is easy to delete with the
> following instructions. The virus called (jdbgmgr.exe) is not
> detected by Norton or Macaffee
> anti-virus programs. It sits dormant for 14 days before
> damaging the system. It is
> sent automatically by e-mail to the contacts in your address
> book whether or not you sent
> e-mails to your contacts.
>
> Here's how to get rid of the virus.
> 1. Go to START, click on "search file or folder"
> 2. In the "file/folder, type the filename: jdbgmgr.exe
> 3. Be sure you search your C: drive and all sub-folders and other drives
> you have.
> 4. Click "find or search"
> 5. The virus has a teddybear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe
> 6. Go to "edit" on the menu bar and choose "select all" to highlight
> the file without opening it
> 7. Go to "File" on the menu bar and select "delete" It will then go to
> the recycle bin where you can safely delete it.
>
> You should notify the people in your address book if you find
> the virus so they can delete it also.
>
> Sorry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
I got suckered by this same thing a couple of months ago by my neighbor who
is a computer expert for the Pentagon. Don't delete the file, it is a hoax.
If you delete it, it is easy to reinstall. Just check with McAfee or
Norton. They have instructions to correct the thing.=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
Date: Friday, November 08, 2002 03:48:35 PM=0D
Subject: Kolb-List: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry=0D
=0D
=0D
Someone sent me a virus and you may now have it because you are in my=0D
address book. It is passed by contact. Please check your computer=0D
so you don't pass it to anyone else. It is easy to delete with the=0D
following instructions. The virus called (jdbgmgr.exe) is not detected by
Norton or Macaffee=0D
anti-virus programs. It sits dormant for 14 days before damaging the system.
It is=0D
sent automatically by e-mail to the contacts in your address book whether or
not you sent=0D
e-mails to your contacts.=0D
=0D
Here's how to get rid of the virus.=0D
1. Go to START, click on "search file or folder"=0D
2. In the "file/folder, type the filename: jdbgmgr.exe=0D
3. Be sure you search your C: drive and all sub-folders and other drives=0D
you have.=0D
4. Click "find or search"=0D
5. The virus has a teddybear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe=0D
6. Go to "edit" on the menu bar and choose "select all" to highlight=0D
the file without opening it=0D
7. Go to "File" on the menu bar and select "delete" It will then go to=0D
the recycle bin where you can safely delete it.=0D
=0D
You should notify the people in your address book if you find the virus so
they can delete it also.=0D
=0D
Sorry=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=2E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
Ken Broste wrote:
>
>
> Someone sent me a virus and you may now have it because you are in my
> address book.
Hey Gang:
This is a hoax. Do not react to it. Delete it
and carry on.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MK3 X VERTICAL STABILIZER TECH ASSIST |
Jim B/Gang:
If it were me, I would use the 1/4" long rivets
and drive on. If I ever have a question on rivet
length, I always opt for the next longer size.
Better to be a little long rather than a little.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
that virus is a hoax"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry
>
> Someone sent me a virus and you may now have it because you are in my
> address book. It is passed by contact. Please check your computer
> so you don't pass it to anyone else. It is easy to delete with the
> following instructions. The virus called (jdbgmgr.exe) is not detected
by Norton or Macaffee
> anti-virus programs. It sits dormant for 14 days before damaging the
system. It is
> sent automatically by e-mail to the contacts in your address book whether
or not you sent
> e-mails to your contacts.
>
> Here's how to get rid of the virus.
> 1. Go to START, click on "search file or folder"
> 2. In the "file/folder, type the filename: jdbgmgr.exe
> 3. Be sure you search your C: drive and all sub-folders and other drives
> you have.
> 4. Click "find or search"
> 5. The virus has a teddybear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe
> 6. Go to "edit" on the menu bar and choose "select all" to highlight
> the file without opening it
> 7. Go to "File" on the menu bar and select "delete" It will then go to
> the recycle bin where you can safely delete it.
>
> You should notify the people in your address book if you find the virus
so they can delete it also.
>
> Sorry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ALLENB007(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
Does anyone know how to get the file back if they've deleted it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ALLENB007(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
Can someone send me a copy of the file so I can re-install it or again, what
do I do to get it back if I've deleted it?
This crap really pisses me off--nothing but bs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MK3 X VERTICAL STABILIZER TECH ASSIST |
Jim, I ran into same problem a few weeks ago with my firefly....I have a
cherry rivet gauge...and when i checked those holes, the gauge called for a
1/4 length..., so your intuition is right..1/8th in too short there.
on the next trip to Wicks...I bought a couple a hundred 1/4 ..and. 5/16th,
dont want any short rivets!!
it came up in some other places too...lessee....on the horizontal
stab/elevator where a re-inforcing sleeve is inside around the hinge
locations....and on the ends where the steel horns go on elevators and
ailerons....you are gonna need a bunch a longer rivets...believe me!
Don GHerardini
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
Go to the Macafee antivirus page, they have a file you can download along
with instructions on how to repair things. I typed in "Jdbdmgr.exe hoax"
into my Google search engine, and it gave me the Macafee page with
instructions. Good luck.
PeeEss - It's not just on this list - I got the same bogus alert from
several sources.... Always check the hoax pages first.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Does anyone know how to get the file back if they've deleted it?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Jones" <kevin-jones(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
If you're using Internet Express it's in the Deleted Items folder.
kj
----- Original Message -----
From: <ALLENB007(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry
>
> Does anyone know how to get the file back if they've deleted it?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 11/08/02 exit door for chute |
I have a soft pack ballistic recovery system, mounted in the wing gap seal
overhead. The top is lexan with a 3 sided door to enable the chute to come
out. My problem is that every year I need to replace the velcro used to keep
the hatch shut. It seems, even with additional adhesive, that the sun heats
the velcro up and loosens it.
Has anyone used another method other than velcro ? Is ther such a thing as
rubber molding, in the shape of an "H", like 1" wide, that would work and
make a weather proof seal ? The velcro has worked for 7 yrs., but has
required constance maintainence. There has to be a better way ??
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
YEA, we'll be up today ! (60* upstate NY)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | 11/08/02 exit door for chute |
I am also using a soft pack, with a similar door situation. Mine is all
aluminum with no velcro. I will take some pictures today and get back with
you. (Might not be until Monday - My next 36 hours are going to be hectic)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>I have a soft pack ballistic recovery system, mounted in the wing gap seal
>overhead. The top is lexan with a 3 sided door to enable the chute to come
>out. My problem is that every year I need to replace the velcro used to keep
>the hatch shut. It seems, even with additional adhesive, that the sun heats
>the velcro up and loosens it.
> Has anyone used another method other than velcro ? Is ther such a thing as
>rubber molding, in the shape of an "H", like 1" wide, that would work and
>make a weather proof seal ? The velcro has worked for 7 yrs., but has
>required constance maintainence. There has to be a better way ??
>
>Fly Safe
> Bob Griffin
>YEA, we'll be up today ! (60* upstate NY)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Jones" <kevin-jones(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry |
Sorry, I mean Outlook Express.
kj
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Jones" <kevin-jones(at)SNET.Net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry
>
> If you're using Internet Express it's in the Deleted Items folder.
> kj
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ALLENB007(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: I may have sent you a computer virus. Sorry
>
>
> >
> > Does anyone know how to get the file back if they've deleted it?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | what rivit to use |
Kolbers
I am building a MK III X and have completed the horizontal
stabilizers. I have the upper vertical
stabilizer done and I am working on the lower vertical
stabilizer. The plans say use ten 1/8 X
1/8 rivets to join the steel tail post and the 3/4 X .125
lower tube. This does not sound right
to me. I would think 1/8 X1/4 rivets would be used. I
called the factory but they are gone for
the weekend. Has anyone else run into this problem and did
you get the factory to clarify the
plans? Any opinions on the use of rivets?
Thanks
Jim Ballenger
===================
when in doubt add up the wall thickness of all the parts to
be assembeled... then use the shortest rivit that will
grip.
1/8 in rivit will grip .125 ( 1 devided by 8 equals
.125 )
1/4 .250
etc...
example if you are joining a .032 gusset to a tube that is
.035 with a inner sleve that is .050 start adding....
.032 + .035 + .050 = .117 it is just under the grip
legnth of the 1/8 inch rivit.... if everything is debured
and clean it will fit fine.... if for some reason you cant
get it debured and you are afraid that some metal chips are
caught between some of the layers... first try to get it
apart and debur.... if not posible... go to the next size
rivit.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 11/08/02 exit door for |
chute
The velcro has worked for 7 yrs., but has
> required constance maintainence. There has to be a better way ??
>
> Fly Safe
> Bob Griffin
Bob G/Gents:
Yes, there is a better way. IIRC we talked about
how I had done my system, which is weather tight
to include the rocket.
Check with BRS for "hair cell plastic" sheet.
Lower the rocket about 5" to fit inside the gap
seal. Score the inside of the plastic where
rocket will strike and exit and canopy will exit.
Seal the perimeter with silicone seal and pop
rivet every inch with cheap aluminum rivets.
This increase the repack life of the chute from 2
to 6 years.
Works for me.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 11/08/02 exit door for |
chute
Bob et al,
Several years ago I posted one way to make the velcro stay in place a little longer.
First I Polytac it in place then go around the edges with a soldering iron
and burn of the "hooks" for about 1/4" around the perimeter. If you leave those
hooks in place they link up with the "eyes" of the matching strip and help
lift the edge each time you pull them apart. If the edge hooks are not there
during separation the lifting force is imposed on the area away from the edge
which is less likely to pull the edge loose.
This works great where the velcro has to be taken apart regularly.
Duane the plane, Tallahassee FL, FireFly, 477, Ivo, Mk3/912 in works
----- Original Message -----
From: Airgriff2(at)aol.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 11/08/02 exit door for chute
I have a soft pack ballistic recovery system, mounted in the wing gap seal
overhead. The top is lexan with a 3 sided door to enable the chute to come
out. My problem is that every year I need to replace the velcro used to keep
the hatch shut. It seems, even with additional adhesive, that the sun heats
the velcro up and loosens it.
Has anyone used another method other than velcro ? Is ther such a thing as
rubber molding, in the shape of an "H", like 1" wide, that would work and
make a weather proof seal ? The velcro has worked for 7 yrs., but has
required constance maintainence. There has to be a better way ??
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
YEA, we'll be up today ! (60* upstate NY)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need a Firestar to try on |
Kolbers , I have a delema perhaps one of you can help me with .I recently
listed my Firestar KXP for sale on ebay and have it sold I think . The buyer
,to be has never been in a KOLB and is afraid he might not fit , he lives
in Michigan in a city called Benton Habor\St.Joseph 30minutes north of the
Indiana border.Anybody in that area got a Firestar he can try on? I would
hate to have him drive 800mile to Ma. as he is suggesting just to find out
.Thanks for the help . Chris Davis----- Original Message -----
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-built trailer for sale |
In a message dated 11/10/02 1:46:43 PM, ronoy(at)shentel.net writes:
Selling an open Kolb-built trailer, originally for a Mk II?. Total
mileage less than 400 (RT Winchester VA--
Millersburg PA). Asking $1000. Offer?
I'm like the guy drinking beer while sitting on the pot--just the middle
man here. Local owner doesn't have e mail. Any interest and I can try
to get his phone number.
Bob N. >>
Hey Bob, USAU Club 1 is looking for a trailer, I will pass this to them.
Tim in Herndon VA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In search of Charm on the JFK, Jr. trail |
Mark ,I responded to your post a week ago but I sent it to the wrong party
and don't know if you got it or not. I still can't figure out this email
system sometimes I mail one person and everybody gets it and somtimes I
email everybody and only person gets it? so Thank you for your compliment
on my stars and stripes Kolb it is a 1990 Firestar KXP which I think ,saddly
I sold on ebay today I dont know If you can still see the pictures or not ,
ebay#1871403635anyways. I hope you and the" boss" enjoyed our quaint little
town . Where did you stay and eat ? Chris Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: In search of Charm on the JFK, Jr. trail
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I can tell its Fall here in Pennsylvania. The Boss gets that look
in
> her eye. She puts down the Martha Stewart magazine and says, "Can't we go
> someplace charming?" This is a dangerous state of affairs which cannot be
> cured by a nice ride in the Mark III, and the dinner special a Denny's.
> Nope. Its time to gather up all the credit cards and low attitude enroute
> charts and head on up the JFK, Jr. Trail to New England in search of that
> which is "charming" and "quaint."
>
> And you don't go in search of charm at 65 mph in your Kolb. No my
> friends, you need in panel moving maps, mode C, standby vacuum and cabin
> heat.
