Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fl
June 21, 2005 - July 10, 2005
> on his MKIIIc. He said he was happy with the setup but he sold the
> airplane
> and the first thing the buyer did was put a rotax on it. Sometimes
> builders
> overlook the negatives of their creations? I really considered the
> engine
> but it just seemed to be too heavy. My VW is heaver than the 912
> Rotaxes and
> that has caused me some issues with weight and balance but I'm happy
> with
> the setup. I don't remember the installed weight of the Subaru but it
> seem
> like it is 30-50 lbs more than the VW and that just seemed to be too
> much
> for any of the big Kolbs.
>
> My $.02 worth
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron" <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine
>
>
>>
>>> Are there any Kolbers with a Subaru motor on an M3. If there are I'd
>>> like any feedback that you may have. I found a great deal on an RDU
>>> for the Subaru, the motor itself is inexpensive and I am told that it
>>> will fit the Rotax mount on an Mark III Xtra.
>>
>> Ron
>> Sierra Vista Arizona
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Have a great day!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mark III Classic kit for sale |
To All:
About a year ago I bought a MKIIIC kit. Since then I got wrapped up in the
FireFly/Float development. I am so pleased with the performance and flexibility
of the FireFly on floats That I have decided to sell the MKIIIC kit. The new
price on a MKIIIC is $500.00 higher now but I will sell it for the old price.
The kit is powdercoated white and has been stored inside my a/c house. There
will be no extra charge for the powdercoat. I live in central Fla so if you live
in the south you can save the cost of crating and shipping. As an added bonus
Bryan Melborn is coming to Fla to deliver a FireFly and is going home with an
empty trailer. Bryan as most of you know does the Quick Build for TNK. So, I
you wanted a quick build done or if you lived closer to Ky, there would be no
charge getting it to Ky. I really hate to part with the kit but I am having
too much fun with Ultralight right now. I have already started building a 2nd FF
from scratch.
Steve Boetto
FF #007/Floats
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | 22,000 mf Capacitor for 912 |
Question for the Rotax-912 Operators:
I am presently hooking up the electrical system for my newly-installed 912.
The Rotax Installation Manual shows a 22,000 microFarad capacitor (25v) as
an optional piece of equipement, to be connected to the regulator/rectifier
+B terminal.
One Rotax technician I spoke with insists this capacitor is essential to
prevent frying my $150 regulator.
My question is: If this is "essential," why does the manual list it as
"optional?"
I am running a normal electrical system in my plane (battery, starter, etc.)
I ordered this capacitor from Lockwood, and the thing is HUGE!
It's a cylinder 3 inches long, and 2 inches in diameter.
Can I use a Radio Shack equivalent that is smaller?
What kind of 22,000 mf capacitor are you 912 drivers using?
Many thanks for the help ...
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine |
Ron
I'm not recommending that you buy the Great Plains kit, it is expensive. You
will need some of their parts but you can buy a high priced dune buggy
engine and it will still be less. I have a adapter engine mount and Diehl
accessory case that I will lend to any one that just wants to try a VW
engine on a Kolb. It will give you a high thrust line but it works and no
welding.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine
>
> Well Great Plains VW is always an option. The thing is, is that they
> told me when I called them that its going to cost me $7.5K complete
> kit. I just can let myself spring for that yet, first I am going to
> check all available options. I am also looking at the Geo motor but I
> can't find where its going to give me the min of 80-hp that I think I
> need. In the meantime I don't know how long I am going to be around
> home base, as I have another job offer in the Caribbean that I think I
> am going to take. I should have gone for that Hirth back a few years
> ago for $2.5K as Woody recommended.
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> I looked at Subaru engines when I was considering engines for my
>> MKIIIc. My
>> view of the engine is that it is one of the best automotive engines
>> available for aircraft use. I talked to a guy that put a direct drive
>> Subaru
>> on his MKIIIc. He said he was happy with the setup but he sold the
>> airplane
>> and the first thing the buyer did was put a rotax on it. Sometimes
>> builders
>> overlook the negatives of their creations? I really considered the
>> engine
>> but it just seemed to be too heavy. My VW is heaver than the 912
>> Rotaxes and
>> that has caused me some issues with weight and balance but I'm happy
>> with
>> the setup. I don't remember the installed weight of the Subaru but it
>> seem
>> like it is 30-50 lbs more than the VW and that just seemed to be too
>> much
>> for any of the big Kolbs.
>>
>> My $.02 worth
>>
>> Rick Neilsen
>> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron" <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net>
>> To:
>> Subject: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Are there any Kolbers with a Subaru motor on an M3. If there are I'd
>>>> like any feedback that you may have. I found a great deal on an RDU
>>>> for the Subaru, the motor itself is inexpensive and I am told that it
>>>> will fit the Rotax mount on an Mark III Xtra.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> Sierra Vista Arizona
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> Have a great day!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22,000 mf Capacitor for 912 |
| My question is: If this is "essential," why does the manual list it
as
| "optional?"
| I am running a normal electrical system in my plane (battery,
starter, etc.)
| Can I use a Radio Shack equivalent that is smaller?
| What kind of 22,000 mf capacitor are you 912 drivers using?
|
| Dennis Kirby
Hi Dennis/Gang:
No, the capacitor is not essential, but like the man says, it will
save your reg/rec should you have a battery problem. The capacitor is
like insurance, plus it also helps soak up some of the RF noise.
Without the capacitor, should the battery and alternator become
disconnected, the reg/rec will fry.
I have used capacitors on all my airplanes, two and four stroke
powered. Wire the capacitor between the + and - wires right after
they come out of the reg/rec.
Good luck with your new 912.
john h
titus, alabama
MKIII/912S
________________________________________________________________________________
To All:
I have a couple of items that I need to get rid of
Used Full enclosure for a Standard FireFly - Free, Just pay for Boxing and
shipping
950# rated Aluminum Czech Floats (Perfect for a Firestar II) $1250.00 + S/H.
Normally $3500.00 FOB Fla
Enclosed FireFly trailer $2000.00
BRS 500# Softpack $800.00
BIG oversized FireFly Wheels,Tires and Brakes, Free + S/H
Duane da Plane gets first Dibs on the Firefly stuff.
I just finished my new hanger and I do not want to put his stuff in it.
Steve Boetto
FF #007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <jon(at)joncroke.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22,000 mf Capacitor for 912 |
Dennis,
This has been a common issue/topic of discussion and it is covered in detail
in the new DVD video: Rotax 912 Installation Tips & Techniques available at
www.HomebuiltHELP.com . I will give away the answer... so you dont have to
buy the video!
The reason it is OPTIONAL is that it depends on HOW you wire your circuit.
In the older 912 installation manuals, they acutally show 2 different wiring
diagrams: one that shows REQUIRING the cap and the other labeled as
OPTIONAL. The difference between the 2 circuits is very simple.
It boils down to this simple fact: while the engine is running, the 912
regulator needs to be constantly attached to either the capacitor OR your
BATTERY. A battery is an excellent capacitor. However many builders wire
their circuits so that a switch can disconnect the battery from the circuit,
and if you wire it this way, then you MUST have the capacitor, as I just
stated. IF you wire your circuit so that your battery is NEVER disconnected
from the regualtor, (no switches) THEN you can get away from using the
capacitor.
Everyone wires their circuits differently, so that is why they say it is
'optional'. (Some builders like the idea of being able to switch off their
battery supply and just run off the generator -- like the dual power
switches in a Cessna panel) Having both a battery and capacitor is OK, too.
Your capacitor is physically the correct size, some builders purchase ones
with a higher voltage rating (more than 25V) and then it gets REALLY big!
(this is not necessary) Do not go lower than 25V as yes, it will get
smaller in size, but will then fail (short out internally) and you will have
to buy a new regulator! Be sure to note the polarity as per the Rotax wiring
diagram.
Hope this helps,!
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: 22,000 mf Capacitor for 912
>
>
> Question for the Rotax-912 Operators:
>
> I am presently hooking up the electrical system for my newly-installed
> 912.
> The Rotax Installation Manual shows a 22,000 microFarad capacitor (25v) as
> an optional piece of equipement, to be connected to the
> regulator/rectifier
> +B terminal.
> One Rotax technician I spoke with insists this capacitor is essential to
> prevent frying my $150 regulator.
>
> My question is: If this is "essential," why does the manual list it as
> "optional?"
> I am running a normal electrical system in my plane (battery, starter,
> etc.)
>
> I ordered this capacitor from Lockwood, and the thing is HUGE!
> It's a cylinder 3 inches long, and 2 inches in diameter.
>
> Can I use a Radio Shack equivalent that is smaller?
> What kind of 22,000 mf capacitor are you 912 drivers using?
>
> Many thanks for the help ...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
| Subject: | Fly-in at Homer's |
Terry great to meet you and Tom great to meet local pilots.
=20I was like a kid in the candy store in Homers barn what a place!!
Had a blast at the fly in, Saw lots of good ideals from your plane and
others. ( great job on your plane Terry)
It was great to see a 13 year old pilot fly in!
I have a bunch of pics if you want I will send them to you or anyone who
might put a page up.
Got me fired up to finish my wings and can't wait until I get kit two :-)
Home E-mail during the summer Thejamesgang5(at)comcast.net
Ken James
Drafting Design Technology Instructor
Berks Career and Technology Center
East Campus
3307 Friedensburg Rd.
Oley, Pa. 19506
610-987-6201 Ext. 3532
Kdjames(at)berkscareer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Frantz [mailto:tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net]
Subject: Kolb-List: Fly-in at Homer's
Gene,
Thank you! I believe there were 18 planes parked there including
Homer's. It was a good day!
Great idea about the card. Wish I had thought of that before Saturday.
In lieu of that I would ask everyone who was there to send a personal
thank you to Homer and Clara. I did this last year. I know they would
enjoy the feedback.
Their e-mail address is: homerclara(at)yahoo.com
Their mailing address is: 580 Wall St.
=20 Phonexville, PA 19460
Take the time, drop a line of thanks,
Terry - FireFly #95
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This communication is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail contains information
from the Berks Career & Technology Center that may be privileged, confidential,
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
and permanently delete this message including all attachments.
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
Will the brakes and wheels fit a MK III x?
If so I'll be glad to take them.
Ken James
Drafting Design Technology Instructor
Berks Career and Technology Center
East Campus
3307 Friedensburg Rd.
Oley, Pa. 19506
610-987-6201 Ext. 3532
Kdjames(at)berkscareer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: N27SB(at)aol.com [mailto:N27SB(at)aol.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Spring Cleaning
To All:
I have a couple of items that I need to get rid of
Used Full enclosure for a Standard FireFly - Free, Just pay for Boxing and
shipping
950# rated Aluminum Czech Floats (Perfect for a Firestar II) $1250.00 + S/H.
Normally $3500.00 FOB Fla
Enclosed FireFly trailer $2000.00
BRS 500# Softpack $800.00
BIG oversized FireFly Wheels,Tires and Brakes, Free + S/H
Duane da Plane gets first Dibs on the Firefly stuff.
I just finished my new hanger and I do not want to put his stuff in it.
Steve Boetto
FF #007
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This communication is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. This e-mail contains information
from the Berks Career & Technology Center that may be privileged, confidential,
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
and permanently delete this message including all attachments.
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William George <wgeorge(at)mountainmeadowranch.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine |
Hi Rick,
Don't know much about applications for airplane use. I do know a
fellow who put one on his Kitfox and he seemed happy with it.
I few months ago I purchased a Subaru STi. I drove one and had to have
it (irrational for an old guy).
This has got to be the sweetest motor I have ever operated. It is 2.5
liters, turbocharged and puts out 300 HP. It idles like a Swiss watch
and has lots of low end torque; not peaky at all. I have no idea what
it weighs with the turbo, inter-cooler, etc. but what a motor! Now to
find an airplane to hang it on ;-)
Bill George
Hawaii
Kolb Mk-3 Verner 1400 Powerfin
On Jun 20, 2005, at 8:56 PM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
> Ron
>
> I looked at Subaru engines when I was considering engines for my
> MKIIIc. My
> view of the engine is that it is one of the best automotive engines
> available for aircraft use. I talked to a guy that put a direct drive
> Subaru
> on his MKIIIc. He said he was happy with the setup but he sold the
> airplane
> and the first thing the buyer did was put a rotax on it. Sometimes
> builders
> overlook the negatives of their creations? I really considered the
> engine
> but it just seemed to be too heavy. My VW is heaver than the 912
> Rotaxes and
> that has caused me some issues with weight and balance but I'm happy
> with
> the setup. I don't remember the installed weight of the Subaru but it
> seem
> like it is 30-50 lbs more than the VW and that just seemed to be too
> much
> for any of the big Kolbs.
>
>
> My $.02 worth
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spring Cleaning |
Steve,
I would like to have the wheels brakes and tires...and the enclosure...at
least I think if it is the plastic and velcro wrap deal that goes behind the
pilot seat.
Also...Kinda considering that trailer...wonder if you could send me some
pics?? and a description with dimensions?
thx
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22,000 mf Capacitor for 912 |
| IF you wire your circuit so that your battery is NEVER disconnected
| from the regualtor, (no switches) THEN you can get away from using
the
| capacitor.
|
| Jon
Hi Jon/All:
I agree with the above, however, if for some reason the battery drops
a cell/gets a dead cell, the reg/rec is gone without the capacitor for
backup.
Adding the capacitor is simple, connects to a plus and minus wire
right out of the reg/rec. Does not weigh more than an ounce or two,
helps soak up some of the rf noise generated by the alternator and
ignition system, and is insurance against accident or material failure
causing one to lose their expensive little reg/rec.
john h
titus, alabama
MKIII/912S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 503 Failure Poll, Changed to 582 and Prop Failure |
but did get rid of a lot of hoses, clamps and air filter covers.>>
Hi John,
I have fitted to the Jabiru in my Kolb an anti icing device which warms the
actual carb. rather than trying to warm the air intake. This does away with
all the things you mention but still gives you the benefit.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spring Cleaning |
In a message dated 6/21/2005 11:31:56 A.M. SA Pacific Standard Time,
donghe@one-eleven.net writes:
Also...Kinda considering that trailer...wonder if you could send me some
pics?? and a description with dimensions?
thx
I will send pictures when I get home
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Cleaning |
Steve,
Let me know what you want for the wheels tires and brakes for the Fly. I
also would like the enclosure. Please contact me off - list.
Ed Diebel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
The club plane is a pig on gas. probably over 7 gph. The egt is around
1100. All jets are factory spec. Needle is at the leanest setting. Plugs are
black and wet. Max rpm is 6000. What could be the cause. Prop pitch should
be okay. I suspect carbs or perhaps timing. Has anyone had a similar
experience?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kolbdriver" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
Woody,
It sounds like you have too much pitch in the prop and loading the engine.
The max RPM for the 582 is 6800. I had mine pitched so that it would be
about 6700 at max straight and level speed.
Steven G.
----- Original Message -----
From: "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: 582 problem
>
>
> The club plane is a pig on gas. probably over 7 gph. The egt is around
> 1100. All jets are factory spec. Needle is at the leanest setting. Plugs
are
> black and wet. Max rpm is 6000. What could be the cause. Prop pitch
should
> be okay. I suspect carbs or perhaps timing. Has anyone had a similar
> experience?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Silencing the 912 |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
I was wondering if anyone has any experience with silencing 912s?
I was once flying in France and a Jodel Robin DR400 taxied up behind me.
Between his 4 bladed MT prop and full fuselage length exhaust and muffler I
never heard him til he was 30 feet behind me and then he sounded like a big
fan running.
Would like to get a silenced as possible for photographing wildlife.
Todd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
Any chance that the enrichment circuit is stuck open
& the little brass pistons are not seating?
(And if that turns out to be the case, raise the needles before you fly it
again...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> The club plane is a pig on gas. probably over 7 gph. The egt is around
>1100. All jets are factory spec. Needle is at the leanest setting. Plugs are
>black and wet. Max rpm is 6000. What could be the cause. Prop pitch should
>be okay. I suspect carbs or perhaps timing. Has anyone had a similar
>experience?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderwski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
The Suburu E81 with redrive & starter will weigh in at 200 lb & up & get you
90-100hp. Being a flat 4, there are no resonance issues & they have proven
themselves in aircraft for going on 20yrs. The Geo Metro (Suzuki) 3cyl will
weigh as little 145lb & put out 55-64hp (90-100hp turbocharged & 180 lbs.)
The 4 cyl version is about 180lbs & 80-90hp. There are conversion kits for
the Suzuki's for about $2300. My SPG-2 gear reduction is rated at 135hp
(4-stroke) & will work on either the 3 or 4 cyl as is, & on the Suburu with
a different adapter. The Suzuki's are fuel injected & have a bullet proof
reputation, though they will not have the smoothness of a flat 4.