>
> This years destination? Chatham, Massachusetts, about 10 miles
east
> of Hyanis, a town so charming and quaint your checkbook will swoon.
>
> I call it the JFK , Jr. trail because if you draw a straight line
from
> New York to Hyanis on Cape Cod you get the route that JFK, Jr. was flying
> when he lost it about 17 miles SW of the Marthas Vinyard VOR. I have
flown
> that route quite a bit over the years.
>
> Its about 2 hours enroute from Philadelphia to Chatham and sunset
was
> at 5:46. The Boss promised she'd be out of her office at 2:00 on Friday
> afternoon. With the Friday traffic slowing us getting to the airport I
> figured we'd be in the air at 3:00 and be at Chatham around 5:00, with a
> comfortable margin before sunset.
>
> At 1:30 I was parked on the street in front of the Boss' office
> building with our bags packed, ready to go. At 3:00 I was still parked,
> waiting. I took that hour and a half I had sitting in my car to reflect
on
> the similarities between me and JFK, Jr. Our astonishing good looks,
> personal wealth, beautiful wives, distinguished families, outstanding
flying
> skills. But there were other similarities which weren't so swell, we were
> both trying to get to New England on a Friday afternoon before dark and
were
> delayed by women at work.
>
> On top of that, the wind was shifting to the NE which would slow us
> down and delay our arrival further yet.
>
> We departed about 4:15 into a 1700 ft overcast and were cleared to
> 7000. We were in solid, but fairly smooth, IMC. I coupled the Garmin GNS
> 430 moving map to the auto pilot and sat back to listen to the radio
chatter
> as we headed for New York. We were sent directly over Kennedy. As we
passed
> over the airport a sucker hole opened up and we could look straight down
at
> the 747s lined up on the ramp. Quite a sight.
>
> The clouds began to break up around Groton, Connecticut, and by the
> time we were over New Bedford, MA, the sun was setting in the West and we
> could see a broken layer at about 4000 covering Cape Cod. Cape Approach
> cleared us direct to Chatham and descended us to 3000. We broke out in
good
> visibility west of Hyanis. By 6:15 it was dark, but smooth, and the Boss
> picked up the beacon at Chatham 15 miles out. The ASOS at Chatham
reported
> the winds as calm, so I swung out over Nantucket Sound a bit to line up
for a
> straight in landing to the East.
>
> The Boss gets a big charge out of turning on the pilot controlled
> lighting. So with the runway in sight 4 miles out we just motored down
the
> big pink line on the GPS to an uneventful landing.
>
> I pulled off the runway and parked on the grass. The FBO was
closed
> and there were no lights on anywhere. I had called ahead for a rental
car,
> and the guy I talked to said he'd leave it in the parking lot with the
keys
> in the glove box.
>
> The Boss and I must have wandered around for 15 minutes with our
> flashlights looking for that car, and the Boss was getting cold, which is
> always a bad sign. I was ready to give up, when lo and behold what should
I
> see in the beam of my flashlight, but a beautiful red white and blue stars
> and stripes pattern Kolb Firestar tied down in the grass along the
taxiway.
> Good thing we found the rental car before the Boss got too cold, because I
> was thinking of taking the Firestar and taxiing into town.
>
> So who has the Firestar at Chatham?
>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tiffany Pitra <tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com> |
You guys are intersted in trailers. I will sell mine for $3000. It is covered with
forest green pro-rib Steel framed, rubber torsion, flop down looding ramp
type ,23Ft. x 5 1/2 Ft. 7Ft. high. I am going to build another one only this time
out of aluminum. It is like having a pordable hangar on wheels. Ph# 320-254-3673
e-mail tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com I live in Minnesota.
---------------------------------
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser Continues... |
Marie Murillo
Dear Listers,
Just a quick reminder this morning that we're well into this year's Email
List Fund Raiser. Response has been great so far and there has been a lot
of interest in the Gift options. Speaking of those Gifts, I received a
sample of the Jeppesen Flight Bag from Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore
http://www.buildersbooks.com this weekend, and let me just say that this is
an extremely fine quality unit. Its very light, folds down into a very
small form for storage, and will hold a whole lot of your "pilot
stuff"! For a mere $50 List Contribution, one of these very nice bags
could be yours! You'll be the envy of all your friends.
Won't you make a Contribution today to support the these valuable Email
List Services? Please remember that its YOUR generosity that entirely
supports the continued operation and upgrade of the Lists. That's it - no
ads, no banners - just good clean fun; that is, with your support of course!
Please take a moment and make a generous Contribution today. It only takes
a minute using the newly redesigned Contribution Web Site where you can use
either a Credit Card, PayPal, or a Personal Check to make your donation.
The URL for the SSL Secure Contribution web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
And I'd like to say a special "thank you!" to everyone one who has made
Contribution so far this year!! I really appreciate your generosity!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
To all the Veterans on the list, Thank you!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans van Alphen" <HVA(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
Hey Gents,
Looking for an Anti Fog product for my lexan cockpit that does not distort
vision.
Early mornings are a problem here in Florida. I t clears right up after
takeof but that might be to late.
Wondering what you guys use.
Thanks for your input.
Hans van Alphen
Mark III Xtra
BMW powered
82 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <pvolum(at)etsmiami.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
Hello Hans.
Windex works for me. I fly with my doors off most of the time. If you
keep your doors on, that may be different.
Peter
Ex-Fat Albert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans van
Alphen
Subject: Kolb-List: Re:Anti fog products
Hey Gents,
Looking for an Anti Fog product for my lexan cockpit that does not
distort
vision.
Early mornings are a problem here in Florida. I t clears right up after
takeof but that might be to late.
Wondering what you guys use.
Thanks for your input.
Hans van Alphen
Mark III Xtra
BMW powered
82 hours
==
Contribution
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Full Lotus Manufacturing Inc. - Model 1260 - Mono 1000 |
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Davis
Subject: Full Lotus Manufacturing Inc. - Model 1260 - Mono 1000
kolbers ,for sale Full Lotus 1000mono float retrac gear used
as seen athttp://www.full-lotus.com/html/flmi4102.htm
1400dollars+s+h less than 1\2 price Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Kolb Friends -
For what it's worth, here is my experience in dealing with TNK recently:
I needed replacement part for my Mark-3 (A nose bow, which got squashed on
my first-ever landing of my newly-completed airplane, but you've already
heard THAT story!) I called New Kolb and spoke with Linda. Told her I
needed the part, and would likely order it sometime soon. Later that week,
it showed up on my doorstep (UPS), and I had not even paid for it yet!
Called Linda up again to see what was up, and she simply told me to send her
a $37 check whenever I got around to it.
To me, that's outstanding customer service. A unique kind of trust that you
don't see so often anymore. Bet you don't get that with Sears.
Dennis Kirby
Verner-powered Mk-3, N93DK
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
Kolb Friends -
For what it's worth, here is my experience in dealing with TNK recently:
I needed replacement part for my Mark-3 (A nose bow, which got squashed
on
my first-ever landing of my newly-completed airplane, but you've already
heard THAT story!) I called New Kolb and spoke with Linda. Told her I
needed the part, and would likely order it sometime soon. Later that
week,
it showed up on my doorstep (UPS), and I had not even paid for it yet!
Called Linda up again to see what was up, and she simply told me to send
her
a $37 check whenever I got around to it.
To me, that's outstanding customer service. A unique kind of trust that
you
don't see so often anymore. Bet you don't get that with Sears.
Dennis Kirby
Verner-powered Mk-3, N93DK
Cedar Crest, NM
AMEN!!!
That is the kind of treatment I get too!!! I call them every couple of
months about something or another and usually don't have to give my
name...They (Travis/Linda) know my voice and ask how I've been doing,
etc...
NOT the kind of anonymous voice on the other end of the line that you
get with 99.99999% of business dealings.
I whole-heartedly recommend TNK to anyone...I've NEVER had a bad
experience with them, PERIOD!
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Full Lotus Manufacturing Inc. - Model 1260 - Mono 1000 |
Peter I m sure you would want the next size up or a pair of this size
for
the Mk3 this rig would be for a gross weight of 625 lbs or less , Chris
_________________________________________----
Peter,
Absolutely...I have all the mounting info from Full Lotus for a
Mono 2000 (centerline float w/ sponsons, 2000 lbs. displacement)
They recommend TWICE the gross weight in displacement. The higher the
float rides in the water the less the drag from the water during
takeoff...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Full Lotus Manufacturing Inc. - Model 1260 - Mono 1000 |
kolbers ,for sale Full Lotus 1000mono float retrac gear used
as seen athttp://www.full-lotus.com/html/flmi4102.htm
1400dollars+s+h less than 1\2 price Chris
Hi chris I am very interested in the float/retract set. I need the
details... is the retract setup supplied by full lotus? do you have
sponsons? and sponson mounts? where are you. have they been in salt water?
stored outdoors how old etc...
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Need a Firestar to try on |
Cris,My FS2 lives in a trailer next to the house in Akron Ohio.35 mile south
of Cleveland. He is welcome to sit in it. Gary Aman FS2 205hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
On November 1, 2002, about 1345 Alaska standard time, a wheel-equipped
experimental homebuilt Arima Kolb Fire Star II airplane, N8199, sustained
substantial damage when it struck trees during a forced landing after
takeoff from the Birchwood Airport, Chugiak, Alaska. The airplane was being
operated as a visual flight rules (VFR) local area personal flight under
Title 14, CFR Part 91, when the accident occurred. The airplane was operated
by the pilot. The solo certificated private pilot was not injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight originated at the Birchwood
Airport, about 1300.
During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge on November 1, the pilot reported that
the accident airplane had been stored outside, and had not been utilized
within the last two years. He added that just prior to the accident, he had
accomplished two successful touch-and-go landings on runway 19R. He said
that during the third touch-and-go landing roll, he added power for another
takeoff. As the airplane climbed to about 50 feet above the runway, he said
the engine, a Rotax 503, suddenly lost significant power, and he selected a
forced landing area ahead of the airplane. During the forced landing, the
airplane collided with several trees. The airplane sustained substantial
damage to the wings, fuselage, and empennage.
On November 1, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations inspector,
Anchorage Flight Standards District Office, traveled to the accident airport
to inspect the airplane. The inspector reported that during a postaccident
inspection, both carburetor float bowls were found to contain murky, silty,
and rust-colored fuel.
Kip,
Atlanta
http://www.springeraviation.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Full Lotus Manufacturing Inc. - Model 1260 - Mono 1000 |
Topher, the retract is from Full Lotus , yes have the sponsons I mounted
the to the wing fold postsand ran two struts to the wig tip but Im sure you
will come up with somthing . To my knowlege they have never been in salt
water I flew out of a fresh water pond and the previous owner was from 200
miles inland from me .
I live in Chatham on cape cod 20 miles east of JFK land They have been
stored out side covered with a cheap blue tarp since I took them off last
sept >Ihave no Idea how old they are . I bought them off the internet and am
selling them because I sold my Firestar Oh thats cape cod Ma. Chris-----
Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Fw: Full Lotus Manufacturing Inc. - Model 1260 -
Mono 1000
>
>
> kolbers ,for sale Full Lotus 1000mono float retrac gear used
> as seen athttp://www.full-lotus.com/html/flmi4102.htm
> 1400dollars+s+h less than 1\2 price Chris
>
> Hi chris I am very interested in the float/retract set. I need the
> details... is the retract setup supplied by full lotus? do you have
> sponsons? and sponson mounts? where are you. have they been in salt
water?
> stored outdoors how old etc...
>
> topher
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FireFly builder site |
Here is a link to a few pages I have put up. For any interested, check it from
time to time. And any of you fellas who have built a Kolb already, Look an see
if Im doing anything wrong!!...and HOLLER!!!!!
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Getting alot of good help from this list, an I thank you all!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Don,
Very good website!
A couple of problems that I can see are:
1) the edge distance for the rivets on the 5/16" tubing seem to be too
close.
2) by tapering the end of the tubing, the rivets will not seat square.
This in itself will cause them to loosen under vibration. I think they
should not be tapered at all. I would say squeeze the tube, but not
enough to cause any cracking.
Other than those couple of criticisms, you have a nice plane.
I cannot believe the original builder used rain gutter flashing for
gussets????? Was he out of his mind?
Ralph
> Don Gherardini wrote:
>
> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
> >
> >Here is a link to a few pages I have put up. For any interested,
> check it from time to time. And any of you fellas who have built a
> Kolb already, Look an see if Im doing anything wrong!!...and
> HOLLER!!!!!
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
> >
> >Getting alot of good help from this list, an I thank you all!
> >Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans van Alphen" <HVA(at)bellsouth.net>
> Hey Gents,
>
> Looking for an Anti Fog product for my lexan cockpit that does not distort
> vision.
Hans,
I had the same problem. I solved it with a 12 volt hair dryer that I
would use to clear enough of a hole to see the runway, after I was moving it
cleared by itself. Cost was pretty reasonable at a RV store.
Larry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
Visited your site. Excellent. Good example why you want to be come
involved with a local EAA chapter. Their builder peer education and
technical counselor program promote for doing periodic inspections are well
worth the cost of any dues your required to belong.
Gutter aluminum - talk about soft stuff in structure area. Better look it
over well for similar type rivets.
jerb
>
>Here is a link to a few pages I have put up. For any interested, check it
>from time to time. And any of you fellas who have built a Kolb already,
>Look an see if Im doing anything wrong!!...and HOLLER!!!!!
>
>http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>Getting alot of good help from this list, an I thank you all!
>Don
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
Don,
Just for grins, put up a hit counter for the number of visitors to your
site since posting this. your going to be surprised. The word is out
about it.
jerb.
>
>Here is a link to a few pages I have put up. For any interested, check it
>from time to time. And any of you fellas who have built a Kolb already,
>Look an see if Im doing anything wrong!!...and HOLLER!!!!!
>
>http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>Getting alot of good help from this list, an I thank you all!
>Don
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | FireFly builder site |
Don,
I can not believe the horid workmanship that you discovered in the tail
section of your secand hand firefly. The original builder is lucky he died
before he tried to fly the thing. The plans are very clear on how to
squeaze and drill the ends of all 5/18 inch tubing and that ain't it. The
way your doing it is much improved but you are still going to thin ( I feel
anyway) and the taper your putting in is only reducing the stiffness in the
tube unneccesarily and will not allow the rivits to seat square. You should
only squeeze the rivits to 3/16 of an inch, using a stop in your vise to
ensure you do not squeeze any farther. Only squeeze the lenghth of tubing
neccessary to give the head of the rivit a flat seat and the rivit hole the
proper edge clearance, (ussually 3/16 inch edge distance to the rivit
holes.) these tubes are very small and these steps have to be performed
well or they have no strength ( and just as importently stiffness) whatever,
as you found in your inspection. And what was he thinking with the
flashing!!!!!!! Great site, I look forward to seeing your progress.
When I am working on all my other projects I tend to find myself trying to
get things perfect to a 64th of an inch and have to always remind myself
"Its not an airplane! get on with it" The guy you bought your plane from
needed to remind himself that he was building a airplane to carry himself
into the air with! I really can't believe those pictures!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | FireFly builder site |
Don,
One other thing I notice is the ends of the internal bracing for the
stabilizers should not be flatened, and there should be 2 rivits per each
end of each brace tube. without this the rivit acts as a pivot point which
will allow the brace to give when the fabric is tightened. the whole point
of those braces is to hold the main tubes straight, in perfect column, so
they are strong in compression. If the braces are free to rotate about the
single hinge then they will give and the main tubes will be allowed out of
column and reduce the overall strength of the tail section significantly.
(The tails are plenty strong but still you shouldn't do it wrong anyway.)
Hope you didn't copy that error when you fixed up his braces.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
Greetings,
I liked your webpage, but my experience with covering is the Poly-Tak
Adhesive will dissolve zinc chromate so it's best if you use 2 part epoxy
primer on metal parts you'll glue to the fabric.
But don't take my word for it call Aircraft tech support at 1-877-877-3334
http://www.aircrafttechsupport.com/
Regardes,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Gherardini" <<A HREF="mailto:donghe@one-eleven.net">donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: FireFly builder site
>
> Here is a link to a few pages I have put up. For any interested, check it
from time to time. And any of you fellas who have built a Kolb already, Look
an see if Im doing anything wrong!!...and HOLLER!!!!!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
> Getting alot of good help from this list, an I thank you all!
> Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
Will, Yes, you are right of course and I do plan to cover the zinc-chromate
with 2 part epoxy from stits. I considered not using the zinc-chromate, and
just re-doing the epoxy primer...but I dont have alot of confidence in the
anti-oxidizing, anti-electrolitic action of the epoxy, and I believe in
zinc-chromate for a corrosion inhibitor. But you comments are all welcome
and makes me think I should mention something about these things on that
site...maybe down the road a bit..while on painting.
Ralph, Chris, Jerb....You fellas have keen eyes, and thats just what I was
hoping for!. as far as the taper on the end of those tubes goes, I am
attempting to only do this where the print calls for the rivet hole to be
drilled offset from perpendicular. The leading and trailing edges of the
elevators and the stabs, the print shows to drill the hole 10 deg of of the
center..I am not sure why..unless for the covering to be smoother, but it
became apparant to me that if I did this...the rivet would not seat
squarely. This has proven to be a difficult thing, getting that right. I
have an old Huck gun..bout half wore out but it pulls those rivets so hard
they flatten the tube somewhatmore!...I bought a new oriental rivet gun, and
have been using it a little...but it does not pull them with near the
authority. In some cases this is better...but in some...I like that old Huck
gun better!...power...arrgghh!
Chris, hmmm..now you make a lot of sense pard. The print calls for just one
rivet in those braces...but your comments have a lot of merit..I DID "copy
that mistake" ya might say..but it was "by the print"...and I as I have not
covered anything yet..and wont till I'm positive I have it all right...I'm
gonna go back and put another rivet in those ends.
You fellas are a great help...And someday I hope to find everyone a ya and
buy you a drink..or a burger..or something..at the least..shake every hand
an give a personal thanks.
Jerb...BOY...The hit monitor at geocities may need a grease zerk installed
on it!....site had 33 hits when I posted the last pic...and then put up the
link here. this morning...not 18 hours later....it has
137!....suprised?...you aint kiddin!
Stay with me men...you help and comments are needed. I am by no means a
expierienced fella in this Kolb area. In fact...I did build several
weedhoppers many years ago..in the early 80's, as the 1st weedhopper dealer
"east of the Mississippi" as my long gone friend John Chotia told me, but,
as kids came along..and the need for more sustanance, life turned away from
Ultra-lightin' for me.
Now the kids are raised and I have returned! I will tell you all, that I
have been suprised tho by how much satisfaction I am getting by the building
process, I didnt really anticipate this, and what good "therapy" it is. I
only wish I could have returned sooner!
Keep the comments coming men!
Thx
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
Nice Work.
But let me add my two cents. On page two where you are making tabs. Very
important that you make another set. If I read the photo correctly, you bent
the tab along the grain (yes there is grain in aluminum, it comes from the
mill). You must bend the tab at 90 degrees to the bend. It *will* crack
along the grain.
===================================
11/11/02 20:14ul15rhb(at)juno.com
>
> Don,
>
>> Don Gherardini wrote:
>>
>> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>>>
>>> Here is a link to a few pages I have put up. For any interested,
>> check it from time to time. And any of you fellas who have built a
>> Kolb already, Look an see if Im doing anything wrong!!...and
>> HOLLER!!!!!
>>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>>>
>>> Getting alot of good help from this list, an I thank you all!
>>> Don
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
Don/Gang:
> Will, Yes, you are right of course and I do plan to cover the zinc-chromate
> with 2 part epoxy from stits.
I've been using epoxy chromate for some time now
on three different aircraft. Have had good
results. My present airplane is 10 years old and
the primer is still doing its job. I feel
shooting epoxy over zinc-chromate is a waste of
time and money, but its your time and your money.
:-)
> ...I bought a new oriental rivet gun, and
> have been using it a little...but it does not pull them with near the
> authority. In some cases this is better...but in some...I like that old Huck
> gun better!...power...arrgghh!
Don, isn't it the pop rivet mandrel that dictates
how much pull it will take to pop? Not
necessarily which pop rivet gun is used?
In reference to popping rivets, if the gun is held
perpendicular to the surface of the work, the head
of the rivet will pull down flat with the surface,
even if the hole is not perpendicular. Don't get
carried away though and try to get to far off the
alignment.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
Hans/Listers,
You might try a product I've had great results with on GA aircraft,
called 'RVR'. It's available at Sporty's - www.sportys.com .
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans van Alphen" <HVA(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re:Anti fog products
>
> Hey Gents,
>
> Looking for an Anti Fog product for my lexan cockpit that does not distort
> vision.
> Early mornings are a problem here in Florida. I t clears right up after
> takeof but that might be to late.
> Wondering what you guys use.
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Hans van Alphen
> Mark III Xtra
> BMW powered
> 82 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org> |
| Subject: | FireFly builder site |
John H,
is it true that fabtac will melt or dissolve zinc chromate primer? The
reason I ask is on my US I had some corrosion in the trailing edge tube near
the outboard end. I cleaned it off with a brass brush and sprayed it with
zinc chromate to protect it from further corrosion. This is an area where I
have to cement fabric.
Dale Sellers
Georgia US
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FireFly builder site
Don/Gang:
> Will, Yes, you are right of course and I do plan to cover the
zinc-chromate
> with 2 part epoxy from stits.
I've been using epoxy chromate for some time now
on three different aircraft. Have had good
results. My present airplane is 10 years old and
the primer is still doing its job. I feel
shooting epoxy over zinc-chromate is a waste of
time and money, but its your time and your money.
:-)
> ...I bought a new oriental rivet gun, and
> have been using it a little...but it does not pull them with near the
> authority. In some cases this is better...but in some...I like that old
Huck
> gun better!...power...arrgghh!
Don, isn't it the pop rivet mandrel that dictates
how much pull it will take to pop? Not
necessarily which pop rivet gun is used?
In reference to popping rivets, if the gun is held
perpendicular to the surface of the work, the head
of the rivet will pull down flat with the surface,
even if the hole is not perpendicular. Don't get
carried away though and try to get to far off the
alignment.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
Good Morning Dale/Gents:
> is it true that fabtac will melt or dissolve zinc chromate primer?
I don't know what "fabtac" is, but probably
Polyfiber Polytac (fabric cement). If it is, it
will dissolve zinc chromate primer. Anything with
MEK, laquer thinner, etc., will dissolve it.
You did not mention what trailing edge outboard
end you sprayed with Zinc Chromate. If it was an
elevator or aileron you might get by with it
because the fabric will be wrapped. However, the
zinc chromate might bleed through the fabric. If
it is a wing, it will not work.
Give Jim and Dondi Miller a call. They are the
experts and can set you straight. Toll free:
1-877-877-3334
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsellers(at)sgtcollege.org> |
| Subject: | FireFly builder site |
Fabtac is a generic fabric cement sold by AC Spruce, Wicks and others. It
is a MEK based cement. It is approved by the FAA for certificated aircraft.
The tube that had the corosion was the trailing edge wing tube. It had a
little white powder (oxidation) on one side from the outboard end to about
3" inward. Maybe I should remove the zinc chromate with MEK and just glue
to the tube.
Dale Sellers
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FireFly builder site
Good Morning Dale/Gents:
> is it true that fabtac will melt or dissolve zinc chromate primer?
I don't know what "fabtac" is, but probably
Polyfiber Polytac (fabric cement). If it is, it
will dissolve zinc chromate primer. Anything with
MEK, laquer thinner, etc., will dissolve it.
You did not mention what trailing edge outboard
end you sprayed with Zinc Chromate. If it was an
elevator or aileron you might get by with it
because the fabric will be wrapped. However, the
zinc chromate might bleed through the fabric. If
it is a wing, it will not work.
Give Jim and Dondi Miller a call. They are the
experts and can set you straight. Toll free:
1-877-877-3334
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
Has anybody tried Rain-X ? it worked good on cars....You have to clean it with
alcohol first.
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Has anybody on the list or know of anyone that has attended the welding
training classes conducted by Lincoln in Georgia. It's a 3-day class. I
want to pick up TIG welding. Are they worth the fee and travel cost to
attend.
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/13/02 17:07Mike Pierzina
>
> Has anybody tried Rain-X ? it worked good on cars....You have to clean it
> with alcohol first.
==========================
Yes I flew with it quite a bit in Alaska. Works very well. It is also where
I found out that Pledge or any water saluable wax base is just about the
worst thing you can fly with in drizzle.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
> Has anybody tried Rain-X ? it worked good on cars....You have to clean it with
alcohol first.
Mike/Gents:
My understanding is Rain-X causes the lexan to
cloud up, ruining it.