Richard Swiderski
Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel & gaining on Big Lar
-List: Subaru Engine
Ron
I looked at Subaru engines when I was considering engines for my MKIIIc. My
view of the engine is that it is one of the best automotive engines
available for aircraft use. I talked to a guy that put a direct drive Subaru
on his MKIIIc. He said he was happy with the setup but he sold the airplane
and the first thing the buyer did was put a rotax on it. Sometimes builders
overlook the negatives of their creations? I really considered the engine
but it just seemed to be too heavy. My VW is heaver than the 912 Rotaxes and
that has caused me some issues with weight and balance but I'm happy with
the setup. I don't remember the installed weight of the Subaru but it seem
like it is 30-50 lbs more than the VW and that just seemed to be too much
for any of the big Kolbs.
My $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine
>
>> Are there any Kolbers with a Subaru motor on an M3. If there are I'd
>> like any feedback that you may have. I found a great deal on an RDU
>> for the Subaru, the motor itself is inexpensive and I am told that it
>> will fit the Rotax mount on an Mark III Xtra.
>
> Ron
> Sierra Vista Arizona
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flycrazy8(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Cleaning.....My bid |
Hey Steve
I would like to place my bid on this Spring cleaning stuff....
I bid purchasing your BRS if I could get the Firefly enclosure with
it....AND I'll even come pick it all up.........We all like a deal..........
Stephen
BamaGa Firefly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine |
Harrr...........if yer movin', yer gainin'. All my tough talk is out the
window since the 110 deg temperatures hit. It's summer in Palm Springs, and
I'm lookin' only to get outa here. Lar. Do
not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Swiderwski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine
>
>
> The Suburu E81 with redrive & starter will weigh in at 200 lb & up & get
> you
> 90-100hp. Being a flat 4, there are no resonance issues & they have proven
> themselves in aircraft for going on 20yrs. The Geo Metro (Suzuki) 3cyl
> will
> weigh as little 145lb & put out 55-64hp (90-100hp turbocharged & 180 lbs.)
> The 4 cyl version is about 180lbs & 80-90hp. There are conversion kits
> for
> the Suzuki's for about $2300. My SPG-2 gear reduction is rated at 135hp
> (4-stroke) & will work on either the 3 or 4 cyl as is, & on the Suburu
> with
> a different adapter. The Suzuki's are fuel injected & have a bullet proof
> reputation, though they will not have the smoothness of a flat 4.
>
> Richard Swiderski
> Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel & gaining on Big Lar
>
>
> -List: Subaru Engine
>
>
> Ron
> I looked at Subaru engines when I was considering engines for my MKIIIc.
> My
> view of the engine is that it is one of the best automotive engines
> available for aircraft use. I talked to a guy that put a direct drive
> Subaru
>
> on his MKIIIc. He said he was happy with the setup but he sold the
> airplane
> and the first thing the buyer did was put a rotax on it. Sometimes
> builders
> overlook the negatives of their creations? I really considered the engine
> but it just seemed to be too heavy. My VW is heaver than the 912 Rotaxes
> and
>
> that has caused me some issues with weight and balance but I'm happy with
> the setup. I don't remember the installed weight of the Subaru but it seem
> like it is 30-50 lbs more than the VW and that just seemed to be too much
> for any of the big Kolbs.
>
> My $.02 worth
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron" <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine
>
>
>>
>>> Are there any Kolbers with a Subaru motor on an M3. If there are I'd
>>> like any feedback that you may have. I found a great deal on an RDU
>>> for the Subaru, the motor itself is inexpensive and I am told that it
>>> will fit the Rotax mount on an Mark III Xtra.
>>
>> Ron
>> Sierra Vista Arizona
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Max rpm is 6000.
Woody from the North!
Woody/Gang:
Sounds like too much prop pitch. Should be able to turn 6,500 to
6,800 rpm WOT straight and level flight.
When we over prop a two stroke, all signs will indicate over rich.
Just the opposite of under propping and getting lean indications.
Course it could be a lot of the things you mention, but 5 to 5.5 gph
at 5,800 rpm cruise was about normal for my MKIII when it was powered
by a 582, way back in 1992 and 1993.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spring Cleaning |
Hi Ed, I think everything that was free is spoken for. If someone changes
their mind I will let you know
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Cleaning |
In a message dated 6/22/2005 7:40:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,
N27SB(at)aol.com writes:
Hi Ed, I think everything that was free is spoken for. If someone changes
their mind I will let you know
Steve,
I was interested in the brakes wheels and tires. I would like to know
the price on them. Surely you arent giving them away.
Thanks ,
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 6/21/2005 7:31:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
duesouth(at)govital.net writes:
The club plane is a pig on gas. probably over 7 gph. The egt is around
1100. All jets are factory spec. Needle is at the leanest setting. Plugs are
black and wet. Max rpm is 6000. What could be the cause. Prop pitch should
be okay. I suspect carbs or perhaps timing. Has anyone had a similar
experience?
Have you cleaned the air cleaner[s]?
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferrying the FireFly from Perryville, MO to Winchester, |
IN
| I want to get it back in the air. I am afraid I have caught the
John H.
| bug. I can fully understand why he takes rambles to Alaska. There
is no
| substitute for seeing what is at or on the route to the next
airport. |
| Jack B. Hart FF004
| Winchester, IN
Jack H/All:
Sorry to hear of this terrible disease you have aquired. I hear it is
incurable, however, it can be temporarily arrested as long as one has
a flyable Kolb aircraft, fuel, decent weather, and a place to go. ;-)
Better get busy, get the FF flyable again, pack your bag and fly.
Looking forward to our flight to the Upper Pennisula of Michigan and
Oshkosh next month. We had such a good flight out West. It was great
to be able to spend more time flying with others than solo for a
change.
At one time I had considered not doing any more long solo flights in
the MKIII because of my age. Last year at 65, the flight to Alaska
was a little more difficult for me physically. My flight days were
shorter and I spent more time on the ground visiting than ever before.
This year, at 66, with a wonderful 15 day flight to Monument Valley,
Bonneville Salt Flats, Alvord Desert, Reno, the Los Angeles area and
home across the country to Alabama in three days, I felt good, the
airplane performed well, and I figure I may still have a few years of
long cross country travel left in me if I can afford to put av gas in
the tank.
Jack, you will find wonderful people along your route of flight. Most
will be more than helpful. Some won't know what to say when they see
you land and taxi up to the FBO. Others will say things that do not
come across to us well, as we will probably not understand their
intent. I am learning, very slowly, to smile, nod my head, get my
fuel, and avoid conflict and confrontation with any one that does not
see my kind of aviating the same way I do. In all the years I have
been doing this and all the places my little airplanes have carried
me, there have only been a small hand full of ass holes out there.
Best to ignore them, if at all possible. The good folks more than
make up for the miserable few that do not understand and appreciate
grass roots aviation.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912S
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | " Rotax 503 Failure Poll", changed to, "Unpowered and Powered |
Flight"
| The physical act of turning your tail towards the field and heading
off
| downwind knowing that the field is now out of reach up wind and your
next
| landing will be (probably) in a field somewhere.
| I found it much more traumatic than the first solo.
| Pat
Pat/All:
An excellent reason to fly a Kolb powered by a reliable engine.
john h
MKIII/912S
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine |
It states the installed weight as approx 327lbs. Much too heavy for
| the Kolb I would think. www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
| Jerry.
Jerry/Richard/Gang:
Here's another cut and paste from the same web site. I know nothing
of Subaru engines or "real" airplane engines, but this seems to be a
good comparison for firewall forward weights of the different
packages.
QUESTION: What is the weight FWF (sans prop) weights for the various
engines? Subaru 2.5 XT, H-6 (212hp), H-6 (250H), etc (Jan's offerings)
Lycoming (I) O320, (I)O360, (I)O540, etc?
ANSWER:
2004 and 2005 2.5 STI engines are 345 without supercharger ready
to fly with mount etc.
2004 and 2005 2.5 STI engines are 365 with the supercharger and
200 HP.
2004 3.0 H-6 engines are 430 ready to fly - 190 HP.
2005 3.0 H-6 engines are 445 ready to fly - 200 HP - variable
valve timing
IO-360 firewall package - 180 HP - that came off the RV-6A was
415 lb
I wish I knew what the all up weight of my 912S is, but unfortunately
I don't have that info. However, I am satisfied with its performance,
durability, reliability, and ease of maintenance. I am not satisfied
with the initial price of the engine or replacement parts, but my butt
is worth every penny I spend on the 912S to make my flying comfortable
and enjoyable, especially on long cross country flights.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Changed, "Subaru Engine" to "Rotax Engine Weights, 2 and 4 |
Stroke"
| Hi John, probably preaching to the choir but check out this site.
| www.kodiakbs.com
| Jerry
Hi Jerry/Gang:
Thanks for the info. Did not realize Rotax had some installed weights
available for all engines:
http://www.kodiakbs.com/2intro.htm
http://www.kodiakbs.com/4intro.htm
I have run the gambit from 582, 912 nd 912S installed on my old MKIII:
110.6 lbs w/C gearbox
134.2 lbs 912UL
140.6 lbs 912ULS
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rusty" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | 912S and 2180 VW weights was Subaru Engine |
I wish I knew what the all up weight of my 912S is, but unfortunately
I don't have that info.
------------------
Hi John,
Before the 912S left, I weighed everything that went with the engine. This
is what I would consider the total, installed weight, including oil and
coolant, mounts, oil reservoir, coolers, etc. Total weight was 159 lbs,
which is pretty good. Gonna be impossible to beat that with a single rotor,
but there could be plenty more power.
I recently sold a 2180 VW engine as well, and weight it too.
- Great Plains 2180, Diehl case, 1' exhaust pipes, short intakes on heads,
secondary ignition, force one prop hub - 150 lbs
- Spacers to mount Diehl case to airframe- 4 lbs
- Starter- 11 lbs
- Magneto- 5.5 lbs
- Stock oil cooler- 1.5 lbs
- Zenith carb and horrible adapter- 4.5 lbs
Total weight above- 176.5
A carb mount, and tubing to connect the carb to the intakes on the heads,
plus oil would have to be added, along with coils and wires for the
secondary ignition, and baffles for cylinder cooling. Realistically, this
would end up weighing around 185-190 lbs with all that added. Power is
rated at 70 hp continuous, and 76 hp for takeoff.
FWIW, I don't know much about Subaru engines, but I think they have much
lighter versions, more in line with what a Kolb would need.
Cheers,
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912S and 2180 VW weights was Subaru Engine |
Good info Guys
I took some time in cutting and drilling to lighten my VW (mostly on the
diehl case). Also didn't use that heavy under powered unreliable magneto.
Also added the Valley Reduction drive 8 lbs but doesn't have the direct
drive parts so it adds maybe only 5 lbs.
My VW would weigh some where around 165-170 lbs. my empty weight of my
MKIIIc is 587 lbs empty. The reduction drive VW due to higher climb RPMs
(3800) is rated around 85 HP.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rusty" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912S and 2180 VW weights was Subaru Engine
>
>
> I wish I knew what the all up weight of my 912S is, but unfortunately
> I don't have that info.
> ------------------
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Before the 912S left, I weighed everything that went with the engine.
> This
> is what I would consider the total, installed weight, including oil and
> coolant, mounts, oil reservoir, coolers, etc. Total weight was 159 lbs,
> which is pretty good. Gonna be impossible to beat that with a single
> rotor,
> but there could be plenty more power.
>
>
> I recently sold a 2180 VW engine as well, and weight it too.
>
> - Great Plains 2180, Diehl case, 1' exhaust pipes, short intakes on heads,
> secondary ignition, force one prop hub - 150 lbs
> - Spacers to mount Diehl case to airframe- 4 lbs
> - Starter- 11 lbs
> - Magneto- 5.5 lbs
> - Stock oil cooler- 1.5 lbs
> - Zenith carb and horrible adapter- 4.5 lbs
>
> Total weight above- 176.5
>
> A carb mount, and tubing to connect the carb to the intakes on the heads,
> plus oil would have to be added, along with coils and wires for the
> secondary ignition, and baffles for cylinder cooling. Realistically, this
> would end up weighing around 185-190 lbs with all that added. Power is
> rated at 70 hp continuous, and 76 hp for takeoff.
>
> FWIW, I don't know much about Subaru engines, but I think they have much
> lighter versions, more in line with what a Kolb would need.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912S and 2180 VW weights was Subaru Engine |
| My VW would weigh some where around 165-170 lbs. my empty weight of
my
| MKIIIc is 587 lbs empty. The reduction drive VW due to higher climb
RPMs
| (3800) is rated around 85 HP.
|
| Rick Neilsen
Hi Rick/Gang:
That's getting the weight down quite a bit.
Would be tickled pink to see a good alternative auto/aircraft engine
give Rotax a run for their money. However, primary to me, above all
else is reliability. After all, it is me up there in an unfriendly,
unforgiving environment. Based not only on inhospitable places I find
myself and my MKIII, is the everyday local flight around the patch
that usually gets folks. Take the example of the loss of a really
good friend a few days ago. Al Reay had a reputation of flying his
utralights and lightplanes wherever he wanted to go. His latestest
long flight was up to Alaska last summer. I missed him at Watson
Lake, Yukon Territory, by 7 days. The fuel man, who I have known for
a long time now, told me Al said to tell Hauck hello, then pointed out
the photo on the bulletin board in the fuel shack of Al and his
beautiful Titan Tornado. For those that did not know, Al died in the
crash of his Titan near his home base of Winsted, Minnesota. I have
known Al since the early days. He made some significant flights in
his single place Buccaneeer, The Mississippi Queen, back in the 80's.
He and a friend also built and were awarded the 1985 (I may be wrong
on the year) Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight, a Kolb Twinstar. I
had just received a reply from Al after I had sent him the url of my
MV web page George Alexander posted. He replied in CAPS that he would
love to make the MV flight next year. I have invited him out each
year we have had it, except the first one.
For me, what it boils down to is reliability first. Not worth the
aggrevation of trying to make a system work at the risk of getting the
airplane and me hurt. Getting too old for that. Will let you younger
guys get out there and prove some of these newer and older systems.
Good luck and I hope you all can find something that will give Rotax
some "real" competion in performance, reliability, and price.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
PS: Except for one, all of my significant crashes and engine failures
have been at home. Well, make that two. I forgot about the one at
Grand Island, NY, 1988. ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912S and 2180 VW weights was Subaru Engine |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
What are the essential differences that make the 912 ULS preferable over the
912?
Todd
On 6/23/05 1:05 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> | My VW would weigh some where around 165-170 lbs. my empty weight of
> my
> | MKIIIc is 587 lbs empty. The reduction drive VW due to higher climb
> RPMs
> | (3800) is rated around 85 HP.
> |
> | Rick Neilsen
>
> Hi Rick/Gang:
>
> That's getting the weight down quite a bit.
>
> Would be tickled pink to see a good alternative auto/aircraft engine
> give Rotax a run for their money. However, primary to me, above all
> else is reliability. After all, it is me up there in an unfriendly,
> unforgiving environment. Based not only on inhospitable places I find
> myself and my MKIII, is the everyday local flight around the patch
> that usually gets folks. Take the example of the loss of a really
> good friend a few days ago. Al Reay had a reputation of flying his
> utralights and lightplanes wherever he wanted to go. His latestest
> long flight was up to Alaska last summer. I missed him at Watson
> Lake, Yukon Territory, by 7 days. The fuel man, who I have known for
> a long time now, told me Al said to tell Hauck hello, then pointed out
> the photo on the bulletin board in the fuel shack of Al and his
> beautiful Titan Tornado. For those that did not know, Al died in the
> crash of his Titan near his home base of Winsted, Minnesota. I have
> known Al since the early days. He made some significant flights in
> his single place Buccaneeer, The Mississippi Queen, back in the 80's.
> He and a friend also built and were awarded the 1985 (I may be wrong
> on the year) Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight, a Kolb Twinstar. I
> had just received a reply from Al after I had sent him the url of my
> MV web page George Alexander posted. He replied in CAPS that he would
> love to make the MV flight next year. I have invited him out each
> year we have had it, except the first one.
>
> For me, what it boils down to is reliability first. Not worth the
> aggrevation of trying to make a system work at the risk of getting the
> airplane and me hurt. Getting too old for that. Will let you younger
> guys get out there and prove some of these newer and older systems.
> Good luck and I hope you all can find something that will give Rotax
> some "real" competion in performance, reliability, and price.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> Titus, Alabama
>
> PS: Except for one, all of my significant crashes and engine failures
> have been at home. Well, make that two. I forgot about the one at
> Grand Island, NY, 1988. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pollus <pollus(at)fornerod.nl> |
| Subject: | How to repair torn ceconite? |
Guys,
Some anonymous jerk fooled around in the hangar last week or so, and
rotated my 3-blade prop, shoving it right through the fabric of the
folded right wing of my MK3. Now I am faced with a torn wing for over
ca 5 inch on the bottom side of the wing. The opening itself is not
much, ca 0,04 inch.
Apart from the rage because this fool did not leave a message (Sorry
I damaged your wing. Do not fly) leaving it for me to happen to see
it while preflighting (which thank god I did), I am now to do some
repair work. Simple maybe if you built the plane yourself, but
remember, I bought her second hand.
From the accompanying papers I figured out the wing is finished with
Stitts Poly Brush products. At my local flight shop I was advised to
buy some Ceconite 101 and a quarter Rand-O-Bond cement and diluting
fluid.
Problem: the manual they handed me (and which I now read at home)
covers the covering of a wing, but not the repair of a torn section.
I read some things on the internet but I'd like some expert advice.
What am I to do? Just glue a piece of ceconite over the secion? Do I
have to remove the paint? Do I have to stich it first? Where is the
diluting fluid for? To clean the brush afterward of do I have to
dilute the cement?
So... err... help...
Greetings from a hot and sunny Holland!
Pollus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
| What are the essential differences that make the 912 ULS preferable
over the
| 912?
|
| Todd
Todd/All:
912ULS is a "whole" new engine based on the well proved 912UL. It is
not a hopped up 912UL and some folks think.
The 912ULS is the result of user testing of the 912UL, as of January
2000, 7,000 912UL and 11 years experience with that engine.
The 912ULS is heavy duty in every way, heavier cases, crank,
connecting rods, etc., than the 912UL. The intake system was cleaned
up to perform better. Compression was increased from 9.0 to 10.5 to
1. Max continuous hp is 79 at 5500 for the 912UL and 95 hp at 5500
for the 912ULS. What that means is both engines can be operated
continuously at WOT provided they are pitched not to pull more than
5,500 rpm. I have done this many times with my 912ULS which now has
more than 1,020.0 hours.
Disadvantages of the 912ULS over the 912UL is:
More fuel consumption.
One half the time before replacement of spark plugs.
Advantages are:
Stronger built engine.
More power, 95 or 79 hp max continuous.
I enjoy my 912ULS over the 912UL I had previously flown on the MKIII
for 1135.0 hours primarily for the increase in power giving me the
ability to do a few more things better. It should be noted that the
912ULS with slipper clutch is also a smoother engine at cruise than
the 912UL which is also a very smooth engine.
Hope I have answered some of your questions. If not, give me a shout.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How to repair torn ceconite? |
Pollus,
I had to patch my Kolb before I even finnished as a piece of steel fell
off the wall rack and poked a hole in the dacron fabric. I just took siccors
and cut out the jagged edge. Took MEK and wipped the surface until I saw the
original fabric Then I cut a piece of fabric about 2 " bigger than the cut out
area and applied Poly Tak and smoothed it out. Carefully shrank it with an
iron set at about 275 deg. Then put on several coats of poly brush, poly spray
and poly tone. I guess you should find out If it originally had Polytone
or Aerothane. Aerothane is a bit more involved and some one on the list will
probably tell how if need be. I dont think other product are recommended
to be used in patching over stits products.
You can try Air Craft Technical Support for advice And repair Stits
products. Jim Miller will be most helpfull. # (614)8773334
Hope this Helps
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bryan green <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to repair torn ceconite? |
Hi Pollus, I'm no expert on anything but FWIW here goes.
Make you a frame from scrap wood say three or four times the size of
the tear. Use some of the glue and attach a piece of ceconite to the
frame, when dry iron it with a 275 deg. F iron this will pre-shrink the
fabric some then cut a patch out bigger by about 2" all around then the
tear make it round or oval no corners.
Next try a small amount of the reducer on the tear hopefully it will
remove the paint if so clean the paint off big enough for the patch. If
that does not work you will have to sand it off, once you get down to
the fabric glue your patch on, let it dry then iron it with a 325 deg F
iron. Dilute some of the glue slightly with the reducer then paint over
the whole patch after this dries you can put on your UV protection then
paint back to match.
Bryan Green Elgin SC
Firestar 447 BRS
pollus wrote:
>
>Guys,
>
>Some anonymous jerk fooled around in the hangar last week or so, and
>rotated my 3-blade prop, shoving it right through the fabric of the
>folded right wing of my MK3. Now I am faced with a torn wing for over
>ca 5 inch on the bottom side of the wing. The opening itself is not
>much, ca 0,04 inch.
>
>Apart from the rage because this fool did not leave a message (Sorry
>I damaged your wing. Do not fly) leaving it for me to happen to see
>it while preflighting (which thank god I did), I am now to do some
>repair work. Simple maybe if you built the plane yourself, but
>remember, I bought her second hand.
>
> From the accompanying papers I figured out the wing is finished with
>Stitts Poly Brush products. At my local flight shop I was advised to
>buy some Ceconite 101 and a quarter Rand-O-Bond cement and diluting
>fluid.
>
>Problem: the manual they handed me (and which I now read at home)
>covers the covering of a wing, but not the repair of a torn section.
>
>I read some things on the internet but I'd like some expert advice.
>What am I to do? Just glue a piece of ceconite over the secion? Do I
>have to remove the paint? Do I have to stich it first? Where is the
>diluting fluid for? To clean the brush afterward of do I have to
>dilute the cement?
>
>So... err... help...
>
>Greetings from a hot and sunny Holland!
>
>Pollus
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk" <clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk> |
| Subject: | RE: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/22/05 !STAMP:050623215848:3469| |
Your email to clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk (clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk)
with the subject of 'Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/22/05' is being analysed
by emailAI a new SPAM control system that eliminates spam. To ensure your email
is delivered, please reply to this email and send it. Do not modify the email
at all. This is a once only check. Future emails from you to clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk
will be accepted automatically from your email kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com.
For more information regarding emailAI please visit http://www.emailAI.com
---
emailAI (Artificial Intelligence for Your Email) - http://www.SpamResearchCenter.com - emailAI is a Software Development Project - http://www.SoftwareDevelopment.net.au
!STAMP:050623215848:3469|
!ID:150616220422|
________________________________________________________________________________
!STAMP:050623215848:3469|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/22/05 |
!STAMP:050623215848:3469|
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
On 6/23/05 4:59 PM, "clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk"
wrote:
>
>
> Your email to clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk
> (clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk) with the subject of 'Kolb-List Digest: 19
> Msgs - 06/22/05' is being analysed by emailAI a new SPAM control system that
> eliminates spam. To ensure your email is delivered, please reply to this
> email and send it. Do not modify the email at all. This is a once only
> check. Future emails from you to clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk will be
> accepted automatically from your email kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com.
>
> For more information regarding emailAI please visit http://www.emailAI.com
>
> ---
> emailAI (Artificial Intelligence for Your Email) -
> http://www.SpamResearchCenter.com - emailAI is a Software Development Project
> - http://www.SoftwareDevelopment.net.au
>
>
> !STAMP:050623215848:3469|
> !ID:150616220422|
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
John;
How is the fuel consumption and can you lean it out or is it an automatic
mixture? As well are you running autofuel or AVGAS?
I was directed to ask you specifically about the best prop exhaust systems
to maximize noise suppression in the engine installation so there it is, I
am asking. I would love to have something akin to a YO-3 in terms of quiet
but at 5500 rpm unless I had a substantial reduction gear and a variable
pitch prop I doubt that is going to happen.
My 172 is pert near sold so the cash is available and I am going to take a
trip to London as soon as work allows and sit in a Mark IIIX. I am 6'3" and
240 and an OH-58 is a comfy fit. The Kolb people thought that they might
have a demonstrator built up around the time of OSH so I am hoping I can get
a chance to go check it out.
Any thoughts or comments are welcome. I am going to buy the quick build
option and I think your tire set up will also do the bill since I am
operating off my own air strip. I just wish I could get taller gear on the
Mark IIIX
Todd
On 6/23/05 3:37 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> | What are the essential differences that make the 912 ULS preferable
> over the
> | 912?
> |
> | Todd
>
> Todd/All:
>
> 912ULS is a "whole" new engine based on the well proved 912UL. It is
> not a hopped up 912UL and some folks think.
>
> The 912ULS is the result of user testing of the 912UL, as of January
> 2000, 7,000 912UL and 11 years experience with that engine.
>
> The 912ULS is heavy duty in every way, heavier cases, crank,
> connecting rods, etc., than the 912UL. The intake system was cleaned
> up to perform better. Compression was increased from 9.0 to 10.5 to
> 1. Max continuous hp is 79 at 5500 for the 912UL and 95 hp at 5500
> for the 912ULS. What that means is both engines can be operated
> continuously at WOT provided they are pitched not to pull more than
> 5,500 rpm. I have done this many times with my 912ULS which now has
> more than 1,020.0 hours.
>
> Disadvantages of the 912ULS over the 912UL is:
>
> More fuel consumption.
> One half the time before replacement of spark plugs.
>
> Advantages are:
>
> Stronger built engine.
> More power, 95 or 79 hp max continuous.
>
> I enjoy my 912ULS over the 912UL I had previously flown on the MKIII
> for 1135.0 hours primarily for the increase in power giving me the
> ability to do a few more things better. It should be noted that the
> 912ULS with slipper clutch is also a smoother engine at cruise than
> the 912UL which is also a very smooth engine.
>
> Hope I have answered some of your questions. If not, give me a shout.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
Hi Todd/All:
| How is the fuel consumption and can you lean it out or is it an
automatic
| mixture? As well are you running autofuel or AVGAS?
912 at 5,000 rpm burned 4.0 gph, 5,200 rpm 4.25 gph, 5,400 rpm 4.5
gph.
912S at 5,000 burns 5.0 gph
I burn MoGas when available, AVGAS otherwise.
Can't help you with noise suppression. I build, rig, and tune, my
airplanes for maximum performance and reliability.
I use Titan SS Exhaust System and Warp Drive Props.
I prefer the MKIII Classic, which I have been flying for some time
now, over the newer MKIII Extra. That's why I fly what I fly. If I
was going to build anything else, it would be a Kolbra with 20 and 40
degrees of flaps, Hauck landing gear and Alaska Tundra Tires.
| I just wish I could get taller gear on the
| Mark IIIX
Sometimes you have to do some design and fabrication work on your own
to get exactly what you want.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
I suppose I need to speak to Williams about the fit of the Kolbra for the
front and rear seater. Any specific reason why the preference of the IIIC
versus the IIIX?
On 6/23/05 6:52 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> Hi Todd/All:
>
> | How is the fuel consumption and can you lean it out or is it an
> automatic
> | mixture? As well are you running autofuel or AVGAS?
>
> 912 at 5,000 rpm burned 4.0 gph, 5,200 rpm 4.25 gph, 5,400 rpm 4.5
> gph.
>
> 912S at 5,000 burns 5.0 gph
>
> I burn MoGas when available, AVGAS otherwise.
>
> Can't help you with noise suppression. I build, rig, and tune, my
> airplanes for maximum performance and reliability.
>
> I use Titan SS Exhaust System and Warp Drive Props.
>
> I prefer the MKIII Classic, which I have been flying for some time
> now, over the newer MKIII Extra. That's why I fly what I fly. If I
> was going to build anything else, it would be a Kolbra with 20 and 40
> degrees of flaps, Hauck landing gear and Alaska Tundra Tires.
>
> | I just wish I could get taller gear on the
> | Mark IIIX
>
> Sometimes you have to do some design and fabrication work on your own
> to get exactly what you want.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skywaylodge(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 37 Msgs - 06/21/05 |
Friends,
How do I remove my name from the Kolb list? I no longer own a Kolb.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to repair torn ceconite? |
Pollus,
Call Jim and Dondi Miller at Aircraft Tech Support (877-877-3334) and tell
them your story, they have exactly what you need and an excellent Polyfiber
manual to make sure you do the job right.
You will be shocked at how easy it is.
also at www.aircrafttecksupport.com
Denny Rowe
PS: I would not mix brands of covering, sounds like your bird is all
Polyfiber, stick with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
----- Original Message -----
: "Todd Fredricks" Asked John H......
. Any specific reason why the preference of the IIIC
> versus the IIIX?
Johns a little dude. :-)
Denny Rowe,
Mk-3C
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
Any specific reason why the preference of the IIIC
| versus the IIIX?
Todd/All:
Yes, my MKIII flies much better, to me, than the MKIIIx. I don't have
much time in the MKIIIx, but enough to know I would rather fly my
MKIII.
Specifically, I like the way mine feels and responds to control
inputs. May be that after 2,366 hours flying my MKIII during the past
13 years, nothing will feel as good or take its place. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Inflight Fuel Mixture Adjustment |
Todd/All:
Forgot to mention the 912's have automatic mixture control, altitude
and temperature compensating.
Works good.
Mine has been to 14,500 feet ASL several times crossing the Rockies.
John W's has been over 15,000 feet. Both worked well at those
altitudes based on the fact they are normally aspirated.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jctuck3(at)excite.com" <jctuck3(at)excite.com> |
Greetings all! I am new to the bulletin board and have recently purchased a Kolb
Mark II Twinstar; it was originally built by W.C. Ferguson, the designer of
the Fergy. Does anyone on the list have access to the original owner's construction/service
manual for this model? The New Kolb Aircraft company does not
offer support for models this old, and I have not been successful in searching
the Kolb list archives regarding the matter. Any assistance would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you. JulianTS 0142
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS over the 912UL |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Sadly I am not. ;) all this size and no basketball talent just an obscession
with flying. I do like the Kiowa over the Blackhawk though. Just feels
better wedged in that thing.
Todd
On 6/23/05 10:25 PM, "Denny Rowe" wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> : "Todd Fredricks" Asked John H......
> . Any specific reason why the preference of the IIIC
>> versus the IIIX?
>
> Johns a little dude. :-)
>
> Denny Rowe,
> Mk-3C
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inflight Fuel Mixture Adjustment |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Poor man's FADEC. Nice.
Any courses or workshops on flattening the learning curve of the 912
engines?
Todd
On 6/23/05 11:09 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> Todd/All:
>
> Forgot to mention the 912's have automatic mixture control, altitude
> and temperature compensating.
>
> Works good.
>
> Mine has been to 14,500 feet ASL several times crossing the Rockies.
> John W's has been over 15,000 feet. Both worked well at those
> altitudes based on the fact they are normally aspirated.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inflight Fuel Mixture Adjustment |
| Any courses or workshops on flattening the learning curve of the
912
| engines?
|
| Todd
Todd/All:
Ronnie Smith, South Mississippi Light Aircraft, Lucedale, Mississippi,
sponsors a 912 School presented by Eric Tucker of Rotax, usually
around the first of February each year. You can check with Ronnie for
sign up and course dates:
http://www.flysmla.com/contact.htm
I have had the opportunity to attend the 912 School at Lucedale in
2000 and 2004. A very informative school. Tear down and rebuild the
engine all the way to the crank shaft.
A lot is learned by flying in front of them for a good while.
Maintenance is very low, and if keep current, the engines continue to
perform just like the day they came out of the box.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inflight Fuel Mixture Adjustment |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
That is a great thing. I believe I will try to attend.
Thanks, John
On 6/23/05 11:45 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> | Any courses or workshops on flattening the learning curve of the
> 912
> | engines?
> |
> | Todd
>
> Todd/All:
>
> Ronnie Smith, South Mississippi Light Aircraft, Lucedale, Mississippi,
> sponsors a 912 School presented by Eric Tucker of Rotax, usually
> around the first of February each year. You can check with Ronnie for
> sign up and course dates:
>
>
> http://www.flysmla.com/contact.htm
>
> I have had the opportunity to attend the 912 School at Lucedale in
> 2000 and 2004. A very informative school. Tear down and rebuild the
> engine all the way to the crank shaft.
>
> A lot is learned by flying in front of them for a good while.
>
> Maintenance is very low, and if keep current, the engines continue to
> perform just like the day they came out of the box.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> !STAMP":richard(at)bcchapel.org |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/22/05 |
!STAMP:050623215848:3469|
>
>
>Your email to clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk
>(clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk) with the subject of 'Kolb-List Digest:
>19 Msgs - 06/22/05' is being analysed by emailAI a new SPAM control system
>that eliminates spam. To ensure your email is delivered, please reply to
>this email and send it. Do not modify the email at all. This is a once
>only check. Future emails from you to clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk will
>be accepted automatically from your email kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com.
>
>For more information regarding emailAI please visit http://www.emailAI.com
>
>---
>emailAI (Artificial Intelligence for Your Email) -
>http://www.SpamResearchCenter.com - emailAI is a Software Development
>Project - http://www.SoftwareDevelopment.net.au
>
>
>!STAMP:050623215848:3469|
>!ID:150616220422|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pollus <pollus(at)fornerod.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: How to repair torn ceconite? |
Dennis / all
Thanks for all the tips. I am thinking about a quick fix now (wanna
fly!) and a more esthetically sound repair job when the storm and
rain seasons have begun.
That website you mentioned http://www.aircrafttechsupport.com (the h
does the trick) really is great! ALL the answers are there!
Greetings from Holland. Stil hot and sunny!
Pollus
Op 24-jun-2005, om 4:13 heeft Denny Rowe het volgende geschreven:
>
> Pollus,
> Call Jim and Dondi Miller at Aircraft Tech Support (877-877-3334)
> and tell
> them your story, they have exactly what you need and an excellent
> Polyfiber
> manual to make sure you do the job right.
> You will be shocked at how easy it is.