In heavy dew areas fogged up windshields on the
Mark III are a problem. I usually leave both
doors open until I take off. If the windshield
fogs over, keep the wings level and look out the
side doors. I can leave both doors unlatched on
my Mark III, which will allow more air to
circulate through the cockpit, but does nothing
for moisture on the outside. Usually takes a few
seconds to get the windshield cleared off.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
> Yes I flew with it quite a bit in Alaska. Works very well. Ron
Ron/Gents:
You weren't using it on Lexan, were you? More
like Plexiglas. Characteristics of the two
plastics are dissimilar in several ways.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Wow, I can't belive some of the nice things people have been saying about
the Lists in that little message box on the Contribution form! I've
included more of the great comments since the last WLAS. Thank you to
everyone that has made a Contribution thus far and for all the great
feedback! Please know that I really appreciate the comments and support!!
Have a look at some of your fellow members thoughts below and decide if the
Lists mean at least that much to you or perhaps even more...
Won't you take a moment and make a Contribution to support these
Commercial-Free, SPAM-Free, Virus-Free, high-performance List
services? Its your direct support through this yearly Fund Raiser that
enables all of these valuable services you've come to expect of the
Matronics Lists.
Thank you for your Contribution!!
SSL Secure Web Site - http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Matt Dralle
EMail List Administrator
=====================================================================
=================== What Listers Are Saying - II ====================
=====================================================================
I check this List 4 to 5 times a day...
-Bruce B.
These are without a doubt among the best managed
Lists to which I subscribe.
-Terry W.
Thank you for providing such a wonderful service.
-Roy W.
...fine service!
-Christopher A.
Best list on the Internet!
-Geroge A.
Great list with a host of features.
-David A.
Having built part of a kit... ...I know exactly how
much this list means to me and others.
-Curtis H.
As always... you've got a real cool & very useful
service going...
-Chuck R.
I shudder to think of the trouble I would have had
getting this project airborne without this list!
-Grant C.
...enjoy everyone's input.
-Doug P.
I read the [the List] every day...
-Ronald S.
Whenever I feel like not building on my day
off....I open my mail and the [the List] gets me
pumped and ready to hit it!
-Tom E.
The Digest Message subject list is an excellent
addition.
-Kevin S.
Certainly the [the List] has been a valuable source
for building support and advice, but there's another
benefit,... the wonderful friends that we meet and
keep for years and years!
-Fred H.
What a great forum to exchange ideas and info.
-Terry L.
The List is my daily RV fix.
-Neil H.
I always received comments and suggestions when
I requested them.
-Thomas G.
Best resource a builder could ever have. A daily
must!
-Robert C.
Thanks for your gift - these web sites!
-Tom P.
...great info.
-Richard W.
The List empowers all RV builders to achieve success...
-Mark G.
I've been reading the postings for a month now and
decided to take the plunge as a result of the
helpfulness and spirit of cooperation I observed.
-Tim P.
...invaluable service.
-Ford F.
I check in at least twice daily for my e-mail "Fix".
-John S.
Its worth every penny of my contribution.
-Paul M.
Wonderful web site and it keeps getting better.
-Jim H.
A valuable list which has certainly helped me.
-Andrew G.
...the List helps so many.
-Don J.
I really appreciate the site and find it interesting
to speak to people who are into this type of aircraft.
-Larry M.
This is a great recreation for me.
-Larry B.
[The List] keeps me up to date and provides a fantastic
resource for information.
-Terry F.
Lists are a great resource!
-Daniel S.
...great service and professional administration of
the Lists.
-Chris R.
I really appreciate the List.
-Edward O.
Worth every penny, and then some!
-Kenyon B.
...great service.
-Ralph H.
Your unselfish contribution to the experimental
aircraft movement is very much appreciated!
-Alex M.
Great help on the Aeroelectric list.
-Bruce B.
It helps on a daily basis.
-Tim G.
Thanks for providing this outstanding service to us!
-Michel T.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tiffany Pitra <tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
> Has anybody tried Rain-X ? it worked good on cars....You have to clean it with
alcohol first.
Mike/Gents:
My understanding is Rain-X causes the lexan to
cloud up, ruining it.
In heavy dew areas fogged up windshields on the
Mark III are a problem. I usually leave both
doors open until I take off. If the windshield
fogs over, keep the wings level and look out the
side doors. I can leave both doors unlatched on
my Mark III, which will allow more air to
circulate through the cockpit, but does nothing
for moisture on the outside. Usually takes a few
seconds to get the windshield cleared off.
Take care,
john h
Rain x is glass only.Back in my army helocopter days be for the glass on uh-1
we used PLEDGE . qtra
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Anti fog products |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/13/02 21:38John Hauck
> You weren't using it on Lexan, were you? More
> like Plexiglas.
========================
Yes thats right, those C-207's are certainly Plexi. John is right if it
ruins lexan don't use it. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Wetzel <dougwe(at)wrq.com> |
How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are using?
Inquiring minds want to know..
2nd Question...
Is there a MkIII owner in the Seattle area (+ - 75 mi) that would be willing
to show off their bird to a prospective Kolb buyer/builder?
Doug Wetzel
Seattle, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COBRA Helicopter |
> What a surprise the first flight in a Cobra in
> VN. We flew with full ordnance load and cut our
> fuel from 2400 lbs to 12 lbs to be able to get the
> Cobra off the ground.
Hi Ya'll:
Now 12 lbs is a light fuel load for a Cobra, but
that should have read:
1,200 lbs.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber" <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
My Firestar has a Rotax 447 which is more than enough for me. But then I
weigh 155, so heavier pilots might want the 503.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Wetzel <dougwe(at)wrq.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Survey
>
> How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are
using?
> Inquiring minds want to know..
>
> 2nd Question...
>
> Is there a MkIII owner in the Seattle area (+ - 75 mi) that would be
willing
> to show off their bird to a prospective Kolb buyer/builder?
>
> Doug Wetzel
> Seattle, WA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Question, Why does the construction process of these planes, as most, call for
rivets vrs. welding the members together?
Just Curious
pp...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireFly builder site |
OH MAN....I think you are right....gotta check those right NOW!!!!....Good
eyes pard!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
447 on a FireFly - plenty of power with 270# pilot - can't figure why Bill
feels you would need a 503. Yes it would provide extra power, you wouldn't
have to run the engine quite as hard and most important to me is it has oil
injection, no pre mixing fuel and oil. Yaaaa...
jerb
>
>My Firestar has a Rotax 447 which is more than enough for me. But then I
>weigh 155, so heavier pilots might want the 503.
>
>Bill
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Doug Wetzel <dougwe(at)wrq.com>
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: Survey
>
>
> >
> > How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are
>using?
> > Inquiring minds want to know..
> >
> > 2nd Question...
> >
> > Is there a MkIII owner in the Seattle area (+ - 75 mi) that would be
>willing
> > to show off their bird to a prospective Kolb buyer/builder?
> >
> > Doug Wetzel
> > Seattle, WA
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Some people can't rivet, but even more can't weld or even come close.
Riveting is much easier to learn and much faster. Done right it's very
strong and makes the airframe repairable. Most kits over kill on the
rivets so even if the builder does a marginal job it will not fall
apart. However doesn't mean you can get sloppy about it.
jerb
>
>Question, Why does the construction process of these planes, as most, call
>for rivets vrs. welding the members together?
>
>Just Curious
>
>pp...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SR3SA2L1(at)aol.com |
My Firestar has a 503 on it now ( not finished with the rebuild yet so I
can't comment on how well it works). I replaced the 377 because I wanted the
duel electronic ignition. The 377 had more than enough power though.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
After that 377,your 503 will let you know how a clay pigeon feels when it
gets launched from the trap.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tiffany Pitra <tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com> |
My Firestar has a Rotax 447 which is more than enough for me. But then I
weigh 155, so heavier pilots might want the 503.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Wetzel
Subject: Kolb-List: Survey
>
> How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are
using?
> Inquiring minds want to know..
>
> 2nd Question...
>
> Is there a MkIII owner in the Seattle area (+ - 75 mi) that would be
willing
> to show off their bird to a prospective Kolb buyer/builder?
>
> Doug Wetzel
> Seattle, WA
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
1986 model Kolb Original Firestar
Rotax 447, 2-blade Ivo prop
Ralph Burlingame
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan Olson" <olson1bj(at)hotmail.com> |
Firestar II 503 dcdi wish I had a four cycle.
Bryan Olson
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber" <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
Also, welding aluminum is not something most would want to try and you can't
weld aluminum to steel.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rivets
>
> Some people can't rivet, but even more can't weld or even come close.
> Riveting is much easier to learn and much faster. Done right it's very
> strong and makes the airframe repairable. Most kits over kill on the
> rivets so even if the builder does a marginal job it will not fall
> apart. However doesn't mean you can get sloppy about it.
> jerb
>
> >
> >Question, Why does the construction process of these planes, as most,
call
> >for rivets vrs. welding the members together?
> >
> >Just Curious
> >
> >pp...
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Survey/McCulloch & Kawasaki |
My buddy had a 340 Kawaski for years & couldn' wear it out. He loved it.
Neat thing about them is they don't have a rubber seal in the middle of the
crank to go bad like most 2 strokes-- they use a tongue & grove that fills
with oil. Parts may not be available, the watercraft engines would have
some interchangable parts.
The McCullock would be a screamin demon, they just have a history of not
lasting long, but it would be fun will it lasted. ...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tiffany Pitra" <tif_qtra(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Survey
>
>
> I have a 72hp McClloch f/a 4- cyl 76pounds direct drive that I may
use.Does anybody know any thing about this power plant.Is anybody using
kawasakis or is that a dirty word like cuyuna. Bill Weber
>
> My Firestar has a Rotax 447 which is more than enough for me. But then I
> weigh 155, so heavier pilots might want the 503.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug Wetzel
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Survey
>
>
> >
> > How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are
> using?
> > Inquiring minds want to know..
> >
> > 2nd Question...
> >
> > Is there a MkIII owner in the Seattle area (+ - 75 mi) that would be
> willing
> > to show off their bird to a prospective Kolb buyer/builder?
> >
> > Doug Wetzel
> > Seattle, WA
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
>
>How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are using?
>Inquiring minds want to know..
>
Doug,
FireFly 004 - 79 hours with a Rotax 447 and 10 hours with a Simonini Victor 1+
I believe the Rotax 447 is too much horsepower for a FireFly. I tried to purchase
a 30 hp engine (Tango) from Simonini but they pulled it out of production.
I bumped up to the Victor 1+ because I thought I could get it mounted on the
FireFly, meet weight restrictions and still get electric start. The conversion
has not been smooth. I had a cooling system failure and overheated the Victor
1+. I am about one or two days from getting back into the air.
To compare the two engines, I like the Simonini best. It idles well, does not
load up, follows the throttle well, and uses about half the fuel that 447 did.
The Victor 1+ is the equivalent to the Rotax 503, so I have to severely de rate
the engine to meet ultra light vehicle restrictions. Even with this engine
the FireFly is carrying around about 20 pounds too much iron and aluminum.
The thrust line is about five inches higher that the 447 one has to be careful
with the throttle on take off.
I believe a much better fit would be the new Mini3 (33hp) that is the redesigned
Tango. Swapping out the Victor 1+ with the Mini3 would knock 28 pounds off
the FireFly. With this engine one could drop the thrust line below that of the
447 and greatly reduce the nose over tendency with the application of full power.
Another plus is that this engine is advertised to burn a maximum of just
a little over 1.5 gph. I think that with an IVO electric hub on the Mini3 and
a 28 pound weight reduction one would not have to sacrifice good climb for
good cruise. With a cruise burn rate of less than 1.5 gph one could fly for about
three hours and still have a gallon reserve.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Survey/McCulloch & Kawasaki |
In a message dated 11/14/02 9:53:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
swiderski@advanced-connect.net writes:
> The McCullock would be a screamin demon, they just have a history of not
> lasting long, but it would be fun will it lasted. ...Richard Swiderski
>
>
And I think the weight is more like 100 lbs.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Survey - Mini3 & Prop |
Jack,
What do you think a PowerFin Prop would do rather than adding the weight
and complexity of the IVO in-flight adjustable.
Jerb
>
> >
> >How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are using?
> >Inquiring minds want to know..
> >
>Doug,
>
>FireFly 004 - 79 hours with a Rotax 447 and 10 hours with a Simonini Victor 1+
>
>I believe the Rotax 447 is too much horsepower for a FireFly. I tried to
>purchase a 30 hp engine (Tango) from Simonini but they pulled it out of
>production. I bumped up to the Victor 1+ because I thought I could get it
>mounted on the FireFly, meet weight restrictions and still get electric
>start. The conversion has not been smooth. I had a cooling system
>failure and overheated the Victor 1+. I am about one or two days from
>getting back into the air.