> also at www.aircrafttecksupport.com
>
> Denny Rowe
> PS: I would not mix brands of covering, sounds like your bird is all
> Polyfiber, stick with it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Twinstar |
If can't find the info but you have any questions or concerns just post it
to the list and someone will answer. Welcome aboard.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jctuck3(at)excite.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Twinstar
>
> Greetings all! I am new to the bulletin board and have recently purchased
a Kolb Mark II Twinstar; it was originally built by W.C. Ferguson, the
designer of the Fergy. Does anyone on the list have access to the original
owner's construction/service manual for this model? The New Kolb Aircraft
company does not offer support for models this old, and I have not been
successful in searching the Kolb list archives regarding the matter. Any
assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. JulianTS 0142
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: " Rotax 503 Failure Poll", changed to, "Unpowered and Powered |
Flight"
| An excellent reason to fly a Kolb powered by a reliable engine.>>
john h
|
| Yeah, I suppose,
| but the place to learn to fly is in a glider.
| Pat
Pat/All:
All powered aircraft are gliders when they quit making noise.
I agree, the place to learn to fly gliders is in as glider.
However, the place to fly powered airplanes is in a powered airplane.
I do not know about others, but but my log books are full of landings.
It is the nature of the type of flying I do in Kolb aircraft.
Never experienced having someone "do" my airplane or aircraft since I
was still flying for Uncle Sam. Kolb flying for me is exactly that.
I do everything. About the only time I get away without doing it all
is when I am flying for Kolb Aircraft and one of the guys takes care
of fueling my airplane. On those few occassions it really feels good
to be treated nicely.
Like I said a while back to the Kolb List, "Many Kolb pilots
experience their first engine off landing on their first engine
failure." There is quit a difference between an idling prop on a Kolb
and a dead stick. Personally, I would rather be aware and accustomed
to those flight characteristics prior to an actual engine out
emergency. Much nicer doing dead stick landings at a big airport with
lots of room and 3 or 4 thousand feet of runway.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: evening flight in England |
What airplane were you flying, Pat?>>
Hi John,
this flight was in the Challenger. Perfect conditions for the open cockpit.
Glad you liked it.
Extra is still progressing but I think the extraordinary heat lately must
have played up the paint. Even spraying in the cool of the evening and early
morning the red paint still looks poor after 3 coats. Perhaps it has been
stored in the heat.
Still waiting on the noise test before it can fly, but soon, soon..
Cheers
Pat
do not achive
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Guys
Heard this morning on WLAC radio that "a first flight Kolb" went down
in Dixon Tenn. Take off or landing? Fatality. Hope that I heard
wrong! Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Guys
The Tennessean news paper has the story. 75 year old pilot. does
not mention the type of plane. Inagural flight. Herb
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050624/COUNTY03/50
624002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jbowaaf(at)wmconnect.com |
| Subject: | thanks for sharing trip to big bend !!... john wmson |
another great tripI the photos & descriptions were just outstanding....as
usual. i wonder if any other kit co.(s) could boast of such prodigious x-c
efforts by flyers of their machines? i also follow what's left of the avid flyers
on yahoo & have seen no such evidence from that group. these wonderful
aviation adventurers surely deserve more coverage from the flying media.... looking
fwd to the article developed earlier on the list. thanks again, john wmson,
john hauck & friends for sharing ur incredible airborne journeys. keep it
coming & be safe. john bowman in baton rouge. p.s. can't wait for biglar to join
these outings in his machine & share his "special" viewpoint --"fajitas in
lajitas"! what exactly did u & gary "prepare from ur own food" when there was
no
place to go in that "courtesy van"??
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent Kolb Trip |
| I hope every one flies their Kolb this weekend and lets us all know
about
| your flights.
|
|
| John Williamson
John W/All:
James Tripp and I flew our Kolbs yesterday, late. James flew up to my
airstrip, Gantt International Airport, then we did some visiting with
neighbors getting in hay. They, for the most part, like our little
airplanes and enjoy us flying down into and around the hay fields when
they are working. Buzzed another neighbor, who is also one of my
antique tractor buddies, then across Lake Jordan to another flying
friends grass strip. No one at home, so we flew south to Wetumpka
Airport. Shot a touch and go on the north/south grass strip. From
there to Parker Island in the Alabama River. Privately owned, huge
deer and turkey preserve. We spotted some good sized deer herds, but
no turkeys. Must be a lot of fun shooting these semi-domestic deer
and turkey. ;-( Red Eagle Honor Farm, state detention center for bad
boys, was across the river. Flew over there and landed in one of my
favorite hay fields, freshly cut, to take a short break. Then back to
Wetumpka Airport. On the way I climbed to 4,000 ASL and James to
3,500 ASL. On arrival, throttled back, let the engine cool down a
bit, then hit the mag switch. Turned off everything but the radio and
the strobe lights. Soon as we got over the sleepy field, three "real"
airplanes called for landing at Wetumpka. No sweat. They were using
the 09/27 paved runway and we were shooting to 36, the grass strip.
We both gave local traffic plenty of info on the radio what our
intentions were, and kept them updated as we glided quietly down to a
dead stick landing. James got busy getting his Firestar back on the
trailer for the trip home, and I climbed back in Miss P'fer for the
11.2 sm flight back to Gantt International Airport. Guess we averaged
a landing about every 10 minutes. Really, did not keep up with them.
Flew, enjoyed a beautifully calm evening doing what these little Kolb
aircraft were designed to do.
Take care,
john h
Kolb MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
There's been a lot of recent talk about making XC (cross-country)
flights, and I have one suggestion that's contrary to what you and
I've probably been taught. Your instructor may say "Maintain your
altitude" -- and if there are any thermals you'll continually be
changing the pitch of the aircraft, and hence its speed. In rising air
you'll lower the nose and speed up, and in sinking air raise the nose
and slow down, in order to "Maintain the Altitude".
This does maintain altitude BUT -- you'll then be spending minimum
time in favorable, rising air, and maximum time in unfavorable, sinking
air. Think about it!
Much more efficient to do the reverse -- slow down & spend max time in
rising thermals, and speed up to get through sinking downdrafts ASAP.
Let the altitude do what it wants, within limits of course.
Naturally this is for VFR flight only -- the controller wouldn't be
pleased if your IFR flight went rollercoastering up & down. But on a
long XC flight it can make quite a bit of difference.
More fun too, and easier on the pilot.
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob N." <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Just back fron road trip to Iowa, and saw in Cedar Rapids Gazette an
item abt fatal UL crash on 6/17 near Monticello IA. Pilot was Rich
Kromminga. Was first flight this spring. Type not listed.
Bob N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
but during a morning flight when the air is sinking across the board,>>
Hi there,
really? What causes that?. I am happy that there is not much movement on a
still day until the sun starts the thermals popping, but, `sinking across
the board`, thats a new one.
Russ was quite right. Unless there is a good reason for keeping a particular
altitude ride the energy that nature gives you. X country glider pilots
rarely thermal these days. They `dolphin`. In essence they slow up when they
hit rising air and dive through descending air as quickly as possible.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent Kolb Trip |
I'm curious about any concerns you had about the ADIZ on
the Mexican border ?? >>
Hi John and all,
while I was in the States during April I heard on the radio about a call for
civilians to help patrol the Mexican border. I remarked to Wendy that it was
a charter for every redneck to get out and shoot people.She laughed.
Sho` nuff. 2 days later at breakfast there were two massive, flabby guys.
Shirts open to the waist, tattoos everywhere, Belt buckles as big as dinner
plates, unwashed hair pony tailed down their backs. Harleys parked outside.
`Yup` said one `Ahm gonna get me a Mexican. I heerd it on the radio. They`s
cummin over heer, taken our jobs, rapin` the wimmin, an` takin little girls
of 10 or elevenn yeers old away. The gov`mint aint treatin it right. Ah`m a
vet, an ah figger to do sumpun about it`
I am surprised you did`nt get shot out of the sky, John.
`(Every word of this is true)
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: " Rotax 503 Failure Poll", changed to, "Unpowered and |
Powered Flight"
>How many landings does a glider pilot do in a glider with a glide ratio
of
> >7 to 1 before he soloes?
Hi,
I dont think there are many gliders producing that glide angle around today.
We had one, called a Dagling, which was just a square cut pole with a wing
on top. The pilot sat totally exposed on the front, held in place by his
straps. The plane when released at the top of the launch would almost beat
the end of the cable back to the ground. I had a 5 share in it but never
worked up the nerve to fly it.
Our standard trainer could manage about 16 to 1 on a good day. Hence my
pages of 5 minute flights.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William George <wgeorge(at)mountainmeadowranch.com> |
| Subject: | Wanna buy a Mk-3? |
Hi Guys,
I am going to sell my Mk-3. This time I'm serious ;-)
I am willing to part it out or sell intact. The "intact" will carry
some restrictions. Since the airplane is in Hawaii there are issues
related to shipping. I am planning to remove the engine soon and offer
it for sale separately.
I have put up a site that has some photos and information on the
machine. See it here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res20ecn/kolbforsale/
New subject: Beautiful video.
A pal of mine, also a retired airline type, sent me this link. Lot of
nostalgia for me. Check it here:
http://www.onesixright.com/video/clouds.html
Bill George
Hawaii
Kolb Mk-3 Verner 1400 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LOREN7310(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Twinstar |
Hello, I am Loren from DesMoines, IA. I saw this post for Twinstar plans. I
am also in need of them. I had given up. Several yrs. ago I bought via. an
ins. co a wrecked TwinStar. It needs the gear legs, wheels, and mainboom. I
purchase the replacement boom and struts from Linda at Kolb who stated to go
here for plans but I have not been successful. Could you copy or allow me to
copy your set. I will pay freight and even post a deposit if you have concern
of getting them back. Thanks,, Loren7310(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bryan green <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent Kolb Trip |
What in the name of $#@@$ has this got to do with KOLB AIrcraft.
Bryan Green Elgin SC
Firestar 447 BRS
PATRICK LADD wrote:
>
>I'm curious about any concerns you had about the ADIZ on
>the Mexican border ?? >>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Twinstar |
Hi Loren,
I'll copy a set of my manual and blueprints if you like. Will have a cost
this week.
Ed in JXN (MI)
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: <LOREN7310(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Twinstar
>
> Hello, I am Loren from DesMoines, IA. I saw this post for Twinstar plans. I
> am also in need of them. I had given up. Several yrs. ago I bought via. an
> ins. co a wrecked TwinStar. It needs the gear legs, wheels, and mainboom. I
> purchase the replacement boom and struts from Linda at Kolb who stated to go
> here for plans but I have not been successful. Could you copy or allow me to
> copy your set. I will pay freight and even post a deposit if you have concern
> of getting them back. Thanks,, Loren7310(at)aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)commspeed.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent Kolb Trip |
John W., et al;
I'd be damn proud to work as yer groundcrew
or ground support personnel for that operation
ya' spoke of earlier.
I think it should have a proper name tho ..........
Maybe sumpin' real appropriate, like, maybe
"BS" & "WILBER".
Of course ya' prob'ly already could figer out
the offishal gov'mint terms there, but, for the
less edjucated it means:
Border Security &
Wantant Illegal Law Breakin' Efforts Recinded
I'm thinkin' 'bout gettin' one o' them perty new
t-shirts, in my favoryte color, with the BS etc.
logo on it, just to show my support.
Whatcha think, bro.?
George Bass
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Twinstar |
Do you have a Twinstar or Twinstar MK 2? Big difference.
----- Original Message -----
From: <LOREN7310(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Twinstar
>
> Hello, I am Loren from DesMoines, IA. I saw this post for Twinstar plans.
I
> am also in need of them. I had given up. Several yrs. ago I bought via.
an
> ins. co a wrecked TwinStar. It needs the gear legs, wheels, and mainboom.
I
> purchase the replacement boom and struts from Linda at Kolb who stated to
go
> here for plans but I have not been successful. Could you copy or allow me
to
> copy your set. I will pay freight and even post a deposit if you have
concern
> of getting them back. Thanks,, Loren7310(at)aol.com
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LOREN7310(at)aol.com |
Thaks much, I will wait to heaar from you then. Best regards, Loren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LOREN7310(at)aol.com |
I really do not know but it is a two place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
Hi Loren,
Does your machine have a small motorcycle-style windscreen, or lexan doors?
With the doors, it's probably a
MkII. Helps if you keep the 'subject' or a quote in your posts. ;
)
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: <LOREN7310(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: (no subject)
>
> I really do not know but it is a two place.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Silver Fern Microlights Ltd" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
Hi all,
I have got some good news today, I have finally passed the noise test with the
xtra/jab, so we are now fully approved.
YeeeeeeHaaaaaaaa.
Thanks for the help and advice.
Mike
Xtra/Jab2200
G-CDFA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Xtra/Jab2200 |
I have finally passed the noise test with the xtra/jab, so we are now
fully approved.
| Mike
| Xtra/Jab2200
Hi Mike/Gang:
Congratulations!!! I know you are relieved and extremely happy.
Thank goodness we do not have to comply with rigid noise abatement
over here in "Alabama". My 912ULS and Warp Drive would never make the
grade. I didn't realize how much noise this little buggers make until
I was standing on the ramp at Reno/Sted Airport, NV, last month. Gary
Haley had already taken off for the west side of the mountains and I
was still on the ground getting ready to depart down the east side.
As I stood there I was suddenly aware of this powerful little critter
which was nearly out of site, but was still making loud music that was
getting back to me on the ground.
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
please describe what you bought. Does it have a full enclosure or just a
fairing to kep the wind off your ankles. Are you sitting in a cage or on
either side of a single tube running up the middle. Inquiring minds want to
know.
----- Original Message -----
From: <LOREN7310(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: (no subject)
>
> I really do not know but it is a two place.
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-walton28jun28,1,7260928.story?coll=la-news-state
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Non Kolb Down! |
In a message dated 6/28/2005 8:02:20 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
rowedl(at)highstream.net writes:
Just a guess, but it may be an Aerolight 103 from what I can make out in the
pic.
It was a CGS Hawk
http://tinyurl.com/cxg4k
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lloyd McFarlane" <lrmcf(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Dennis, I plan to there 7/6-7/8. Will be camping under the wing of a 182. I would
enjoy a get-together.
Lloyd McFarlane
FireStar II
Fullerton, CA
>
>
> Are any Kolbers planning to attend the Arlington Air Show, 6-10 July?
> I will likely be there for 6-7 July (Wed,Thu).
> It would be nice to plan on a rendeavous day/time, meet any of you that
> might be going.
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Mark-3
> New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Victor 1+ Engine Seizure????? |
FireFlyers & Kolbers,
Finally I found the culprit after removing the head and cylinder. The
cylinder, rings and piston were ok. The wrist pin and crank through
bearings were ok. Next I took off the flywheel cover so I would not have to
detach all the wires as I took the rest of the engine off to work on it on
the bench. When I removed the cover, I discovered the torsional vibration
damper ring that was bonded to a hub on the starter ring web had come loose.
As I started the engine it fell off the hub and acted as a disk brake
between the starter ring web and the inside surface of the
housing.
I called Quebec to see about getting a replacement part, and I was told that
Simonini no longer uses this part on the newer engines. And, I can run the
engine minus the ring without any adverse effects. This is good news, as I
hope to be back in the air this weekend. Also the FireFly will weigh 1.5
pounds lighter than before.
In the near future, I will put up some photos.
Have a good Fourth!
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vamoose Lit Up |
Hey Lar
how'sit goin eh. Is it my imagination or does 85psi oil pressure sound a
bit high. It has been a while since I worked on vw's and have had alot of
engines in between but I think there is an adjustment on the oil pump to
bring the pressure down a bit. Or perhaps I am thinking of a different
engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Repairmans Cert. / YES |
Hey Guys,
Today I went back to the FAA with my Airworthiness Cert. in my
hand and filled out the paper for my
Repairmans Cert. He asked me a few questions about the plane....making sure that
it sounded like "I" built it...
and I walked outa there with a "temp repairmans cert" (pending) he said I should
recieve my card in about 120 days.
Things are falling into place....
Hey Tim Bjork , Thanks for the phone numbers at Stanton Airport....but most of
all for a "good instructor"
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN N381PM
My Web Site:
http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html
Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down...
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rusty" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Repairmans Cert. / YES |
and I walked outa there with a "temp repairmans cert" (pending) he said
I should recieve my card in about 120 days.
---------
Congrats. I've always believed that little piece of paper was the key
benefit to experimental aircraft.
Cheers,
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Abbott" <jrabbott(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Xtra/Jab2200 |
Mike .
Congratulations! You are where I want to be... by this time next year.
All the best.
John Abbott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Silver Fern Microlights Ltd" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Kolb-List: Xtra/Jab2200
>
>
> Hi all,
> I have got some good news today, I have finally passed the noise test with
> the xtra/jab, so we are now fully approved.
> YeeeeeeHaaaaaaaa.
> Thanks for the help and advice.
>
> Mike
> Xtra/Jab2200
> G-CDFA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vamoose Lit Up |
Hi Woody: Several people have questioned me about this one, so I'll put
it on the List. I put the high oil pressure kit in my engine after several
Baja dune buggy racers told me that a good percentage of the cooling in the
engine is thru the oil. Higher pressure equals more flow equals more
cooling. 85 psi IS high, but when warmed up it should be around 60 which
would be right on target. On the 45 psi fuel pressure, it's a fuel injected
engine with Ford components driven by a custom built computer. Apparently
that's normal for those components.
When I ran the engine prior to its' breaking the input shaft, all was
well........no oil leaks. That's why I'm focusing my efforts around that
new, re-designed input. After I return, of course. :-)
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Vamoose Lit Up
>
> Hey Lar
> how'sit goin eh. Is it my imagination or does 85psi oil pressure sound a
> bit high. It has been a while since I worked on vw's and have had alot of
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vamoose Lit Up |
At 10:49 PM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
>
>My goodness........of course ! ! ! Couldn't have ol' Lar beatin' anybody
>into the air, now could we ?? :-) Lar. Do
>not Archive.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, CA
>Building Kolb Mk III
>N78LB Vamoose
I think we lost you back in '97 when you went with the VW engine.
But we know you'll finish - or die trying.
-------------------------------
Date: Dec 07, 1997
From: "Ron Christensen"
<SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com>
Subject:
<http://www.matronics.com/searching//searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=3701580?KEYS=larry_bourne?LISTNAME=Kolb?HITNUMBER=2076?SERIAL=22302814852XXXXXXXXXX?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>VW
Powered MK III
Hi Richard:
I know a guy named Larry Bourne from Cathedral City, CA (near Palm Springs)
who wants to install a VW on his MK III. I'm sure he would really enjoy
talking or writing to you regarding your experiences. Will you share your
address and 'phone number?? If so, I'll pass the data on to Larry who is not
on the net.
Ron Christensen
MK III, N313DR
So. California
----------
From: <mailto:owner-kolb(at)intrig.com>owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf
of Richard Neilsen
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: How to N number a plane that was built by
someone -Reply
I just finished getting my VW powered MKIII inspected.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2005 |
I have decided in my post-Iraq freedom to finally
> attend Oshkosh with my oldest son.
I assume that post Iraq- freedom implies that you served in Iraq in
the military. If so may I offer my gratitude for your service in an
extremely difficult place. Oshkosh will certainly be a welcome
environment after that......... Kirk
Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Fredricks <renard731(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2005 |
I did and I am proud of it and what we are doing over
there in spite of what the media is feeding my fellow
Americans here. But that said, I will take Oshkosh at
90% humidity and 90 degrees over Diyala Province at
20% humidity and 130 degrees and I will especially
welcome the opportunity to meet some heros of mine who
make their retirements into grand adventures flying
small airplanes where most people think they have no
business going ;)
Todd
PS: Don't thank me, thank my buddies who came home on
one final trip and the ones who left parts of
themselves over there. I was blessed to serve my
country and return intact. I can ask nothing more.
--- snuffy(at)usol.com wrote:
>
> I have decided in my post-Iraq freedom to finally
> > attend Oshkosh with my oldest son.
>
> I assume that post Iraq- freedom implies that you
> served in Iraq in
> the military. If so may I offer my gratitude for
> your service in an
> extremely difficult place. Oshkosh will certainly
> be a welcome
> environment after that......... Kirk
>
> Do not
> archive
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Non Kolb Down! |
|
| 747 WOULD BE MORE FUN OR MAYBE AN F16 OR 2
Steve G/Gang:
More fun than what?
Maybe I don't know what "fun" is, but I sure have enjoyed flying these
little Kolb airplanes. ;-)
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHVIVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Third Annual Kolb Flyin at Monument valley |
| And, it's official ... this article will appear in the August
issue, which we'll be distributing at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2005!
|
| Cheers,
| Mary Jones
Editor
Rick N/Gang:
This is great news!
This particular copy of the magazine will get a lot of exposure to a
lot of folks that do not normally subscribe or have an opportunity to
see and read the magazine.
Thanks for your untiring efforts in putting the article together. We
all appreciate it.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
titus, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pollus <pollus(at)fornerod.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Third Annual Kolb Flyin at Monument valley |
Cool! Does anyone care to send a copy to Holland?
Would be great!
Pollus
DNA
Op 29-jun-2005, om 18:34 heeft John Hauck het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> | And, it's official ... this article will appear in the August
> issue, which we'll be distributing at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2005!
> |
> | Cheers,
> | Mary Jones
> Editor
>
> Rick N/Gang:
>
> This is great news!
>
> This particular copy of the magazine will get a lot of exposure to a
> lot of folks that do not normally subscribe or have an opportunity to
> see and read the magazine.
>
> Thanks for your untiring efforts in putting the article together. We
> all appreciate it.
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> titus, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot, EAA Experimenter, or Whatever It Is Called |
These ...
In a message dated 6/29/2005 12:29:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
>
> Morning Gang:
>
> A great article in the new mag I just got out of my mailbox on Steve
> Boetta and his Puddle Buster, Firefly on floats.
>
> Good on you Steve. It looks great!!!
>
>
Thanks John, I have not seen it yet. I was asked at SnF to fly for some
photos. As you know the wind was wailing. A few weeks later with good weather I
went to the lake with two of my friends and without any preparation we took some
photos. Little did I know thast Jim Odom was a great action photographer. I
sent the photos to Mary Jones in case she wanted to try again. She liked them
so much she wrote a story around them. I think that if you submit a good story
with high density photos they will use it.
Steve Boetto
FireFly #007 (Fondly known as the "Puddle Buster")
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot, EAA Experimenter, or Whatever It Is Called |
These ...
In a message dated 6/29/2005 3:02:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
> My little world is having a severe time drought!
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
>
Sorry to hear that. We have had 22" of rain so far this month alone. Or did
you mean Time Drought as in no time.:-)
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Donald Mize MKIIIxtra Crash and Fatality |
Hi Gang:
A non-flying friend sent me the info on Donald Mize MKIIIx accident
and fatality, in Dickson, TN. I do not think I knew this gentleman.
Nor do I know if it was he who was killed. FAA Accident Summary did
no say. Aircraft was registered in Jan 05, so is a relatively new
airplane.
Dickson, TN, is just WSW of Nashville.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for lost info. |
http://www.sargentcycle.com/chillivest.htm
| One was the Chilli Vest web site....(can't find it in the archives)
http://www.thetapeworks.com/gaffer.htm
The web site that had the strong, duct tape that came in several
different colors....
|
Mike: There you go.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flykolb" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Kolbers,
I have a 532 dual carb with point ignition. Any comments on going with the CDI
ignition from Airscrew?
Also, I'm thinking about going with a 618. Any comments?
Jim
Mark III
Charlotte, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
This isn't a troll.. I genuinely would like you builders to address this
issue...
NOWHERE does the FAA define what the phrase "engine driven electrical
system" (EDES) means.
I have encountered DARs that will allow an alternator, a battery,
electronic ignition, but if the plane doesn't have a starter, they'll claim
it doesn't have an "engine-driven electrical system" (EDES). Another DAR
won't allow electronic ignition, but will allow points ignition. Others
say the engine must have a generator, not an alternator, for it not to be
an EDES. And yet another will say a wind-driven generator is allowed to
power the electrical system, but if the engine has an alternator or
generator, then it isn't allowed.
Speaking from a PURE TECHNICAL position, if an engine possesses either a
generator or an alternator, and the power created by either one is used to
fire the spark plugs, it is TRULY an EDES. Yet it seems even back in the
30's, with radials that had generators, they were certified as not having
EDES because you had to hand-crank the engine to start it. But that's
certainly not how the regs are written, but at the time that was the litmus
test.
Today (and probably for the last 70 years), virtually 100% of all aircraft
engines -- including engines used on ultralights -- have EDES by the pure
technical definition. Whether you hand-prop it, or use a battery-powered
starter motor is TECHNICALLY irrelevant. But the DARs use wildly differing
criteria for "certifying" the aircraft as EDES or not. It's chaos and FUD
as only the government can create!
So, when I asked an FAA examiner at the FSDO about the reg, his answer was,
"oh, that only applies to factory-produced and certified aircraft." So, I
have an off-the-cuff comment from one guy at the FSDO which contravene's
all the DARs and the written regs. What's a poor pilot to believe?
It's going to be very interesting to see what kind of uneven hand the DARs
are going to apply to LSA-Experimentals, as to whether any given one is
EDES or not. I think we'll see a wide variety of arbitrary decisions,
which is not a good thing, not a good thing at all.
Does anyone here have any good news with respect to this issue?
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne T. McCullough" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net> |
While , I am building my Kolbra, I am still flying my 83 T-bird (Tierra 2).
I am using a 532 engine with belt reduction drive and Steve Beatty's CDI
ignition. I have had a total of 5 engine outs...(flying a heavy
glider...WILL improve your landing skills ....IMMEDIATELY) ...All of the
engine outs were found due to the ignition coil behind the flywheel breaking
wires in the coil itself.......As president of our local EAA club......we
unwound the winding and found out each time about 5 inches from the end
.....it broke internally.....all coils were installed with blue
threadlocker......
Just like turning it off.......thank God I was at altitude to have time to
decide where to put it.......
New Kolbra has 582 bluehead with E box.....and TWO ignition
systems.........I cannot wait....wish I had the money to put a 912S on
it........
Oh well..............
Wayne McCullough
----- Original Message -----
From: "flykolb" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: 532 engine
>
> Kolbers,
>
> I have a 532 dual carb with point ignition. Any comments on going with the
> CDI ignition from Airscrew?
>
> Also, I'm thinking about going with a 618. Any comments?
>
> Jim
> Mark III
> Charlotte, NC
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Donald Mize MKIIIxtra Crash and Fatality |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Any word as to cause of the accident?
Todd
On 6/29/05 4:45 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> A non-flying friend sent me the info on Donald Mize MKIIIx accident
> and fatality, in Dickson, TN. I do not think I knew this gentleman.
> Nor do I know if it was he who was killed. FAA Accident Summary did
> no say. Aircraft was registered in Jan 05, so is a relatively new
> airplane.
>
> Dickson, TN, is just WSW of Nashville.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bryan green <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
Robert Laird wrote:
>
>
>This isn't a troll.. I genuinely would like you builders to address this
>issue...
>
>NOWHERE does the FAA define what the phrase "engine driven electrical
>system" (EDES) means.
>
>
>
>
That is a great question Robert and one I have been thinking of
myself. I have a small gell cell installed in my plane to run the EIS,
radio and two small taxi lights. Since I will be trying to register my
Firestar as an ELSA hopefully in about 3 more months I will be watching
the replies to this one also.
Bryan Green Elgin SC
Firestar 447 BRS
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
I flew with a 532 and points for several years, and an Airscrew Performance
CDI for several years. Several memorable occurrences -
The 532 coils hook up different from the older 503's, 447's and 377's point
systems. If you use a "typical" Rotax wiring diagram when hooking the point
wires and ground wires to the coil, then you get the primary and secondary
systems reversed and it makes a really weak spark. What is bad is that it
will run like that for a while with new plugs, but quickly start to act up
and misfire, typically at the worst possible times. Guess how I know this?
Make sure you use a 532 wiring diagram to wire the 532 with the stock
ignition instead of a "generic Rotax" ignition system wiring diagram.
Bought a set of ignition points from Airstar Discount Sales the month
before flying to Oshkosh. Bad move. They look like "real" Rotax points, but
in just a few hours they had worn down and retarded the ignition to the
point that my flight to Oshkosh turned into a real enduro of engine
troubleshooting. On the other hand, maybe it's just as well the engine
wasn't making full power, because the mag end crankshaft seal they sold me
to go behind the magneto was failing by the time I got home, maybe full
power would have blown it completely out... Anyway, I would never buy
anything from them if I were you.
The Airscrew Performance CDI ignition worked very well for several years,
then developed a light and sporadic miss. After talking to Steve Beatty
several times on the phone, he had me snip off the ground wire from the
spark plug coil to ground and that solved the problem. Their CDI system is
advertised as having a retard function that allows you to have a really
slow idle, and it sort of works, but nobody actually idles a 532 at 800
-1400 rpm. But it does start very easily and idle very smoothly, it seemed
to make a hair more power and run a hair smoother than the points system.
I have since replaced it with a 90 series 582, it makes better power, much
better torque, will happily turn a bigger prop, uses a tad more fuel, but
it also uses regular fuel instead of premium, so you come out ahead.
Performance on the MKIII is excellent, and if you are content to fly 65 mph
at 5400 rpm, it will only burn 3.5 GPH.
Charlotte is not that far away, come fly with me.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Kolbers,
>
>I have a 532 dual carb with point ignition. Any comments on going with the
>CDI ignition from Airscrew?
>
>Also, I'm thinking about going with a 618. Any comments?
>
>Jim
>Mark III
>Charlotte, NC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Non Kolb Down! |
Not so well known, at least in aviation, is that John Walton and Ian Farrier
started a company called Corsair Marine, and which built a line of trimaran
sailboats.
So what?
These boats are all composite, with carbon, foam and glass laminates. They
weight much less than a monohull sailboat and have much larger wings, er,
sails. As a result, they're considerably faster. They handle like a good
sports car, and mine is considerably more fun than my FS II.
The designer's web site is www.f-boat.com.
Corsair's site is www.corsairmarine.com
Wouldn't have happened except for Mr. Walton.
Dave Paule
Boulder, CO
FS II (no name)
Corsair F-27 "Second Chance"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
Bob
Where are you going with this? Are you trying to avoid a transponder? Are
you just trying to get your airworthiness certificate?
If you are trying to avoid a transponder just say that you don't have enough
electrical power to SAFELY power a transponder.
If your trying to get a airworthiness certificate. Tell them that the reason
GA aircraft have two magnetos is that they were so unreliable they had to
have two to keep them in the air. Point ignitions were an improvement but
electronic ignitions are a order of magnitude better (more reliable) than
point ignitions. And most Rotax engines have dual redundant ignition
systems. Alternators are also much more reliable and lighter than generators
that's why all new GA aircraft have switched to alternators. Any DAR that
can't see that these are good things is stuck back in the 1940s.
My $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: EDES
>
>
> This isn't a troll.. I genuinely would like you builders to address this
> issue...
>
> NOWHERE does the FAA define what the phrase "engine driven electrical
> system" (EDES) means.
>
> I have encountered DARs that will allow an alternator, a battery,
> electronic ignition, but if the plane doesn't have a starter, they'll
> claim
> it doesn't have an "engine-driven electrical system" (EDES). Another DAR
> won't allow electronic ignition, but will allow points ignition. Others
> say the engine must have a generator, not an alternator, for it not to be
> an EDES. And yet another will say a wind-driven generator is allowed to
> power the electrical system, but if the engine has an alternator or
> generator, then it isn't allowed.
>
> Speaking from a PURE TECHNICAL position, if an engine possesses either a
> generator or an alternator, and the power created by either one is used to
> fire the spark plugs, it is TRULY an EDES. Yet it seems even back in the
> 30's, with radials that had generators, they were certified as not having
> EDES because you had to hand-crank the engine to start it. But that's
> certainly not how the regs are written, but at the time that was the
> litmus
> test.
>
> Today (and probably for the last 70 years), virtually 100% of all aircraft
> engines -- including engines used on ultralights -- have EDES by the pure
> technical definition. Whether you hand-prop it, or use a battery-powered
> starter motor is TECHNICALLY irrelevant. But the DARs use wildly
> differing
> criteria for "certifying" the aircraft as EDES or not. It's chaos and FUD
> as only the government can create!
>
> So, when I asked an FAA examiner at the FSDO about the reg, his answer
> was,
> "oh, that only applies to factory-produced and certified aircraft." So, I
> have an off-the-cuff comment from one guy at the FSDO which contravene's
> all the DARs and the written regs. What's a poor pilot to believe?
>
> It's going to be very interesting to see what kind of uneven hand the DARs
> are going to apply to LSA-Experimentals, as to whether any given one is
> EDES or not. I think we'll see a wide variety of arbitrary decisions,
> which is not a good thing, not a good thing at all.
>
> Does anyone here have any good news with respect to this issue?
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Using an Electric starter |
fly-ul(at)yahoogroups.com
Hi to all on the list,
Please consider this a heads up to everyone that has an electric starter on
their PLANE, PPC, PPG or what ever you may be flying. We have been seeing an
increasing number of expensive electronic equipment failures caused by high
voltage spikes. This problem is easily solved by simply installing a 15 cent
device called a diode that can be picked up at any Radio Shack. The coil
that operates the starter solenoid of your electric start circuit will induce
a
high voltage spike into your electrical circuits if not properly protected
with this diode. If you have a left right both type, switch the instructions
tell you how to do the installation of the diode. However, there are so many
variations of start switches being used that it doesn=E2=80=99t get mentioned
in all
of their instructions.
It is real easy to do, just wire the diode at the start circuit solenoid
activation terminal with the line on the diode toward that terminal on the
solenoid and the other end of the diode to ground. How simple is that? Might
save
you $$$$$.
PS: If you are using our Hot Box it had already been done for you.