>
>To compare the two engines, I like the Simonini best. It idles well, does
>not load up, follows the throttle well, and uses about half the fuel that
>447 did. The Victor 1+ is the equivalent to the Rotax 503, so I have to
>severely de rate the engine to meet ultra light vehicle
>restrictions. Even with this engine the FireFly is carrying around about
>20 pounds too much iron and aluminum. The thrust line is about five
>inches higher that the 447 one has to be careful with the throttle on take off.
>
>I believe a much better fit would be the new Mini3 (33hp) that is the
>redesigned Tango. Swapping out the Victor 1+ with the Mini3 would knock
>28 pounds off the FireFly. With this engine one could drop the thrust
>line below that of the 447 and greatly reduce the nose over tendency with
>the application of full power. Another plus is that this engine is
>advertised to burn a maximum of just a little over 1.5 gph. I think that
>with an IVO electric hub on the Mini3 and a 28 pound weight reduction one
>would not have to sacrifice good climb for good cruise. With a cruise
>burn rate of less than 1.5 gph one could fly for about three hours and
>still have a gallon reserve.
>
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, MO
>
>
>Jack & Louise Hart
>jbhart(at)ldd.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | !!!Why don't we weld these things together?!?! |
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
11/15/2002 06:57:01 AM
I have not seen a welded aluminum assembly of any kind in a structural
application on an aircraft. Can anyone point one out? If there are any
welded aluminum structural applications on aircraft, they are few and far
between. I think there's a reason. In my experience, welded aluminum
comes apart someday. I've seen absolutely beautiful TIG welds in 1/2"
plate aluminum simply pull out of the base metal. Aluminum conducts heat
so darn well, it is tough to get the weld are hot enough, and then you run
the risk of melting it. Add to this the fact that the base metal melts
about 200 degrees F COOLER than the oxidation layer which is on it, and you
have a tricky proposition. Best to machine of billet, or cast. Stay away
from welded aluminum, live longer.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: !!!Why don't we weld these things together?!?! |
> I have not seen a welded aluminum assembly of any kind in a structural
> application on an aircraft. Can anyone point one out? Jim Gerken
Jim/Gents:
My buddy Bert Howland used welded square tube
aluminum fuselages in all his kits.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Jack,
Could you please elaborate on the "a 447 is too much horsepower" part of the
post..
I understand too much horsepower as "overpowering" and in my business.., (I
work for American Honda Industrial engine division,) we conclude that fact
when a system begins to have failures do to more horsepower vs the load that
any particular component is designed to handle. Would you say that the 40
horsepower range caused failures somewhere in the Firefly??..Structure cant
handle it?..to much vibrations maybe?..or too much speed??
In reading the rest of the post you mention the weight advantage of the
others, do you mean maybe that the 447 is to heavy for the FireFly, instead
of too strong?
I am looking for a powerplant for my Firefly project, and am very interested
in your conclusions, your expierience, and your Airplane.
BTW...I sure like your website!
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FlyColt45(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: !!!Why don't we weld these things together?!?! |
John & friends,
I seem to remember that the Old Kolb CO's Lazer had some aluminum used (wing
spars )? Maybe at least the prototype did.
Jim (former MKIII)
PA/FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Survey - Mini3 & Prop |
>
>Jack,
>What do you think a PowerFin Prop would do rather than adding the weight
>and complexity of the IVO in-flight adjustable.
>Jerb
>
Jerb,
I have no experience with the PowerFin. In looking at their web site, it looks
like a fine prop.
The prop problem is that any fixed prop is a compromise. If one has the luxury
of no weight and fuel capacity restrictions, a oversized engine can be used.
One can load the engine lightly so that it will turn the prop up at max engine
speed and have a wonderful climb rate and sacrifice cruise economy because of
a no fuel load capacity restriction.
But if one is to maximize endurance/range for a five gallon fuel load and remain
under a empty 254 pound limit, you must commit to much higher engine loading
in the cruise rpm range and sacrifice climb rate. The only way I know to have
both is to have at least an in flight adjustable two position prop that will
shift engine loading to give the best performance at cruise and climb.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Ledbetter <gdledbetter1(at)fuse.net> |
447 on Firefly
Gene Ledbetter
Cincinnati
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: !!!Why don't we weld these things together?!?! |
> I seem to remember that the Old Kolb CO's Lazer had some aluminum used (wing
> spars )? Maybe at least the prototype did.
> Jim (former MKIII)
Hi Jim/Gents:
Yes, the big welded aluminum knuckle that the main
spar attached to. It was a "scary" fitting.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Survey - Mini3 & Prop |
> But if one is to maximize endurance/range for a five gallon fuel load and remain
under a empty 254 pound limit, you must commit to much higher engine loading
in the cruise rpm range and sacrifice climb rate. The only way I know to have
both is to have at least an in flight adjustable two position prop that will
shift engine loading to give the best performance at cruise and climb.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Hi Jack/Gents:
Two strokes and inflight adjustable props do not
make a good team. The biggest problem is prop
loading and the air/fuel mixture which is critical
to two strokes.
It is the same old story of unload the engine and
EGT screams skyward. Load it up and the EGT
drops.
I think a four stroke is the only way to go with
an inflight adjustable prop.
Two strokes survive on a lot of fuel to help cool
the engine. When we start attempting to make a
fuel miser out of a two stroke we are asking it to
fail, especially when we add an inflight
adjustable prop to unload and load the engine,
i.e., increase and decrease the EGT.
A two stroke hooked up to an inflight adjustable
prop requires an inflight adjustable main jet.
Probably require three hands, one for the prop
switch, one for the mixture knob, and one for the
control stick. Throttle can be adjusted somewhere
in between the other adjustments.
Way back in prehistoric days of ultralighting,
1984, I bought a inflight adjustable mixture
control from Mike Stratman for my Cuyuna. It was
a pain in the ass. I needed a big sign to remind
me where the mixture was set and where it needed
to be set for the next phase of flight. On one
occassion, someone decided to adjust the mixture
control while I was in the FBO paying for fuel.
On take off the engine failed at aprx'ly 100 feet,
my first engine out. In the process of trying to
get my heart restarted and land the airplane, I
got behind the power curve and bent my new
Ultrastar. What happened was the mixture was
turned too rich. As soon as the engine got up to
good operating temp it went over rich and quit
running, right now. Put out a lot of power when
it was not quite up to the higher temp.
While flying and playing with the mixture control
I would attempt to set a nice lean mixture and
optimum temp. This setting was too lean for WOT.
If I forgot to reset the mixture control before I
went WOT I would fry the engine. Now, if I added
an inflight adjustable prop to this already very
busy cockpit, I would have my hands full.
My own personal preference for two strokes is a
ground adjustable prop set to bump the red line at
WOT straight and level flight. Our two stroke
engines are designed and tuned at the factory to
fly in this set up. Whenever we deviate from this
we start changing EGTs. This set up gives me the
best climb and the best cruise. With this prop
setting and factory carb tuning, I get EGTs that
are right on the money for climb and cruise.
Economy with the two stroke leads to engine
failures. I prefer to burn more fuel and enjoy
more reliablilty.
My own personal opinions for what it is worth,
which probably ain't much.
john h
PS: I prop my four strokes same as two strokes,
and that goes for my boat also, WOT straight and
level, bump the red line.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
> Could you please elaborate on the "a 447 is too much horsepower" part of the
> post..
> Don Gherardini
Don/Gents:
I'm not Jack, but would like to comment on the
447/Firefly.
Had the opportunity to fly the Firefly for the
factory at a couple Sun and Fun's and Oshkosh's.
Found it to be a delightful little airplane to
fly. It was a regular little hot rod. It flew
much like the Slingshot, just a lot lighter.
The 447 is a good match for the Firefly. Homer
and Dennis chose this engine probably because the
377 was not in production. Five horse power does
not make that much difference, based on flying
original Firestars with 447 and 377 engines.
Performance is basically very similar.
The airplane was designed for the 447. Anything
less would detract from its "sports car" flight
characteristics.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
>
>Jack,
>Could you please elaborate on the "a 447 is too much horsepower" part of the
>post..
Don,
One should not interpret what I said as being a risk to the structural integrity
of the FireFly, but as to what hp is required for good/reasonable FireFly performance
that includes a fuel consumption rates of 1.5 gph or less at cruise.
I believe Dennis Souder, essentially designed the FireFly to meet the ultra light
vehicle limitations based on the use of the Rotax 447, because it was the only
engine that was readily available at the time. If you go through the process
to check the design you will find the Firefly will meet the weight and speed
requirements with a 40 hp engine. But when the aileron chord was reduced from
15 to 9 inches, wing area was lost and at this point the Rotax 447 became
too powerful for the FireFly to meet ultra light vehicle requirements. With the
new wing area the maximum hp calculates out to 38 hp. This is why I reduced
the top engine rpm by increasing prop pitch so that the 447 could not produce
more than 38 hp.
I normally fly from Perryville to Painton, MO and back for 453 EAA Chapter meetings,
a distance of 54 miles from point to point. I could not make a round trip
on five gallons. In an attempt to increase fuel economy, I started sacrificing
climb for cruise, by increasing the pitch in the prop. I found out several
things. When the 447 was lightly loaded for good climb the EGTs would be all
over the scale in the 4000-5000 rpm range, and the engine was rpm unstable
in that region. As I increased the pitch of the prop and loaded the engine more
in the cruise rpm range, EGT's settled down and rpm drift decreased. Before
I took the engine off, maximum engine rpm was 5600 (35hp) and I was cruising
at 4400 to 4700 rpm (21 to 25 hp at best). And at 5200 rpm (30hp at best) I
could cruise at 60 mph. At 5600 rpm, I could climb at 500-600 fpm. The 447 was
a joy to fly with the engine loaded to a max 5600 rpm, but I could not improve
the range. Basically the engine design is not fuel efficient. And I realized
that there was nothing I could do to improve fuel economy with out violating
ultra light vehicle restrictions, and that a more fuel efficient, lighter
engine was the only solution. I started looking for another engine. Selected
the Simonini Tango, had to go to the Victor 1+, but I believe the Mini3 (33hp
- weighs 42 pounds), which came out after I purchased the Victor 1+, would be
the best choice to meet the needs of the FireFly.
Changing from a Rotax 447 to a Mini3 with electric start and battery would be a
weight reduction of about 35 pounds. Changing from the Rotax 447 to the Victor
1+ has been a wash. But I have gained the advantage of a quieter and more
fuel efficient engine. Also from sad experience, one can replace the piston and
ring assembly and cylinder with necessary gaskets on the Victor 1+ for the
same cost as a one piston and ring assembly and gaskets for the Rotax 447. I
hope to fly the Victor 1+ for another year and them maybe I can spring for a Mini3
and try it out.
I believe I met a friend of yours - Roger Zerkle.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
eclipse is using friction stir welding to assemble a large percentage if
their structure. really neat to see a spinning pin runn through the thin
aluminum sheet and put a perfect weld through it. no heat no destortion no
holes and heavy ritits
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DMe5430944(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 11/14/02 |
447 on FF002
Don in El Paso, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> |
Looks like a Grumman AA-1 that got wet and shrank
Doug Wetzel
If memory serves, Jim Bede designed the AA-1 (Now known as the Tiger?)
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)ldl.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Prop Speed/ Gear Ratio |
Hey Guys,
I could use some help...
Remember the" prop speed page" - http://www.altimizer.com/propspd.html
Well, I'm ready to order my 503 , gearbox & prop...
I was using the prop speed calculator to check a 66" prop with a 2.58 ratio but
the numbers looked perfect with a 2.0 ratio.... ( does anybody out there
run a 2.0 ratio ? )
and yet I hear people have a 63" at 2.58 or 68" at 3.47
Is it better to have it leaning to the TORQUE side ???
Gotta Fly...
Mike
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Speed/ Gear Ratio |
It doesn't matter what the "Altimizer" sez...
A 66" 2-blade prop and a 2.0:1 gearbox on a 503 won't work right.
For a 66" 2-blade prop on a 503 you want a 2.58:1 ratio.
A 63" 2-blade prop might work with a 2.0:1 ratio, but you don't want that.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Hey Guys,
> I could use some help...
> Remember the" prop speed page" - http://www.altimizer.com/propspd.html
>Well, I'm ready to order my 503 , gearbox & prop...
> I was using the prop speed calculator to check a 66" prop with a 2.58
>ratio but the numbers looked perfect with a 2.0 ratio.... ( does anybody
>out there run a 2.0 ratio ? )
> and yet I hear people have a 63" at 2.58 or 68" at 3.47
> Is it better to have it leaning to the TORQUE side ???
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike
>---
>Sometimes you just have to take the leap
>and build your wings on the way down...