Safe Flying,
Dick Kuntzleman, President
Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using an Electric starter |
I could but don't think it would make it on the list, I'll send you one off
list.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Using an Electric starter |
Dick,
I'm sure you would use a 4000 series diode as there more commonly available
In your suggestion, I assume that the activation terminal (connected to the
starter energizer switch) would be raised to 12 volts level when the
starter is to be activated, or is it taken to ground? Solenoids come in
both flavors so this can be confusing and the smoke will be let out of the
diode if placed in the wrong direction. (Folks, for safety make sure you
stay clear of the prop arc when wiring this.)
jerb
>
>
>Hi to all on the list,
>Please consider this a heads up to everyone that has an electric starter on
>their PLANE, PPC, PPG or what ever you may be flying. We have been seeing an
>increasing number of expensive electronic equipment failures caused by high
>voltage spikes. This problem is easily solved by simply installing a 15 cent
>device called a diode that can be picked up at any Radio Shack. The coil
>that operates the starter solenoid of your electric start circuit will
>induce a
>high voltage spike into your electrical circuits if not properly protected
>with this diode. If you have a left right both type, switch the instructions
>tell you how to do the installation of the diode. However, there are so many
>variations of start switches being used that it doesn=E2=80=99t get
>mentioned in all
>of their instructions.
>It is real easy to do, just wire the diode at the start circuit solenoid
>activation terminal with the line on the diode toward that terminal on the
>solenoid and the other end of the diode to ground. How simple is
>that? Might save
>you $$$$$.
>PS: If you are using our Hot Box it had already been done for you.
>Safe Flying,
>Dick Kuntzleman, President
>Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderwski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Using an Electric starter |
Hey Dick, what kind of diode, volt & amp rating?
Thanks,
Richard Swiderski
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dickk9(at)aol.com
fly-ul(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Using an Electric starter
Hi to all on the list,
Please consider this a heads up to everyone that has an electric starter on
their PLANE, PPC, PPG or what ever you may be flying. We have been seeing
an
increasing number of expensive electronic equipment failures caused by high
voltage spikes. This problem is easily solved by simply installing a 15
cent
device called a diode that can be picked up at any Radio Shack. The coil
that operates the starter solenoid of your electric start circuit will
induce a
high voltage spike into your electrical circuits if not properly protected
with this diode. If you have a left right both type, switch the
instructions
tell you how to do the installation of the diode. However, there are so
many
variations of start switches being used that it doesn=E2=80=99t get
mentioned in all
of their instructions.
It is real easy to do, just wire the diode at the start circuit solenoid
activation terminal with the line on the diode toward that terminal on the
solenoid and the other end of the diode to ground. How simple is that?
Might save
you $$$$$.
PS: If you are using our Hot Box it had already been done for you.
Safe Flying,
Dick Kuntzleman, President
Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> Winchester, IN(at)roxy.matronics.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ferrying the FireFly from Perryville, MO to |
Winchester, IN
FireFlyers & Kolbers,
I put up some photos on:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly118.html
The next page includes photos of the Victor 1+ problem that stopped the
flight.
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly119.html
Today, I scraped a little very soft carbon off the top of the piston and off
the upper exhaust port surface. No carbon under the rings. Cleaned the
plugs and then I put most of the engine back together. I am making a new
lower coolant hose support to over come a chaffing problem.
I did not include any photos of how the FireFly traveled the last 100 miles
in a truck. That will have to wait for another day.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear some opinions
on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from setting up and
taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of course there is going
to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly, and a 912 equipped Mark III
(wing loading).
How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you are flying?
Dave Bigelow
FS 2, 503 DCDI
Kamuela, Hawaii
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Sellers" <dsel1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Aloha Dave,
I fly an UltraStar which is comparable to your ship. It's hard to nail down
wind limits. If the wind is down the runway and constant, I don't mind a 25
mph wind but, If its gusty, I might decide to tru another time. If it is a
cross or quartering wind and gusty, a 10 mph wind can be hard to handle.
These machines are very affected by gusty wind. It blows them around like a
leaf. I would imagine that being out there in the middle of the Pacific,
you are always dealing with wind. All I can suggest is start off with mild
or no wind and work your way up to conditions that you feel comfortable
with. Experience level would play a major part in your limits and it would
be differend for every pilot. Experience and common sense are your friends.
That's the best advice I can give.
My $.02 worth.
Dale Sellers
Georgia UltraStar
----- Original Message -----
From: "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
>
>
> Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
> some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
> setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
> course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly,
> and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
> How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you
> are flying?
>
> Dave Bigelow
> FS 2, 503 DCDI
> Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Dave and others,
I used to fly in some pretty good winds of 25 mph. Just a couple of years ago I
took off in 20 mph winds and encountered 48 mph winds at 1700'. It took me a
half hour to fly 6 miles. I had fun flying backwards that day when I backed off
the throttle. It was weird to fly crosswind in a track looking over my shoulder
when the nose of the plane was pointed toward the wind. I didn't know the
winds would be that strong at altitude that day, but I did know that I would be
able to land directly into it when my short flight was over that day.
In later years, I pick my days and will not fly in winds over 20 mph. Since I have
an early Firestar, the wing loading is very light and I get bounced around
the sky quite a bit in heavy winds. So now I fly in fairly light winds under
10 mph. Last weekend I flew 130 miles in winds that were in the 10-15 mph range
and that was enough for me. It's not fun to be bounced all over when I'm doing
it for enjoyment. I would rather leave the plane in the garage and take the
motorcycle out for a ride on those windy days.
Ralph
Original Firestar
18 years flying it
-- "David L. Bigelow" wrote:
Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear some opinions
on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from setting up and
taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of course there is going
to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly, and a 912 equipped Mark III
(wing loading).
How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you are flying?
Dave Bigelow
FS 2, 503 DCDI
Kamuela, Hawaii
Get Juno Platinum for as low as $6.95/month!
Visit http://www.juno.com/bestoffer to sign up today!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Depends on the terrain you are flying in. A twenty mile wind in flat
country is not bad but a 15 mile wind in the mountains of E Tennessee can
be a real eye opener. Especially since all the ridges locally run SW-NE. If
the wind is out of the south west, up to 15 is tolerable, because then the
wind flows with the terrain. If it is out of the south east at more than
10, it is at 90% to the ridges, it starts rotoring across all the ridges
and mountains, and accumulating unsettled energy in the process. Then it is
not worth the trouble, do like Ralph said, go motorcycle riding.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
525 empty weight, Rotax 582
>
>Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
>some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
>setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
>course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly,
>and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
>How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you
>are flying?
>
>Dave Bigelow
>FS 2, 503 DCDI
>Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using an Electric starter |
Anything in the 1N400X series
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
>
>I'd like to hear some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter
you from setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area.
>
Dave,
While in Missouri, I hangared in the Mississippi River bottoms. If there
was a strong wind out of the west, I could not get the hangar doors open.
Winds coming off the bluffs create rotors and they can give you and exciting
ride. Also in the winter the air seems at times to just be rough close to
the ground.
Before I changed the ailerons and modified the aileron control linkages, I
would not fly the FireFly in winds over 10mph. The FireFly is stable and so
I did not have to worry about roll control at altitude, but I did not have
the strength to keep the wings level or side slip during gusty cross wind
approaches. After tuning the ailerons and roll control, I fly in 20 to 25
mph winds but not close to the ground. I climb to 2,500 to 3,000 feet agl
to get into smoother air. Pretty much I have had to fly in the middle of
the day when the air is most unstable. It took some getting use to. At
first it was just around the pattern and back on the ground. Then it was
two times around etc., until I could stay up 15 to 20 minutes. Slowly I
learned to cope with the rough air.
At first it bothered me to pass to and from altitude because of the bobbing
up and down and rolling from right to left. But after the modifications,
all it takes is slight sideways stick pressure to keep the wings level, and
I don't mind the bobbing up and down. The bobbing can be severe and I have
found that if my back remains in contact with the seat I remain comfortable.
I use twin shoulder belts, hip and crotch belts cinched up so that as the
FireFly dances on the bubble, I do not feel myself moving relative the
FireFly.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Dave,
MkIII - 582. I'm kind of a "fair weather" guy. Don't know exactly what
kind of winds I fly in, but when the wind sock is standing straight out
(15mph?) I quit. I don't like fighting things - I'm more of a "Peaceful
easy feelin's" flyer. However in Death Valley I did fly for a couple of
hours in 40mph winds at 2000'. On the deck it was 20 - 25 mph but I knew I
could land directly into the wind. I've never experienced cross wind
problems - always been able to handle it with no problems. But my biggest
concern with winds is putting the plane back into the trailer. I usually
fold it by myself and having the wings unpinned and on the wing stand with
the wind blowing can get pretty scary. I really try to avoid this situation
and won't take the wing loose in any kind of wind unless I have someone to
hold it.
AzDave
----- Original Message -----
From: "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
>
>
> Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
> some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
> setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
> course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly,
> and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
> How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you
> are flying?
>
> Dave Bigelow
> FS 2, 503 DCDI
> Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
The Ultra Stars being the lightest of the pack, I think, are even more susceptible
to windy conditions than our big brothers. My first US behaved pretty much
like the examples given here in the same mentioned wind conditions. I just couldn't
get comfortable with it so I lengthened both struts to get several degrees
wing dihedral and it made a world of difference in rough air control. I didn't
notice any difference in other performance. We all remember our model airplane
building where we used plenty of dihedral unless flying radio control for
aerobatics. I haven't put dihedral in the US I now have but I'm thinking about
it.
I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface would smooth
out any of the instability?
Richard Pike wrote:
Depends on the terrain you are flying in. A twenty mile wind in flat
country is not bad but a 15 mile wind in the mountains of E Tennessee can
be a real eye opener. Especially since all the ridges locally run SW-NE. If
the wind is out of the south west, up to 15 is tolerable, because then the
wind flows with the terrain. If it is out of the south east at more than
10, it is at 90% to the ridges, it starts rotoring across all the ridges
and mountains, and accumulating unsettled energy in the process. Then it is
not worth the trouble, do like Ralph said, go motorcycle riding.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
525 empty weight, Rotax 582
>
>Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
>some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
>setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
>course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly,
>and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
>How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you
>are flying?
>
>Dave Bigelow
>FS 2, 503 DCDI
>Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent Kolb Trip |
My thread was about an update on a recent trip I had completed and had
nothing to do about someone finishing a Kolb.>>
Sorry John,
my fault. I just hit `reply` after reading the last message.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent Kolb Trip |
Dale/All,
If we can't read about Kolb trips and such here, what's the point? I
say keep writing and posting about trips,
posting links to photos, building, etc.. Just MHO, kind sirs.
Ed in JXN (MI)
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Sellers" <dsel1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Recent Kolb Trip
>
> John and All,
> In my humble opinion, the discusions of trips are more suited to the
> matronics chat room than here.
>
> Dale Sellers
> Georgia UltraStar
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot2(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Recent Kolb Trip
>
>
> >
> >
> > Yes Russ, you are missing something.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
No apparent difference - at least not that I can tell.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface
>would smooth out any of the instability?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
>
>I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface would
smooth out any of the instability?
>
Ray,
On the FireFly I added vortex generators after I had replaced the 15 inch
chord ailerons with nine inch chord ailerons. I found VGs reduced the roll
twitchyness. They made the FireFly seem to have a much longer wing. They
increased aileron effectiveness. They have made the FireFly more
comfortable to fly in the middle of the day, and to take off and land in
cross winds.
If you would like to see how I made and installed them, they can be seen
starting at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly17.html
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Garvelink" <link(at)cdc.net> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Has anyone balanced the ailerons on there ultrastar and if so what kind
of results?
Steve Garvelink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray anderson
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
The Ultra Stars being the lightest of the pack, I think, are even more
susceptible to windy conditions than our big brothers. My first US
behaved pretty much like the examples given here in the same mentioned
wind conditions. I just couldn't get comfortable with it so I lengthened
both struts to get several degrees wing dihedral and it made a world of
difference in rough air control. I didn't notice any difference in other
performance. We all remember our model airplane building where we used
plenty of dihedral unless flying radio control for aerobatics. I haven't
put dihedral in the US I now have but I'm thinking about it.
I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface
would smooth out any of the instability?
Richard Pike wrote:
Depends on the terrain you are flying in. A twenty mile wind in flat
country is not bad but a 15 mile wind in the mountains of E Tennessee
can
be a real eye opener. Especially since all the ridges locally run SW-NE.
If
the wind is out of the south west, up to 15 is tolerable, because then
the
wind flows with the terrain. If it is out of the south east at more than
10, it is at 90% to the ridges, it starts rotoring across all the ridges
and mountains, and accumulating unsettled energy in the process. Then it
is
not worth the trouble, do like Ralph said, go motorcycle riding.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
525 empty weight, Rotax 582
>
>Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
>some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
>setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
>course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered
Firefly,
>and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
>How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb
you
>are flying?
>
>Dave Bigelow
>FS 2, 503 DCDI
>Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Steve,
I haven't found a need to balance the ailerons on either of my Ultra
Stars but I can't speak for others who have built and flown them. I would guess
that John Hauck would have a better knowledge of that since he was one of the
pioneer builders of the Ultra Star and probably has more time than others in
them.
Steve Garvelink wrote:
Has anyone balanced the ailerons on there ultrastar and if so what kind
of results?
Steve Garvelink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray anderson
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
The Ultra Stars being the lightest of the pack, I think, are even more
susceptible to windy conditions than our big brothers. My first US
behaved pretty much like the examples given here in the same mentioned
wind conditions. I just couldn't get comfortable with it so I lengthened
both struts to get several degrees wing dihedral and it made a world of
difference in rough air control. I didn't notice any difference in other
performance. We all remember our model airplane building where we used
plenty of dihedral unless flying radio control for aerobatics. I haven't
put dihedral in the US I now have but I'm thinking about it.
I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface
would smooth out any of the instability?
Richard Pike wrote:
Depends on the terrain you are flying in. A twenty mile wind in flat
country is not bad but a 15 mile wind in the mountains of E Tennessee
can
be a real eye opener. Especially since all the ridges locally run SW-NE.
If
the wind is out of the south west, up to 15 is tolerable, because then
the
wind flows with the terrain. If it is out of the south east at more than
10, it is at 90% to the ridges, it starts rotoring across all the ridges
and mountains, and accumulating unsettled energy in the process. Then it
is
not worth the trouble, do like Ralph said, go motorcycle riding.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
525 empty weight, Rotax 582
>
>Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
>some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
>setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
>course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered
Firefly,
>and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
>How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb
you
>are flying?
>
>Dave Bigelow
>FS 2, 503 DCDI
>Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Garvelink" <link(at)cdc.net> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Ray,
I am also an rc flyer and know first hand when you take the dihedral out
of a wing they spin a lot easier. The dihedral seem to make the models
a lot more stable and self righting. With enough of it you only need to
use elevator and rudder to initiate turns. Have often wondered why the
kolbs have none.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray anderson
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
Steve,
I haven't found a need to balance the ailerons on either of my
Ultra Stars but I can't speak for others who have built and flown them.
I would guess that John Hauck would have a better knowledge of that
since he was one of the pioneer builders of the Ultra Star and probably
has more time than others in them.
Steve Garvelink wrote:
Has anyone balanced the ailerons on there ultrastar and if so what kind
of results?
Steve Garvelink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray anderson
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
The Ultra Stars being the lightest of the pack, I think, are even more
susceptible to windy conditions than our big brothers. My first US
behaved pretty much like the examples given here in the same mentioned
wind conditions. I just couldn't get comfortable with it so I lengthened
both struts to get several degrees wing s and it made a world of
difference in rough air control. I didn't notice any difference in other
performance. We all remember our model airplane building where we used
plenty of dihedral unless flying radio control for aerobatics. I haven't
put dihedral in the US I now have but I'm thinking about it.
I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface
would smooth out any of the instability?
Richard Pike wrote:
Depends on the terrain you are flying in. A twenty mile wind in flat
country is not bad but a 15 mile wind in the mountains of E Tennessee
can
be a real eye opener. Especially since all the ridges locally run SW-NE.
If
the wind is out of the south west, up to 15 is tolerable, because then
the
wind flows with the terrain. If it is out of the south east at more than
10, it is at 90% to the ridges, it starts rotoring across all the ridges
and mountains, and accumulating unsettled energy in the process. Then it
is
not worth the trouble, do like Ralph said, go motorcycle riding.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
525 empty weight, Rotax 582
>
>Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
>some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
>setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
>course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered
Firefly,
>and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>
>How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb
you
>are flying?
>
>Dave Bigelow
>FS 2, 503 DCDI
>Kamuela, Hawaii
>
>
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nmatthew" <nmatthew(at)qwest.net> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Hello Dave-
My firefly is set up for rough weather, with good heavy wing loading.
Not too good for slow flight or fuel economy though. Usual take off
weight is about 540#, 40 # over gross. To me the predictability of the
surface winds and the actual prediction is as important as the current
conditions. For example here in Arizona in the summer we get thermals
and gusty weather mid morning that trails off when the sun starts
getting low. I might not take off at 9am with 10MPH gusty winds, while
15mph in the evening won't deter me, as some of the best flying includes
an Arizona sunset and I will likely have smooth air when I get close to
the hard ground again.
Matthew North
FF029 447
-----Original Message-----
I'd like to hear some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to
deter you from setting up and taking a recreational flight around the
local area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderwski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
I was at a gyro flyin with my old UltraStar. They were bragging about how
well their gyros fly in the wind but none of them were flying because of the
strong wing blowing at the time. I didn't say anything & just walked over
to my trusty Kolb & taxied 50ft to the tarmac & turned into the wind. I
gave partial throttle, held the brakes, them slowly added throttle. At about
4800rpm I lifted off vertical & hovered about 3ft off the ground long enough
to wave to the grounded gyros, then gave full throttle & flew off. My grin
didn't go away till the next morning.
not blustery). If the wind picked up pretty hard (20mph+) while I was out,
I would fly it into the ground at about 50, then hold forward stick at that
speed so I would remain pushed into the ground until I got to where I needed
to turn off. Once the tail came down it would be very difficult to go where
I wanted if it was 90 degrees to the wind direction. ...Richard Swiderski
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David L. Bigelow
Subject: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear some
opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from setting up
and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of course there is
going to be a difference between the 447 powered Firefly, and a 912 equipped
Mark III (wing loading).
How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb you are
flying?
Dave Bigelow
FS 2, 503 DCDI
Kamuela, Hawaii
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
I purchased a Kolb MK 3 that was destroyed when a hanger fell on it. When
rebuilding I noticed that the boom had been repaired. Upon investigation I
found the tube had broken in a trailering incident. Support the boom when
trailering. Don't let the plane sit on the tail wheel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
The Kolbs vertical center of gravity is well under the wing so they are
balanced naturally by their design. I added some extra dihedral into my
M3X. The plan is to have two sets of struts one will be inserted into
the wing tube. When on long cross country I will use the long one, for
fun and play I will use the short one. I am also thinking about a strut
with 1 or two degrees of negative dihedral. It will need to be tested
before I'd recommend it though. However all this stuff will have to
wait till I get it flying.
Ron
Sierra Vista Arizona
On Jul 1, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Steve Garvelink wrote:
>
> Ray,
>
> I am also an rc flyer and know first hand when you take the dihedral
> out
> of a wing they spin a lot easier. The dihedral seem to make the models
> a lot more stable and self righting. With enough of it you only need
> to
> use elevator and rudder to initiate turns. Have often wondered why the
> kolbs have none.
>
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray anderson
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
>
>
> Steve,
> I haven't found a need to balance the ailerons on either of
> my
> Ultra Stars but I can't speak for others who have built and flown them.
> I would guess that John Hauck would have a better knowledge of that
> since he was one of the pioneer builders of the Ultra Star and probably
> has more time than others in them.
>
> Steve Garvelink wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone balanced the ailerons on there ultrastar and if so what kind
> of results?
>
> Steve Garvelink
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray anderson
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying
>
>
> The Ultra Stars being the lightest of the pack, I think, are even more
> susceptible to windy conditions than our big brothers. My first US
> behaved pretty much like the examples given here in the same mentioned
> wind conditions. I just couldn't get comfortable with it so I
> lengthened
> both struts to get several degrees wing s and it made a world of
> difference in rough air control. I didn't notice any difference in
> other
> performance. We all remember our model airplane building where we used
> plenty of dihedral unless flying radio control for aerobatics. I
> haven't
> put dihedral in the US I now have but I'm thinking about it.
> I wonder if the little vortex generators (?) placed on the wing surface
> would smooth out any of the instability?
>
> Richard Pike wrote:
>
> Depends on the terrain you are flying in. A twenty mile wind in flat
> country is not bad but a 15 mile wind in the mountains of E Tennessee
> can
> be a real eye opener. Especially since all the ridges locally run
> SW-NE.
> If
> the wind is out of the south west, up to 15 is tolerable, because then
> the
> wind flows with the terrain. If it is out of the south east at more
> than
>
> 10, it is at 90% to the ridges, it starts rotoring across all the
> ridges
>
> and mountains, and accumulating unsettled energy in the process. Then
> it
> is
> not worth the trouble, do like Ralph said, go motorcycle riding.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> 525 empty weight, Rotax 582
>
>
>>
>> Lots of highly experienced Kolb flyers on this list. I'd like to hear
>> some opinions on how strong the surface wind must be to deter you from
>> setting up and taking a recreational flight around the local area. Of
>> course there is going to be a difference between the 447 powered
> Firefly,
>> and a 912 equipped Mark III (wing loading).
>>
>> How about posting your personal wind guidelines and the type of Kolb
> you
>> are flying?
>>
>> Dave Bigelow
>> FS 2, 503 DCDI
>> Kamuela, Hawaii
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>
>
Have a great day!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Dave,
I fly my firefly in wind up to 20...thats about the max for me...but on a
sunny day with spotty clouds...I might stay home due to rough air,with
little wind. Thats alot worse on me than just wind..when it gets too "bumpy"
so to speak.
Let me share a short story with you.
I decided to make a short "around the patch " video of flight in my Kolb.
The day was pretty windy, but slightly overcast. I decided to wait till
afternoon, maybe the wind will lay.
Went to the airpark and several fellas were standing around waiting to get a
flight but it was way to windy for them...challengers, Teams aircraft
(minimaxs, V-maxs, and a Eros) and quicksilvers were their birds. The wind
was just not cooperateing...getting on in the day but wind up to 20mph
steady, and directly 90 degrees from our 2500ft grass strip..Well these guys
were all talking about the terrible wind and getting kinda disgusted. Now, I
did not want to be accussed of being a daredevil or reckless, so I just
stood and listened to the jawin. I kept thinking that jeez, when I learned
to fly wayback when in Oklahoma,(30 years ago) we were happy to see just 20
mph of wind..and I thought no reason to look like a show off in front of
these my hangar mates. IF I just wait they will all go home and I will get
in my short flight and see if this video idea will work.
Some of the guys went home but some of the longer winded types just kept
talking. Finally I slipped away and pushed out the Kolb.
Wind now 20 and better ..but fairly steady. I made my flight..nary a hitch,
got my neat little video and when I landed They were all gone but the
airpark operator. I asked him where everybody went, and he said....well...2
left kinda disgusted...one said he was going to find a phone to call the
nuthouse for you, and the other 2 left talking about building a Kolb next!!!
Here is a link to the video I made that day, it on on my brothers RC model
website, as I couldnt figure out how to get it on my builders pages.
http://www.dgmodels.rchomepage.com/index.htm
scroll down and look for.."take a ride in the Flagfly" THe video quality is
not the best, but look at the windsock at the begining of the video..taken
from the cockpit getting ready to launch.
Just let me say this, with the comparatively heavy wing loading of a
FireFly, and its better than average controlability compared to other very
light designs. Its cross wind capacity is will let you fly when most other
cannot.
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2005 |
Hi Scott:
Thanks for the invite.
Not sure what I am going to do for Oshkosh, but if I get up your way,
I will certainly stop in for a visit.
Are you going to be able to fly down to OSH|?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Denny Rowe ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Denny Rowe
Lists: Kolb-List,Ultralight-List
Subject: Tony Oneals Mk-3 Extra he calls Puff
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/rowedl@highstream.net.07.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Cooper <sportflyer(at)emcity.net> (SquirrelMail authenticated |
user sportflyer) by webmail.emcity.net with HTTP; Sat,
2 Jul 2005 12:28:52.-0600(at)roxy.matronics.com (MDT)
| Subject: | Re: [ Denny Rowe ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Looking for used 912/912S. Cash buyer.
sportflyer(at)emcity.net
>
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Denny Rowe
>
> Lists: Kolb-List,Ultralight-List
>
> Subject: Tony Oneals Mk-3 Extra he calls Puff
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/rowedl@highstream.net.07.02.2005/index.html
>
>
> o Main Photo Share Index
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
> o Submitting a Photo Share
>
> If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include
> the following information along with your email message and
> files:
>
> 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
> 2) Your Full Name:
> 3) Your Email Address:
> 4) One line Subject description:
> 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic: 6)
> One-line Description of each photo or file:
>
> Email the information above and your files and photos to:
>
> pictures(at)matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Mike Pierzina ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Mike Pierzina
Lists: Kolb-List,Ultralight-List
Subject: Taxi for the inspector
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/planecrazzzy@yahoo.com.07.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Guys
Haven't flown my Firefly for a while. I consider the fact that it will
not turn up to normal rpm's with a 66 inch two blade or a 60 inch three
blade IVO to be a problem. It boggs down at 4k rpms with a 66 inch two
blade. Abt same with three blade.
The engine is a brand new "old" points 447 that came with an exhaust
wye but no muffler. Noticing that the mufflers were the same across all
engines; I installed one that I had from a 532 rotax.
The length from the exhaust port to the ball joint is 11 inches. From
there to the muffler is 20 1/4 inches. Muffler is 15 1/2 inches long and
the exhaust stub is 1 and one half inches long. I am wondering if I have
the wrong combination of exhaust parts installed?
I am in the process of checking seals, compression and timing. Herb
in Ky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
Sounds like we all have come pretty much to the same conclusions regarding how
much wind we like to fly in. I generally avoid anything above about 15 mph unless
it is down the runway and fairly steady. I've flown my Firestar with wind
up to 25 mph, and had no problem with control, but it just isn't much fun.
Taxiing crosswind or downwind with that much wind is a challenge. Also, I'm reluctant
to park nose into the wind and get out with anything above 20 mph - too
much of a chance of a gust picking up the nose and blowing the plane over.
Parking tail into the wind works, but the ailerons bang around a lot. I've thought
about making an aileron gust lock to carry in the plane. Single handed
rigging when exposed to wind over 15 is pretty exciting too.
I didn't like the spiral instability with my Firestar rigged with just the little
bit of dihedral per the plans. I set the dihedral at 3.5 degrees, which takes
away a lot of the busy work of keeping the wings level in turbulence and still
allows a nice snappy roll rate. I do find the VG's give a better and more
solid control feel in rough air. My Firestar is the best flying and most controllable
ultralight I've flown. It's well designed, tough, and I don't worry
about in flight structural failure. Hats off to Homer!
Thanks for all the feedback.
Dave Bigelow
FS 2, 503 DCDI
Kamuela, HI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bryan green <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Wind for Kolb Flying |
David L. Bigelow wrote:
>
>
> I've thought about making an aileron gust lock to carry in the plane. Single
handed rigging when exposed to wind over 15 is pretty exciting too.
>
> Hi Dave I carry a bungee cord with me when you park take a few turns around
the stick to get the right tension then attach it to the tubes on eather
side of the cockpit. It makes a nice light cheap control lock that you will not
forget to remove.
>
>
Bryan Green Elgin SC
Firestar 447 BRS
>Thanks for all the feedback.
>
>Dave Bigelow
>FS 2, 503 DCDI
>Kamuela, HI
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Taxi Requirement? |
Mike/Gang:
Sorry, I do not understand the requirement to taxi as a prerequisite
to a complete homebuilt inspection. For some, it may be the first
time the builder/owner has had a chance to taxi his new airplane. Be
a shame to break it at that time. I always felt better about feeling
out a new airplane by doing it when I am alone at my airstrip or other
strip that is not busy.
john h
Ft Campbell, KY (temporarily)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune |
Herb,
might be the weather, if it is as hot and sticky there as it has been in
illinois...
I flew last weekend in 97 degreee heat....real high humidity...noticed 6250
WOT on climbout instead of the 6500 I usually see the way I have the prop
adjusted. When I set it all up a few months ago, it was in much cooler temps
and lower humidity...so I resisted the temptation to unload the prop a tad
(Crank out a little pitch on that Ivo)
All that said....you still might have it a tad rich at midrange if it wont
"get over the hump" of 4k...which in that case, I might lower the needle a
notch...but watch the temps at cruise rpm setting.
BTW I am still running a 60 inch 2 blade....I dont have quite the room to
install the 66, thinking about cutting it back to 63 or 64 and trying
it....love those red blades!!!
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance. |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Don and all
This 447 has been this way from day one. I have flown it for 5 hours
with a 62 inch ivo but only get 6200 or so max. Plugs look just a bit
rich. One piston was completely covered with carbon and the other has a
splotchy pattern with completely clean areas. . One head was clean as new
and the other has carbon/oil build up.
I am in the process of checking it out today. I cannot find a method
to check crank end seals. Is it: close off exhaust port, install plug
and pressurize the case through the intake port. Piston all the way up?
Anyone know how much pressure to use? Cannot be much?
Herb
Ps Glad you liked the blades.
<donghe@one-eleven.net> writes:
> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
> Herb,
> might be the weather, if it is as hot and sticky there as it has
> been in
> illinois...
> I flew last weekend in 97 degreee heat....real high
> humidity...noticed 6250
> WOT on climbout instead of the 6500 I usually see the way I have the
> prop
> adjusted. When I set it all up a few months ago, it was in much
> cooler temps
> and lower humidity...so I resisted the temptation to unload the prop
> a tad
> (Crank out a little pitch on that Ivo)
>
> All that said....you still might have it a tad rich at midrange if
> it wont
> "get over the hump" of 4k...which in that case, I might lower the
> needle a
> notch...but watch the temps at cruise rpm setting.
>
> BTW I am still running a 60 inch 2 blade....I dont have quite the
> room to
> install the 66, thinking about cutting it back to 63 or 64 and
> trying
> it....love those red blades!!!
>
> Don Gherardini
> FireFly 098
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: evening flight in England |
In a message dated 6/24/2005 4:18:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com writes:
when the sun gets low the air stills.>>
Hi,
your post just hit the right note. Here is last nights flight.
It has been hot, by our standards, 80 to 90 for a week but with with a
strongish gusty South wind which unfortunately did not drop in the evening. No
flying.
Yesterday was the same except that the wind ceased. In the evening it was
beautiful.
My inspector had done my annual C of A the day before, leaving me to do the
flying checks. A timed climb from 1 to 2000 ft and a flight to VNE. This
should be done in smooth conditions and last night was perfect.
Flew at 7.30 pm from my strip, which really is a strip at the moment as the
runway is the only cut bit in a field of mowing grass. Climbed into a
cloudless sky with just a few little tickles from fading thermals. Did my climb
by
my stopwatch and then pushed the speed up to 100 mph. All straightforward.
Landed to check the plane over after pushing up to VNE and to read my
stopwatch. The dial of my cheapo imitation Brietling is too small to read without
changing glasses, a complication I can do without in an open cockpit.
Took off again, in shirt sleeves and shorts about 8.15pm. Did the climb
check again to confirm my stopwatch reading and then wandered of in a slow climb
to 3000ft agl.along the edge of Salisbury Plain looking for Crop Circles. The
visibility was around 20 miles with the lowering sun casting long shadows
across deep green fields. Columns of smoke from garden bonfires rose straight
up and there were a few tractors working on the farms below, getting in the
hay..
I flew along the Ridgeway, an old neolithic track, old when Stonehenge was
built, which stretches for miles across the rolling hills and with the
shadows being cast I could see the shapes if the hillcamps where the local tribes
lived before the Romans came, and the hillocks of the tumuli where their
warriors are buried.
Silbury Hill, the largest man made hill in Europe showed up to port. No one
knows what it was for but the Roman Road from Londinium to Aque Sulis (Bath)
goes ROUND it.
Just over there is the town in which I live, soft yellow limestone glowing
in the sunlight. Saxons lived there on the side of the river about 600 years
after Christ was born, and built one of the first churches in England. It is
still there. A Roman later built a fine villa overlooking the river. We know
because the tiled floor and the hypocaust and the foundations were discovered
under the school playing field a couple of years ago.
Just below me, in those hay fields, is the site of the battle of Ethandune,
now the village of Edington, where King Alfred defeated the Danes. A couple
of miles away is the old 1940`s airfield where I learned to fly and from
which as a boy, I watched the Stirlings and Horsa gliders leave for the Normandy
beaches and for the catastrophe of Arnhem
There is the huge ditch and embankment which runs across the Plain as far as
the Severn, more than a hundred miles. There is a legend that a ghostly
carriage and four black horses are sometimes seen galloping along it as the body
of a Queen of England is taken to her final resting place.
One of the eight White Horses cut in the chalk of the Wiltshire hillsides
drifted by underneath as I turned back towards the setting sun.
Peering into the sunset I could just make out about 15 balloons drifting
across the sky 10 miles away so I put in a dogleg so that I wasn`t flying blind
into the sun and throttled back for a quiet easy drift slowly downwards to my
field. Slight mist was just beginning to form in the valleys.
One of the other ultra lights on my strip was being tucked away in the barn
and another was just taxying in as I drifted on the downwind leg.
I made a long approach over a trailerload of hay which had been left right
in the way.
Smooth touchdown and taxy in.I cut the engine and enjoy a quiet moment
listening to the birds before climbing out and pushing my plane into its hangar.
Slight mist just condensing on the windscreen. It is 9.15pm.
Exchange a few words with the other pilots about a fly-in this weekend and
then home to a beer on the porch to watch the full moon come up, blood red and
huge, over the distant hills. It was so bright that watching the moon rise
was like watching a sunset in reverse. What a day!
Cheers
Pat
do not archive
and to this, I must add .............................wow!