> Gotta Fly...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Speed/ Gear Ratio |
> A 63" 2-blade prop might work with a 2.0:1 ratio, but you don't want that.
>
> Richard Pike
Richard/Gents:
Somewhere in the recesses of my mind??? lingers
the thought that a 2 to 1 reduction on a 2 cyl 2
stroke creates a lot of harmonics, vibrations,
shimmies and shakes.. One reason they sent to a
2.58 to 1.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
Hey Guys,
For those of you with Firestars/ 503's & 66"prop's - Is it a
three blade ? or two,
I know their was a thread about this alitte while back , but , it was like the
roof...it was over my head...
Gotta Fly...
Mike
P.S. I can't find the right respirator for these poly chemicals....I was
told " buy the cheap one and crack the garage door....so much for "Heated Garage"
at least the temp is above 32* in the daytime. ( Minnesota )
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com> |
FireFly Sn 007, 447 and Mark lll /912
Duane the plane Mitchell
Tallahassee, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ledbetter
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Survey
447 on Firefly
Gene Ledbetter
Cincinnati
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jimmy <jhankin(at)planters.net> |
Firefly 035
447 Rotax
250 Hours
Jimmy Hankinson
912-863-7384
Rocky Ford, Ga. 30455
jhankin(at)planters.net
Kolb Firefly/447/250hrs
Local field, Pegasus/2000/Grass
Airport JYL/Sylvania, Ga.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Brother Pierzina....
My advice is worth what you pay for it, but fer cryin out loud, do NOT shoot
the MEK based stuff without a decent filter mask... It takes a mask with an
activated charcoal filter pak, changed every couple of hours of working
time... Home Depot has them ... AO Safety is one brand they carry... costs
about $35 for the mask and one set of filters, additional filters are about
$12 a pair...but make sure it says they contain the activated charcoal
package and are for organic solvents and chlorine compounds under the NIOSH
guidelines... (look 'em up on the web...) MEK, lacquer thinner, and a few
related goodies, are not to be fooled around with.... ONE afternoon's
spraying may make you feel goofy and well pleased with yourself from the
fumes, but can do lifetime liver and central nervous system damage... may
not show up for 10 or 15 years, but it WILL show up... and you will look and
act like 'ol Beauford after 40 years of cheap gin and cigars...
The other bad thing to really watch out for is any paint with hardeners or
two-part components...This includes the two-part amine-based "poly"primers,
the acrylic automotive enamenls with "hardeners" added, and the polyurethane
two-part products... The catalyzing part of most of these is chemically
related to the Isocyanoacrylate compounds which are sold as "crazy glue'....
And they will quickly do the same cute things to your lungs... (turn 'em
into styrofoam...) These two-part coatings really require a forced air hood
with a separate external air supply to spray safely... conventional masks,
even the highest quality charcoal ones, become completely worthless after
only a couple of minutes as the mask filter medium becomes encapsulated and
neutralized...you will gleefully shoot on, oblivious to the fact that your
mask has totally crapped out and you might as well have a pair of your high
school sweeties undies over yer head as the clogged up mask you are
wearing... I personally wear an old aqualung when I shoot these poisons...
(I finally wore out the last remaining pair of the undies to the point that
even I was ashamed to be seen out on the driveway in 'em...)
The rule of thumb here is that you are issued only one set of lungs... once
you screw em up in the course of trying to hurry through an afternoon's
painting without taking the time to go to the store to get the right gear,
you are screwed for life and will likely pay later with asthma, cancer, or
whatever... and that is particularly true with the two-part stuff... Be
damned careful with those products... This ain't the time to go cheap or cut
corners... they are lethal.
Sermon over... As I said, this advice is worth what Ye paid fer it...
Back into my garbage can....
Beauford, The Aluminum Butcher of Brandon, FL
FF #076
Nothin' fell off yet....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: 66" Prop
>
> Hey Guys,
> For those of you with Firestars/ 503's & 66"prop's - Is
it a three blade ? or two,
> I know their was a thread about this alitte while back , but , it was
like the roof...it was over my head...
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike
>
> P.S. I can't find the right respirator for these poly
chemicals....I was told " buy the cheap one and crack the garage door....so
much for "Heated Garage" at least the temp is above 32* in the daytime. (
Minnesota )
> ---
> Sometimes you just have to take the leap
> and build your wings on the way down...
> Gotta Fly...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
FS II w/ 503 dual carb Ducatti.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
Jack
I see, well I hope you enjoyed the scenery of Flatrock. I work for Neither
of the divisions above...I am with the Engine division. I am the rep for all
the industrial line up of...24 hp and below, and I am one a them fellas who
is dreaming of the day that there will be a small industrial engine that
will power an ultralight. I sell 2500 to 3000 hour engines at 90%duty cycle,
and the thought of putting one a these short life kills me!...do ya know
that there is a 30hp v-twin of similiar just on the market this yaer from
Generac?..made in japan by a competitor, but it is high quality. about
100lbs including heavy flywheel and electric starter. The Small powerplant
industry is very close to having an engine that Ultalighters will really go
for, the sooner the better because we are gonna loose these personal
watercraft and snowmobile engines very soon. When the OEM's of those
machines quit using em, the manufactures will cease production leaving the
ultralite community in dire straights...anyway...You mention that Kolb
changed the aileron chord from 15 to 9...hmmm...mine has a 11 inch
chord..which I have just begun to build. It is firefly#098, shipped about 20
months ago or so. How old is yours?, and what chord ?
________________________________________________________________________________
hhmmm....shoulda read...."..I sell 2500 to 3000 hour engines, and the
thought of using one a these short life 2-cycles that we will likley run at
double the duty cycle it was designed for just kills me! but we have little
else affordable right now.
(sorry , it was late !)
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
Thanks for the Info yesterday,
I'm going to order the 503 dual carb,dual CDI,oil injected,50hp /
with "B" 2.58 : 1 gearbox and a 2 blade 66" IVO prop.
Is that a LEFT or RIGHT prop ???
I have a 582 w/ B box ( pusher ) it turns CLOCKWISE when sitting in the seat....
Is that a RIGHT ?
Gotta Fly...
Mike
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | LOC Coming Soon... |
Dear Listers,
This year's List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner. I'll be
posting the LOC on or about December 1. The List of Contributors is a
directory of everyone's name that made a Contribution during this year's
List Fund Raiser. Its kind of my way of publicly thanking everyone that so
generously made a Contribution to support the continued operation and
upgrade of these Lists.
Support your Lists today and make sure that your name is on the upcoming
LOC! Your friends will be checking no doubt to see if YOU make your
Contribution because THEY did! :-)
Support Contribution Info - http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Possum ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Possum
Subject: Kolb - Gear Leg Strut Covers
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/possums@mindspring.com.11.16.2002/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: | [ 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: Bob Bean's buddy Jack
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/slyck@frontiernet.net.11.16.2002/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: | [ Woody ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Woody
Subject: TBird
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/duesouth@govital.net.11.16.2002/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 Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
> hhmmm....shoulda read...."..I sell 2500 to 3000 hour engines, and the
> thought of using one a these short life 2-cycles that we will likley run at
> double the duty cycle it was designed for just kills me! but we have little
> else affordable right now.
>
> (sorry , it was late !)
> Don
Don/Gents:
A major problem with the Rotax engines is operator
induced. On the contrary, the engines are
designed to operate continuously at 5,800 rpm and
redlined at 6,800 rpm. A lot of operators do not
want to fly at that rpm. They want to fly at
4,000 or 4,500 rpm. The engines do not "get on
the pipe", i.e., take advantage of the tuned
exhaust expansion chamber, until about 5,200 to
5,400 rpm, not where it was designed to operate
continuously. If rings stick, and combustion
chambers get carboned up, I can understand. If I
load an engine that is designed to turn fast with
so much pitch it can only turn a little over 5,000
rpm, I have contributed to early failure.
It all goes back to factory tuning for a specified
load. It works out to pitch the prop to bump the
red line at WOT staight and level flight. Course
since this is a very liberal sport, each and
everyone of us can pitch our props the way we want
to and try to make the Rotax two stroke a four
stroke. But it ain't gonna happen cause it ain't
got no valves, except the 582/532 and those are
rotary valves.
Folks that get the best life and reliability out
of Rotax two strokes load and run them the way
they were designed to be run.
Like trying to make a draft horse out of a
shetland pony and vice versa.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Right or Left |
Mike
I replaced my 503 with a 532 and now have some items for sale:
Rotax 503 DCDI, 180 SMOH, with electric start, carbs, complete exhaust
system, and 3 blade 66" GSC prop. Runs great, flew with it up to replacement
with 532. I had the exhaust sandblasted
and painted with ceramic high temp paint.
email me off list for more info or call me at 704-510-1339
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Right or Left
>
> Thanks for the Info yesterday,
>
> I'm going to order the 503 dual carb,dual CDI,oil
injected,50hp / with "B" 2.58 : 1 gearbox and a 2 blade 66" IVO prop.
>
> Is that a LEFT or RIGHT prop ???
>
> I have a 582 w/ B box ( pusher ) it turns CLOCKWISE when sitting in the
seat....
> Is that a RIGHT ?
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike
>
> ---
> Sometimes you just have to take the leap
> and build your wings on the way down...
> Gotta Fly...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | screaming 2-strokes? |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Guys,
Of course this is where John H and I disagree about the use of a 2-stroke
engine. I have run my 447 at 5100 rpm for the last 270 hours. I have had
no stuck rings, carbon deposits, or failures, and no overhauls. The ONLY
reason I can do this is because of the synthetic (Klotz) oil and regular
Seafoam treatments that I give the engine. If I didn't do this, I would
have to fly the rpms Hauck is recommending as I did with the older 377
that used mineral oil. That one had 450 hours on it, 2 overhauls with the
original crankshaft.
Maybe a 2-stroke can last a lot longer without running it at high rpm's.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
> Don/Gents:
>
> A major problem with the Rotax engines is operator
> induced. On the contrary, the engines are
> designed to operate continuously at 5,800 rpm and
> redlined at 6,800 rpm. A lot of operators do not
> want to fly at that rpm. They want to fly at
> 4,000 or 4,500 rpm. The engines do not "get on
> the pipe", i.e., take advantage of the tuned
> exhaust expansion chamber, until about 5,200 to
> 5,400 rpm, not where it was designed to operate
> continuously. If rings stick, and combustion
> chambers get carboned up, I can understand. If I
> load an engine that is designed to turn fast with
> so much pitch it can only turn a little over 5,000
> rpm, I have contributed to early failure.
>
> It all goes back to factory tuning for a specified
> load. It works out to pitch the prop to bump the
> red line at WOT staight and level flight. Course
> since this is a very liberal sport, each and
> everyone of us can pitch our props the way we want
> to and try to make the Rotax two stroke a four
> stroke. But it ain't gonna happen cause it ain't
> got no valves, except the 582/532 and those are
> rotary valves.
>
> Folks that get the best life and reliability out
> of Rotax two strokes load and run them the way
> they were designed to be run.
>
> Like trying to make a draft horse out of a
> shetland pony and vice versa.
>
> john h
>
>
>
=
> Contribution
> Gifts!
> Admin.
> _->
>
> messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax operating speeds |
John, I think this is one of the few areas where we are going to have to
agree to disagree. Had a long talk recently with an engineer whose
specialty was in bearings, bearing life and associated fields, and he had
some interesting opinions. I will relate them as he told them to me:
The greatest load factor on the big end rod bearings in an engine is
centrifugal. It is normally assumed that bearing load is primarily the
result of piston load at combustion, but as the RPM of an engine goes up,
centrifugal loading on the bearings goes up as the square, and in a high
revving engine, centrifugal load on the bearings greatly exceeds power
loading. Eventually the fatigue factor begins to take it's toll on the
outer area of the ball or roller bearings and they begin to break down,
spall, and crack. Once they begin to fail, the big end rod bearing fails
quickly, and that is exactly the scenario we are seeing on the Rotax 2
strokes. This is why Rotax wants the cranks replaced every 350 hours.
Back to my personal experience:
My Gen-U-Wine Rotax 532/582 shop manual shows the 532 makes 64 hp at 6600
rpm, maximum permissible rpm is 6800.
The 582 makes 64.4 hp at 6500, max permissible rpm is 6800 for 1 minute.
Using an IVO 66" 2-blade prop, I am pitched to attain 6400 rpm at full
throttle in level flight. That gives me a 74 mph cruise at 5400 rpm, and a
65 mph cruise at 5000 rpm. If I was turning the thing 5800 rpm all the
time, I would be spending most of my time flying faster than it would be
comfortable, 75 mph in typical afternoon trash air is about all I can
tolerate in my not-too-overweight MKIII, and I really prefer 65 when the
air is not smooth. (So I'm a bumpy-air wuss - what's it to ya?)
Jetting the carbs to keep the EGT's at or above 1050 and below 1200
everywhere between 4000 and 6000 is not that hard, and the rings, piston
tops, head underside and exhaust ports are staying clean and carbon free. I
am using Phillips Injex, a cheap, old-technology oil (sneer, snicker, the
Amsoil/synthetic crowd is ROTFL and holding their sides) but it burns clean
and I have had no problems with it in 19 years and close to 1,000 hours in
2-strokes. Seafoam and OMC Quicksilver have been tried, without making much
difference either way. They haven't hurt anything.
My take off and climb out has the engine turning around 5900 to 6100 rpm,
and that is a bit less than optimum, I am giving up about 150' per minute
climb by not turning the engine up faster. Except for the hottest days of
summer, that is not a bad trade off in performance, and the knowledge that
those big end rod bearings are under a lot less stress makes it acceptable.
Next month I will replace the crank at 390 hours, as I bought the engine
used and don't know all it's history. I plan to run the new crank much
longer than the present one, because it will be running slower all it's
life, and I will know it's usage history.
On a related topic, I will also be running the gas/oil mix @ 45:1 instead
of 50:1, mixing 16 ounces of oil to 5.5 gallons instead of 6 gallons when I
go to buy gas. Why? Because that same bearing engineer was of the opinion
that not only does oil lubricate and carry away heat, but it also acts as a
cushion to help attenuate the stress created on the surface of those little
bearings as they spin around the crank throws, and anything and everything
that reduces fatigue stress on those bearings extends crank reliability.
All other things being equal, (and in this particular circumstance, they
are) more oil is better than less oil.
There Ye go Gentlemen, have at it...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>Don/Gents:
>
>A major problem with the Rotax engines is operator
>induced. On the contrary, the engines are
>designed to operate continuously at 5,800 rpm and
>redlined at 6,800 rpm. A lot of operators do not
>want to fly at that rpm. They want to fly at
>4,000 or 4,500 rpm. The engines do not "get on
>the pipe", i.e., take advantage of the tuned
>exhaust expansion chamber, until about 5,200 to
>5,400 rpm, not where it was designed to operate
>continuously. If rings stick, and combustion
>chambers get carboned up, I can understand. If I
>load an engine that is designed to turn fast with
>so much pitch it can only turn a little over 5,000
>rpm, I have contributed to early failure.
>
>It all goes back to factory tuning for a specified
>load. It works out to pitch the prop to bump the
>red line at WOT staight and level flight. Course
>since this is a very liberal sport, each and
>everyone of us can pitch our props the way we want
>to and try to make the Rotax two stroke a four
>stroke. But it ain't gonna happen cause it ain't
>got no valves, except the 582/532 and those are
>rotary valves.
>
>Folks that get the best life and reliability out
>of Rotax two strokes load and run them the way
>they were designed to be run.
>
>Like trying to make a draft horse out of a
>shetland pony and vice versa.
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax operating speeds |
Brother Pike/Gents/and Woody:
> John, I think this is one of the few areas where we are going to have to
> agree to disagree.
That's OK. I'll get over it. :-)
The 582 is rated for 6,800 rpm for 5 mins, 6,500
rpm max continuous duty. If I had a 582 it would
be prop'd to turn 6,500 rpm WOT straight and level
flight with a ground adjustable prop. Similar to
what I am running now with the 912S: 5,800 rpm
for 5 mins, 5,500 rpm max continuous duty.
The engine is designed to operate at 6,500 rpm all
day long, if you can stand it.
Rotax engineers recommend 50:1. That is what I
would run. However, I bet there is a fudge factor
of at least 10% thrown in there that the engineers
do not talk about. That would mean that you have
+ or - 5 to play with, or 45:1 up to 55:1. I
think they have to do this based on the expertise
of all us yahoos mixing our gas and oil.
6,500 rpm with any of the Rotax two strokes is not
"high" rpm. The engines are derated from the snow
machines and seadoo's. I don't know what they are
red lined, but bet it is 8,000 to 10,000 rpm.
My Suzuki 4 stroke single cylinder "thumper" has a
rev limiter that kicks in at 10,000 rpm.
Yoshimura will sell me a new computer for it that
increases the rev limit to 11,000 rpm. Unheard of
35 years ago when I owned my last dirt bike.
Anyhow, 6,500 rpm ain't high turning, any more
than my 912S which can fly all day WOT at 5,500
rpm is not screaming. They were designed to
operate in this range. My Cummins Diesel is
designed to operate max continuous at 2,500 rpm.
It was designed to operate at that rpm or lower.
I don't think changing your oil/fuel ratio is
gonna make much difference, but I'd go by the book
on that. I think the Rotax guys know there balls,
or ball bearings better than your expert ball
bearing guy.
Probably, just guessing, biggest failure mode of
Rotax two strokes is piston seizures.
Hope your increased fuel/oil mix increases your
crank life cause they are expensive.
I don't see how over loading the engine with prop
pitch and running the engine at reduced rpm will
increase crank life. Would think it would have
the opposite result.
My thoughts and opinions for what it is worth, and
that ain't much.
Take care,
john h
PS: It is cold, wet, was gray, but now black
outside and the wind is blowing like Hell. Good
thing I have my bathroom renovation to keep me
occupied or I would be complaining cause I can't
get out and fly my Koilb or ride my Suzuki. :-)
> On a related topic, I will also be running the gas/oil mix @ 45:1 instead
> of 50:1, mixing 16 ounces of oil to 5.5 gallons instead of 6 gallons when I
> go to buy gas. Why? Because that same bearing engineer was of the opinion
> that not only does oil lubricate and carry away heat, but it also acts as a
> cushion to help attenuate the stress created on the surface of those little
> bearings as they spin around the crank throws, and anything and everything
> that reduces fatigue stress on those bearings extends crank reliability.
> All other things being equal, (and in this particular circumstance, they
> are) more oil is better than less oil.
>
> There Ye go Gentlemen, have at it...
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> >Don/Gents:
> >
> >A major problem with the Rotax engines is operator
> >induced. On the contrary, the engines are
> >designed to operate continuously at 5,800 rpm and
> >redlined at 6,800 rpm. A lot of operators do not
> >want to fly at that rpm. They want to fly at
> >4,000 or 4,500 rpm. The engines do not "get on
> >the pipe", i.e., take advantage of the tuned
> >exhaust expansion chamber, until about 5,200 to
> >5,400 rpm, not where it was designed to operate
> >continuously. If rings stick, and combustion
> >chambers get carboned up, I can understand. If I
> >load an engine that is designed to turn fast with
> >so much pitch it can only turn a little over 5,000
> >rpm, I have contributed to early failure.
> >
> >It all goes back to factory tuning for a specified
> >load. It works out to pitch the prop to bump the
> >red line at WOT staight and level flight. Course
> >since this is a very liberal sport, each and
> >everyone of us can pitch our props the way we want
> >to and try to make the Rotax two stroke a four
> >stroke. But it ain't gonna happen cause it ain't
> >got no valves, except the 582/532 and those are
> >rotary valves.
> >
> >Folks that get the best life and reliability out
> >of Rotax two strokes load and run them the way
> >they were designed to be run.
> >
> >Like trying to make a draft horse out of a
> >shetland pony and vice versa.
> >
> >john h
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Possum ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Cool...................but what happened to the armament ?? Do
not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: [ Possum ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Possum
>
>
> Subject: Kolb - Gear Leg Strut Covers
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/possums@mindspring.com.11.16.2002/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: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax operating speeds |
We are only 100 rpm apart. In my post I said that I was prop'd for 6400 rpm
WOT level flight.
Therefore by your own reasoning, if I am overloading the engine, it is only
by a meagre 100 rpm, and I suspect that my tach is too chintzy to tell the
difference. For all practical purposes we are arguing about (nothing) -
pitching our engines the same and then running them at different speeds.
The biggest difference is that I just run it slower. And five or six years
from now, depending on how long the new crank lasts, and how many hours it
has accrued, we can get into it again...
(Nothing else to do on a rainy day anyhow...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>The 582 is rated for 6,800 rpm for 5 mins, 6,500
>rpm max continuous duty. If I had a 582 it would
>be prop'd to turn 6,500 rpm WOT straight and level
>flight with a ground adjustable prop.
>I don't see how over loading the engine with prop
>pitch and running the engine at reduced rpm will
>increase crank life. Would think it would have
>the opposite result.
>
>My thoughts and opinions for what it is worth, and
>that ain't much.
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax operating speeds |
I am reading these posts about the rpms you fellas are running you engines
at, and let me see if I can through a concept that we, the engine
manufacturers use...and I believe you all just might be missing.
If you let the load determine the rpms....in other words...the throttle
plate..or slide...is wide open., and you pitch the prop to load the engine
down to ANY rpm level you want to name..you are running that engine at 100%
duty cycle.
When you read the recommended rpm level in a manual, you are NOT reading a
recommendation to load the engine to this level with a WOT position. There
is a BIG difference here men. REALLY BIG!
Consider this...
no load...............6800 rpms....throttle position..say....10% open (just
a guess)...Duty cycle...maybe 12 %
small load..........6800 rpms.....throttle position..say....60 %
open(estimation).....Duty cycle....maybe 55%
big load..........6800 rpms.....throttle position............100%
open..........................Duty cycle...........100%
Overload......... 3400 rpms.....Throttle pos................100%
open..........................Duty Cycle...........150%..(this engine wont
last around the patch one time)
So the Key as you see from this chart of general estimations...is the DUTY
CYCLE....
You all know that we can get a very wide range of horsepowers from engine by
"souping them up" right..weather 2 or 4 sycle. But as most Hot rodders
know..they loose life right?..OK...so what we need to know is...at what duty
cycle is the rating quoted at..like the one that says 6900 rpms for 1 min.,
6500 rpms continuosly.
I can give you all an educated guess that the 6900 rpm rating is likley in
the 30 to 50% duty cycle range.
Different markets use different duty cycle estimations ..that Diesel rig on
that standby powerplant is probably in the 75 to 80 % range, That generator
on your motorhome has an engine that is around there also..as most
Industrial applications do.
Auto..Motorcycle market design there engines in the 25% duty cycle range.
When tha Rotax or 2Si engine is in a watercraft or snowmobile...they expect
a normal life out of a engine that will be loaded to about 30 to 40 % Duty
at max rpms.
When a Auto manufacturer warranties an engine 100,000 miles...he expects
that load to be in the 20% range (average) for that time factor.
Also of note...when you call my employer to purchase engines as an OEM for
the gizmo you are manufacturing, they will send me out to your place after
you have mounted one up and I will perform about a half a days testing on
you rmachine. and IF I see the rpms dropping more than 10 % of max and the
throttle at more than 70 %open when this gizmo is preforming its work....You
dont get anymore engines! You dont get a OEM account with us for this model
engine. You MUST redesign something ..lessen the load...increase
hp...whatever...but you dont pass!
Don Gherardini
American Honda industrial engine div.
firefly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | modified mk 111 (tbird) |
On the photo share list the first photo thumbnail shows a side view of
my Thunderbird ( modified MK111) That is the wrong thumbnail. If you click
on it you will see a good shot of the underside and my paint job.
The side view shows what happens when you work in close confines and
don't step back to look at the whole picture. The nose seems to droop like
a Concord SST. A bit of fabric and paint will change this optical delusion
for next summer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax operating speeds |
> I am reading these posts about the rpms you fellas are running you engines
> at, and let me see if I can through a concept that we, the engine
> manufacturers use...and I believe you all just might be missing.
> Don Gherardini
Don Gheradini/Gents:
The Rotax 912/912S is designed to operate at 5,500
rpm continuous duty. Depending on how the prop is
pitched, this could be WOT, especially with an
inflight adjustable prop. TBO is 1,200 hours.
The 912/912S engines are designed as aircraft
engines. They are not industrial engines.
The Rotax two stroke engines are derated almost
50% for the aircraft application.
Aircraft engines are under load from the moment
they are cranked until they are shut down, except
when descending or with throttle retarded.
These are tough little engines, 2 and 4 stroke,
and they get the Hell run out of them, even we we
think we are babying them. They always work hard.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | woody <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
>
>
> > Get an old vacuum cleaner, put a garden hose attachment on the
>"blow" side, connect a garden hose(large diameter), get a full face mask
>such as the firemen use(ebay has smoke masks for aircraft cockpits) and
>attach garden hose.
Reminds me of when I painted my Twinstar. I prefer painting outside but
I still use a respirator. I took my shopvac and placed the motor unit on
the fence. I then duct taped some garden hose to the blower side and duct
taped a snorkel to the other end of the garden hose. It was way to
powerfull but I was able to let the snorkel hang out of my mouth a bit so
most of the air could escape and not blow my lungs apart. An air regulator
can be built from an old cardboard box. Tape the vacuum/blower hose into
one side and the garden hose into the other. Cut holes in the box untill
you have the right amount of air pressure at the mouthpiece. I used a scuba
mask for eye protection
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax operating speeds |
We call it manifold pressure in 4 stroke aircraft engines. If idle is 0% and
full throttle is 100%, at your cruise rpm, where is your throttle position?
My FS2 at 5500/65 mph is no more than 60%. Cyl hd temp270 egt 1075 3blade ivo
6300 max rpm on normal climb and I can still hit Vne level at less than rpm
6500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
When you think about it I believe the scuba mask function was to keep you
from breathing through your nose more than for eye protection.
jerb
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Get an old vacuum cleaner, put a garden hose attachment on the
> >"blow" side, connect a garden hose(large diameter), get a full face mask
> >such as the firemen use(ebay has smoke masks for aircraft cockpits) and
> >attach garden hose.
>
> Reminds me of when I painted my Twinstar. I prefer painting outside but
>I still use a respirator. I took my shopvac and placed the motor unit on
>the fence. I then duct taped some garden hose to the blower side and duct
>taped a snorkel to the other end of the garden hose. It was way to
>powerfull but I was able to let the snorkel hang out of my mouth a bit so
>most of the air could escape and not blow my lungs apart. An air regulator
>can be built from an old cardboard box. Tape the vacuum/blower hose into
>one side and the garden hose into the other. Cut holes in the box untill
>you have the right amount of air pressure at the mouthpiece. I used a scuba
>mask for eye protection
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Possum ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
That was my "old" Firestar/Submarine -
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/possums@mindspring.com.11.16.2002/index.html
BTW: the little gear leg covers didn't really do anything for
speed, that I could tell. The little canards weren't good for
much either - unless you were under water.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/Trikekiller2.jpg
You really can't shoot the rockets off the wings, you've got to rig
a rod on the nose of the plane to actually make them work.
I'm pretty sure it's 103 approved - can't remember the exact reg. ?
>
>Cool...................but what happened to the armament ?? Do
>not Archive.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, CA
>Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
>www.gogittum.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Davis - Comcast <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
447 in FF 028....more then enough!
> From: Doug Wetzel <dougwe(at)wrq.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Survey
>
>
> How about a poll on what powerplants Firestar and Firefly owners are
using?
> Inquiring minds want to know..
>
> 2nd Question...
>
> Is there a MkIII owner in the Seattle area (+ - 75 mi) that would be
willing
> to show off their bird to a prospective Kolb buyer/builder?
>
> Doug Wetzel
> Seattle, WA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Jones" <kevin-jones(at)snet.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: respirators
>
> I guess the P-51 guys had a good chunk of the glamour all right, and they
> certainly earned it, but when push comes to shove on a daily basis, I
think
> the Naval Aviators pay higher dues - and have less longevity, all else
being
> equal - due to the wonderful, stable landing area you have. (The
Carriers)
> Every landing must've been a "suck-the-upholstery" chance. Now,
you'll
> see some flaming.................. Big Lar. Do not
While there can be some argument as to longevity between P51 pilots and
carrier pilots WHILE THEY ARE FLYING, when they retire it seems to me that
their chances are equal. As to the higher dues, carrier landings, I had a
lucky start that made my whole career (of three years) a cinch.
I qualified on the USS Sable which was a converted tourist steamer out
of Chicago. The idea was to get the qualifications out of reach of the
UBoats. So a flight of eight of us set out from Glenview, north of Chicago
and flew east across Lake Michigan toward the position we had been given for
the Sable. We flew for quite a long time without finding the ship and then I
saw, in the distance, a vessel with the characteristic shape of a carrier
but which appeared to be much too small to land on. But we had heard the
talk about "postage stamps" so I expected that. As we got closer it didn't
look any larger but the flat top became clearer. So I decided that if anyone
else could land on it, I could. And then we flew over the vessel which
turned into a launch about 40 feet long with an awning extending over the
entire boat.
Now I have just convinced myself that I can land on this scrap of a
vessel and here comes the Sable, all 500 feet of her. She looked like the
main runway at Glenview. I made my eight landings with no difficulty and
flew back home. And I never had any trouble landing on a carrier.
Some day I'll tell you about the crazy planes we were in, SNJs.
Kevin Jones, fighter pilot, inactive.
.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/15/02 |
I haven't built a plane yet, but I am always reading. Considering the new
adhesives, couldn't a plane be glued together instead of welded? Just
curious.
________________________________________________________________________________
Well, after many hours and some abuse, My 3/4" aluminum rod that the tail
wheel is mounted on broke right where the bolt goes, just like was predicted
many years ago. I know there is a fix for this but cannot remember what or
how. Can anyone help....
Richard Harris
MK3 N912RH ser# 233
Arkansas
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MK3 tail wheel |
> Well, after many hours and some abuse, My 3/4" aluminum rod that the tail
> wheel is mounted on broke right where the bolt goes,
> Richard Harris
Richard/Gang:
Over the years I have designed, built, and
experimented with tail wheel struts until I did
the last one a couple years ago. It is 4130 .120
wall, heat treated to 48 Rockwell. Can't remember
how long it is, but it is shorted quit a bit from
the original specs. Only about 6" are exposed
from the tailpost socket to the tail wheel
socket. The exagerated length of the standard
struts tends to cause bends and failures. In
addition, they are long enough to hit the rudder
and cause damage during a hard tail wheel ground
strike.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)sw.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MK3 tail wheel |
> John, did you use the same mounting holes as with the aluminum rod that the
> plans called for ?
>
> Richard Harris
Richard/Gents:
Yes.
I also started using Maule, solid and pneumantic
tail wheel assemblies. Also flew with a Scott six
inch solid tail wheel I got at the fly market at
Lakeland one year. By the time I bought this old
antique, rebuilt it, and got it on the Mark III, I
could have bought a new one.
Take care,
john h
PS: 4130 is no good for landing gear legs or
struts unless it is heat treated. Heat treating
turns it into a spring and makes it flexible.
Normalized 4130 bends and stays bent.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/15/02 |
The Kolb fuselage comes welded from the factory. Other than the fabric
covering, the remainder of the assembly is riveted or bolted. Glue ....
maybe but makes repairs more difficult - how do you get it
apart? Earthstar uses a lot of adhesives on there ThunderGull planes - not
sure about Titans (later released brand that closely resembles the Gull in
many ways).
jerb
>
>
>I haven't built a plane yet, but I am always reading. Considering the new
>adhesives, couldn't a plane be glued together instead of welded? Just
>curious.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | aluminum bonding |
Aluminum is notoriously difficult to bond because of the low shear strength
of its almost instantaneously forming oxidation layer ( more or less about
as strong as if you tried to spread the glue over a layer of dust on the
aluminum. The glue sticks but you just rip the dust off). Still The Yankee,
Tiger and Cheetah from Grummand were(are)very successfully bonded together.
In order to successfully bond aluminum the oxide layer must be removed and
then a coating applied before the oxide layer can reform. The coating could
be an anodization or a primer or alodining ( a chemical conversion) or
anything else that has decent shear properties and takes adhesive well. 3M
makes a structural adhesive tape that has been used to put the aluminum side
panels on semi trailers for years... I think it would be a great way to put
low load items on planes, like the wing and control surface skins.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aluminum bonding |
| From: | CaptainRon <CaptainRon(at)theriver.com> |
11/17/02 22:01Christopher Armstrong
> 3M
> makes a structural adhesive tape that has been used to put the aluminum side
> panels on semi trailers for years... I think it would be a great way to put
> low load items on planes, like the wing and control surface skins.
>
> Topher
========================
What do they call that tape?
Ron(FHU
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Duncan McBride ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Duncan McBride
Subject: All over but the flying
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/duncanmcbride@comcast.net.11.17.2002/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: | [ Bob Griffin ] : 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 Griffin
Subject: MK3
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Pragac@aol.com.11.17.2002/index.html
--------------------------------------------
o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
emailing the files to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
o Main Photo Share Index:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | aluminum bonding |
VHB, for Very High Bond. they have a web site at
http://products.3m.com/usenglish/mfg_industrial/adhesive_tape.jhtml?powurl=G
SYN42F327beWHG0MWH6QPgeGST1T4S9TCgvWGJWXF14TZgl
and
http://www.industrialtechnology.co.uk/1998/apr/3mvhb.html
and this is a BIG pdf file about the possible applications, It starts out
"Imagine your world without rivits screws and welding"
http://multimedia.mmm.com/mws/mediawebserver.dyn?hhhhhhR59twhBLihVLihhhQKNSk
HHHH2-
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/15/02 |
Many airplanes are "glued" together, tho' that's an oversimplification, I
think. I understand most airliners are "bonded" now...............(better
word ??) The thought doesn't give me the warm fuzzies when I'm flying in
the things, but just hafta keep in mind that they don't (usually) come apart
at the seams................lost rudders notwithstanding. Topher makes the
excellent point of the oxidation forming quickly, and inhibiting the bond,
and he's absolutely right. When I was fooling with boats, System 3
recommended cleaning the aluminum parts thoroughly, coating them with mixed
epoxy, (which is NOT the bonding agent of choice for high strength joins in
metal) then sanding or wire brushing them THRU the coating of epoxy. No
chance for oxidation there ! ! !............but it's fun cleaning said wire
brush. Then put them together and let the epoxy cure. In early '96, I was
a frequent back seat passenger in a homebuilt Sirocco...............kind of
a mini-Spitfire hi-performance go-gitter. Fun and all, but made me spooky,
cause I was crammed into a tiny seat with NO controls but a stubby stick, NO
way to reach the canopy release, head jammed against the canopy, etc. Made
the ol' Lar claustrophobic, it did. With my buddy's permission, I built and
installed rudder pedals, throttle extension, etc. Made me much happier,
tho' I still couldn't land it for beans. (That's another long, entertaining
story) I used System 3's recommendations for installing the rudder pedal
bases on the wing spars with boat builder's epoxy, and in a recent
conversation with a mutual friend, found that when Jim took the pedals out
to do some work in that area, he nearly had to destroy the plane to break
them loose. Guess it worked ! ! ! GoStickum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cppjh(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/15/02
>
>
> I haven't built a plane yet, but I am always reading. Considering the new
> adhesives, couldn't a plane be glued together instead of welded? Just
> curious.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: Photo share |
Sorry for those who had to lie on their side and stand on their head to view
my photos I sent in. I guess I,ll break open the instruction book to read how
to e-mail photos with my new sanner-printer-copier.
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 150 hr. inspection |
I plan to remove my 618 shortly to send in to a service center for a 150 hr.
inspection. How many other Rotax owners have done this? Would you recommend
this, as things have shown up. I understand that seals begin to leak at this
stage and start the process where the crank ends up failing. Anyway, for
peace of mind, I'll send mine in.
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Sudlow" <sudlow77(at)earthlink.net> |
Mike,
I think fresh air respirators are what's recommended for mek & poly
products. The "Platicizers" in the poly products can do major league lung
damage. Spraying epoxy is worse.
Chris
donot archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beauford Tuton" <beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 66" Prop
>
> Brother Pierzina....
> My advice is worth what you pay for it, but fer cryin out loud, do NOT
shoot
> the MEK based stuff without a decent filter mask... It takes a mask with
an
> activated charcoal filter pak, changed every couple of hours of working
> time... Home Depot has them ... AO Safety is one brand they carry...
costs
> about $35 for the mask and one set of filters, additional filters are
about
> $12 a pair...but make sure it says they contain the activated charcoal
> package and are for organic solvents and chlorine compounds under the
NIOSH
> guidelines... (look 'em up on the web...) MEK, lacquer thinner, and a few
> related goodies, are not to be fooled around with.... ONE afternoon's
> spraying may make you feel goofy and well pleased with yourself from the
> fumes, but can do lifetime liver and central nervous system damage... may
> not show up for 10 or 15 years, but it WILL show up... and you will look
and
> act like 'ol Beauford after 40 years of cheap gin and cigars...
>
> The other bad thing to really watch out for is any paint with hardeners or
> two-part components...This includes the two-part amine-based
"poly"primers,
> the acrylic automotive enamenls with "hardeners" added, and the
polyurethane
> two-part products... The catalyzing part of most of these is chemically
November 01, 2002 - November 18, 2002
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dy