George Randolph
Firestar driver from the Villages, Fla
ps I'd like to say ... been there done that, but, indeed, .... I've never
been to England, then, ....have I?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine |
In a message dated 6/21/2005 11:37:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rswiderski(at)earthlink.net writes:
My SPG-2 gear reduction is rated at 135hp
(4-stroke) & will work on either the 3 or 4 cyl as is, & on the Suburu with
a different adapter. The Suzuki's are fuel injected & have a bullet proof
reputation, though they will not have the smoothness of a flat 4.
Richard Swiderski
Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel & gaining on Big Lar
Is this a Malapropism ....er.....what??!!
George Randolph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | First Flight From I22 |
Kolbers,
The Victor 1+ is back together, and the FireFly is back in the air. A ten
minute flight which included a couple turns over my house and then over my
daughter's house, and then back to the airport. It was great to get back
into the air.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE:Taxi Requirement? |
Hey John/Guys,
That was my "Beef" too.....Why did I have to taxi it???? I already
did
the required taxi before the airworthiness inspection was set-up.....I
taxi'd it at my Granny's field....slow taxi only...I didn't want to fast taxi
til after
my airworthiness inspection....just incase it should get airborne...
My primary FAA (mido) inspector Eldon Griffin , who was a SOB about everything....
because he looks at REAL AIRPLANES....yeah, get over yerself Eldon...
Anyway , he told my DAR to witness the plane taxi...he said "to check the brakes"...
I told my DAR ( Tim Mahoney - Good Guy ) My plane doesn't even need to have brakes.
I have brakes but their not required....When Tim told my Primary Inspector that
he
could look at my plane...set-up in my yard...and it wasn't nessesary to watch
it
taxi....He was THREATENED that if he didn't do exactly what he (Eldon) wanted ,
he wouldn't be inspecting any planes in the future....
I'm just GLAD IT"S OVER.
It did taxi pretty good ...I have good tention on the tailwheel springs (compresstion)
Thanks to monitoring the "list"
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN N381PM
My Web Site:
http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html
Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down...
---------------------------------
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford" <beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance. |
Brother Gayheart...
Ah, the mighty 447.... I cannot explain why your engine will only produce
6200...you didn't mention whether that was full throttle in level flight, or
whether you had tried adjusting the IVO to finer pitch, or whatever... I'm
no Rotax guru, but I would venture to offer that I don't believe 5 hours
should have already produced appreciable carbon buildup on a 447 piston
crown. It did not on mine. I can offer that I have verified and
re-verified the info and advice provided to me on this list to the effect
that jetting, prop loading and carbon accumulation are all interrelated
(BFOO). As for the uneven distrubution of the carbon, have you checked to
make sure the carb is aligned so as to be perfectly vertical to the
engine...? (Not the airplane, but the engine...)
My Bing seems exceedingly sensitive to this alignment, and will deliver
uneven mixtures to the cylinders if tilted off-axis just the slightest
amount.
Good luck, Sir...
Beauford
FF #076
Brandon, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herb Gayheart" <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance.
>
> Don and all
> This 447 has been this way from day one. I have flown it for 5 hours
> with a 62 inch ivo but only get 6200 or so max. Plugs look just a bit
> rich. One piston was completely covered with carbon and the other has a
> splotchy pattern with completely clean areas. . One head was clean as new
> and the other has carbon/oil build up.
>
> I am in the process of checking it out today. I cannot find a method
> to check crank end seals. Is it: close off exhaust port, install plug
> and pressurize the case through the intake port. Piston all the way up?
> Anyone know how much pressure to use? Cannot be much?
>
> Herb
> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 6/23/2005 10:32:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kolbrapilot2(at)comcast.net writes:
It wasn't quite as primitive as I was ready for. I know John H. was worried
about me not getting my milk and donuts for breakfast, so check out this
picture of breakfast this morning:
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/100_3882.JPG.
John W, I can't thank you enough for this very revealing picture of a moment
in the life of....
Although I already know you from Swiderski's campfires at Sun n Fun ......
Now I REALLY think I know you!!
George Randolph
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance. |
Herb, check the jet , those washed off areas on that piston are a definate
indication of to rich a mix...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance. |
Herb,
ANother thought...
the washed off area on that piston...fuel not burning.raw fuel washing off
the piston..to rich..or...maybe weak spark on that coil....or the
plug......still a turn or 2 on the Ivo prop hub bolt should unload it and
then see if it will really wrap out...if not...I bet a buck its too rich or
a weak spark for either above reason
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance. |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Don , Bro. Beauford, all
The complicating factor is that it was run really rich for the first
few hours. The needle/clip was on the wrong side of the plastic keeper!
Bro. Pike diagnosed that for me. I tend to think that the carbon build
up was from that? I thought that finding the needle in the wrong
location would solve the problem? No luck.
Piston and rings and jugs are in good shape. Carb is aligned.
Compression was 117 and 120. How does that sound?
Straight and level, I see abt 6200 rpms. 62 inch two blade. Ivo.
Late this evening I buttoned it back up and moved on to timing and
ignition. Gonna make an insert for my dial indicator in the morning.
Thanks a bunch guys! :-) All asistance is appreciated. I haven't
flown for a month or more. Working on an N3 Pup also. Herb
<donghe@one-eleven.net> writes:
> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
> Herb, check the jet , those washed off areas on that piston are a
> definate
> indication of to rich a mix...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust tune/447 mal performance./die spring thrust tester |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Don , Bro. Beauford, all
You are correct, Don, in that it was run really rich for the first
few hours. The needle/clip was on the wrong side of the plastic keeper!
Bro. Pike diagnosed that for me. I tend to think that the carbon build
up was from that? I thought that finding the needle in the wrong
location would solve the problem? No luck.
Since this is a new, old ,points ign engine, it is possible the end
seals are bad. One guy who repairs them. promises me that that is the
problem.
Piston and rings and jugs are in good shape. Carb is aligned.
Compression was 117 and 120. How does that sound?
Straight and level, I see abt 6200 rpms. 62 inch two blade. Ivo.
Late this evening I buttoned it back up and moved on to timing and
ignition. Gonna make an insert for my dial indicator in the morning.
Thanks a bunch guys! :-) All asistance is appreciated. I haven't
flown for a month or more. Working on an N3 Pup also. Herb
ps something that might be of interest--In replacing the bungee gear
on my Pup with die springs; I came across some interesting info. Turns
out that an 10 inch , blue die spring, deflects one inch per hundred
pounds. should make a good, cheap, static thrust tester. Just make it
like a die spring gear leg and attach a 6 inch rule that reads in tenth
of an inch. Should be good to 450 lbs or so.
<donghe@one-eleven.net> writes:
> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
> Herb, check the jet , those washed off areas on that piston are a
> definate
> indication of to rich a mix...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2005 |
| From: | Scott Trask <sctrask(at)diisd.org> |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
on 7/2/05 7:54 AM, John Hauck at jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com wrote:
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> Thanks for the invite.
>
> Not sure what I am going to do for Oshkosh, but if I get up your way,
> I will certainly stop in for a visit.
>
> Are you going to be able to fly down to OSH|?
>
> john h
Hi John
Hope you can drop in this year via OSH. I will be flying the Kolb into OSH
hopefully with the guys. If I don't see you here I'll see you at OSH.
Scott Trask
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Tony Oneils Mk-3 for sale |
List,
Here is the vitals on Tony Oneals Mk-3 Extra , if you are looking for a ready to
fly Extra that is Extra SWEET, this may be your bird, he also may have components
you need.
Denny Rowe
PS: See the photoshare for pics posted recently.
Denny,
I finally got my rudder tab corrected. It flies with the ball centered.
Here is a list of the Mark III Xtra Cost items.
I would prefer to sell it as a whole if I can.
I want the buyer to sign a liability release document as a condition of sale.
The trailer is for sale also. It cost me about $7800
If you find an interested party have them email me or call my cell phone.
I have 17 hours on the airframe and engine at present.
Thanks
Tony
256-468-3021 cell
MARK III XTRA AIRFRAME
Kit 1 + Kit 2 TOTAL (Continental US) $11,558
MARK III XTRA AIRFRAME OPTIONS
Dual controls $450
Steel landing gear legs-pair, O'Brien brakes $425
Hydraulic disk brakes, single, O'Brien $630
Toe brake pedals, 2 master cyl., remote reservoir
Upholstery package, 2" molded, padded cushions only $325
Quick-build $3,695
Powder coat (white) All 4130 steel parts and fuselage tube $933
Powder coat dual control sticks (Second Stick Removable) $100
MARK III XTRA OTHER OPTIONS
BRS canister parachute - 1050 lb. rating $3,025 $3,025 I can
Shipping (from BRS) $98 $98 Remove
Poly-Fiber (Stits) Covering Kit $1,095 these Items
MARK III XTRA ENGINE OPTIONS
Rotax 912S Engine
Engine accessories (w/engine order)
(Accessories include Oil Cooler, Radiator, SS Exhaust, Kolb Accessory Kit)
TOTAL 912S ENGINE PKG. (Cont. US) $15,637 $15,637
PROPELLER OPTIONS
Warp Drive 3-blade, 70" dia., HPL hub, tapered tips $805 $805
4" prop spacer for 912 / 912S engine $295 $295
Ignition switch for electric starter (off-left-right-both-start) $95
INSTRUMENT OPTIONS
EIS Package, 4-stroke with built-in altimeter/ROC, wiring harness $735
3" Airspeed indicator $165
Custom wiring harness, available for FF, FS, Mark IIIC $178
Voltage regulator (only needed if installation has a battery $70
Dynon D10-A (10 instrument in one display) $2,000 $2,000
Ball type Bank Indicator $40 Cost of
Other Airframe
Paint $1,000 Less
Paint Labor $2,500 Engine
Graphics $1,200 BRS
Lynx Head sets, helmets & wiring $2,000 $2,000 Dynon D10A
ICOM radio and floor mount $1,000 $1,000 Headsets
Aircraft Ground Support Equipment to move airplane into trailers or hangers
$500 Radion
Total $50,554 $24,860 $25,694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: " Rotax 503 Failure Poll", changed to, "Unpowered and |
Powere...
In a message dated 6/28/2005 6:38:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com writes:
The glider pilot never had the option to abort a landing.<
Of course he does as long as he has sufficient thermal fuel.>>
Hi Kirk,
No glider pilot with `sufficient thermal fuel` ever, ever, ever, considered
landing. He cerainly can`t institute a `go-round` because he he decided at
400 feet that he has cocked up the approach.
Cheers
Pat
do not archive
and I say "hear, hear" to that .....it is the same reasoning that 2
sailboats within sight of each other on a lake constitutes a "race". No reason,
that
is just the way it is!!
George Randolph
Firestar driver from The Villages, Fla
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
Found this in my mail about the Walton crash....
http: www.jhnewsandguide.com/News.html
ED in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Walton crash |
At 02:08 PM 7/3/2005, you wrote:
>
>Both Kennedy JR and Walton should have other qualified people help
>them. People like these who are of great benefit to society should have
>some responsibility to the society, and they need to understand that
>having a professional around to help them is the right thing to do.
>Two great pillars in our society died because they neglected that
>social responsibility. As is their right to do.
>
>Here's a detailed article about the crash from
>one of the Jackson Hole newspapers.
>
>
>By Angus M. Thuermer Jr.
>=A9 Jackson Hole News&Guide
>Walton's friends said the Wal-Mart heir, called
>by Forbes the 11th richest man in the world and
>worth about $18 billion, bought the plane several
>weeks ago on the East Coast. They said he
>attempted to fly it from Virginia to Wyoming.
>
>Along the way, Walton was forced to make a hard
>landing when the plane suddenly dropped from
>about 30 feet up. What forced the plane down is
>uncertain, but the impact damaged the landing gear, the sources said.
>
>One source said the plane went down in Nebraska.
>That incident forced Walton to haul the plane on
>a trailer the rest of the way to Jackson Hole.
>Once here, Walton, an experienced pilot who is
>also reported to have built his own motorcycle, worked to fix the problems.
>
>Friends of John T. Walton said Tuesday the
>aircraft he died in made a hard, forced landing
>that damaged landing gear as the Wal-Mart heir
>flew the ultra light from Virginia in recent weeks.
>
>The sources said Walton purchased the
>experimental aircraft from an owner in Virginia
>who constructed the plane in his garage. Walton
>had a troubled flight from Virginia and ended up
>towing the plane on a trailer the final leg to
>Jackson Hole, said the friends, who did not want
>their names included in this story.
>
>Walton died when the plane crashed at about 12:20
>p.m. on Monday after taking off from Jackson Hole
>Airport. He was its only passenger.
>
>The National Transportation Safety Board
>identified the "accident vehicle" as a CGS Hawk
>Arrow, which it called "an experimental,
>kit-built airplane." Michael Collins, a flight
>instructor at Jackson Hole Aviation who looked
>the plane over in a hanger before its final
>flight, said a Rotax engine powered it.
>
>After first turning the investigation over to
>Grand Teton National Park because of the nature
>of the aircraft, the federal agency reversed
>itself on Tuesday and decided it would lead a probe.
>
>Investigator Aaron Sauer of the NTSB's regional
>office in Denver made an initial examination of
>the wreckage on Tuesday and discussed the crash
>with National Park Service officials and local
>FAA inspectors. Sauer is the investigator in charge, the NTSB said.
>
>Officials at the NTSB were unavailable for
>comment Tuesday afternoon, and Sauer did not return a message left by phone.
>
>First flight after repairs
>
>The fatal flight on Monday was likely the first
>flight following repairs, they said.
>
>Walton crashed about a third of a mile north of
>the Jackson Hole Airport and 200 yards west of
>Highway 191. Witnesses said the plane was
>circling when it dove sharply into the ground.
>
>Rain clouds surrounded Jackson Hole, and wind
>from the south was gusting to 13 mph about two
>hours after the crash. Planes on Tuesday
>afternoon were landing and taking off to the
>south. The orientation of the crash and debris
>was consistent with the path of an aircraft approaching for a landing.
>
>While the cause of the crash remains unknown,
>community members recognized Walton as a
>soft-spoken, intelligent and low-key
>philanthropist dedicated to improving education.
>He also loved the outdoors: He skied the Jackson
>Hole backcountry and went on mountain bike trips to Moab, Utah.
>
>"He was really a quiet kind of private, humble
>guy," said Jack Shea, head of Teton Science
>Schools, who took Walton on his first hike to the
>summit of 10,086-foot-high Mount Glory for a ski
>descent. "He was a dedicated dad, a great husband
>to Christy, smart and talented as hell.
>
>"He was the kind of guy I wouldn't mind being
>stuck on a desert island with," Shea said. "You
>knew you would survive. He could fix anything. He
>was a great conversationalist."
>
>Walton's son, Lukas, graduated this spring from
>Teton Science Schools' Journeys School. Walton
>was a financial contributor to that institution,
>but also pitched in on parents' workday, Shea said.
>
>One day he spent five hours constructing a fence
>to keep balls from going into an irrigation
>ditch, Shea said. "That was the kind of guy he was," he said.
>
>Carol Peck, a member of the board of Public
>Education Coalition, was impressed by Walton's
>depth of knowledge of education. Walton served at
>least four years on the board, even though his son attended a private school.
>
>"He was there because of his interest in public
>schools and the kids in the community," she said.
>Walton never flaunted his wealth or knowledge.
>
>"If you didn't know his background, you would
>have absolutely have no clue" he was rich or an
>expert in education, she said. "He didn't want to
>set the stage until other people discussed an
>issue. When asked, he was always interested in
>sharing his knowledge, which was very substantial."
>
>Gary Weiss, chairman of the Public Education
>Coalition, said Walton's inspiration led him to
>accept the leadership post. "His view is rising
>tides lift all boats," Weiss said. "We all need
>to work together =AD that message came loud and
>clear. It has been a touchstone for the PEC, and he'll be missed."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Peterson" <b1bookie(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Re: boom failure |
I have been lurking on this list for about seven years and really have enjoyed
the subjects and the williness of all to help each other. I believe I can contribute
something to this list in regards to the 'boom tube' subject.
I had bought an 'Firestar' that was built in 1989 of which I am the fourth owner.
After building new seven ribed wings with a 503 I was ready to do some 'fast
taxies' and get used to the plane. The previous owners had a problem with 'nose-overs'
as was fairly typical reported by some on this list.
I was in to my fast taxie at about 40 mph when the nose went skidding into the
ground and came to a halt. I turned off my engine and couldn't figure out what
had happened. I stepped out of the 'bird' and the nose came back up only to see
that the tail boom had bent totally in half. After closer examination, I found
that the 'H' brace located inside the boom had failed. The sleive that is
welded to each side of the curved brace had broken at the weld. This slieve is
what the bolt goes through to hold the boom to the frame. I don't believe I could
have visualy seen the fatigue unless it were to show up around the aluminum
tube itself. I'm not trying to blame the bracing system, but I was wanting
to imform those that may have had numerous 'nose overs' that this could be a potential
problem especially for the ealier models.
I thank God that I hadn't gotten 'air-born' or I probably wouldn't be here to report
this. Anyway, if this prompts some of you to do a real through inspection
in this area and you find something, then this post will be worth something.
Thank you .......Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: woody <duesouth(at)govital.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: boom failure
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:26:47 -0400
>
>
>
> I purchased a Kolb MK 3 that was destroyed when a hanger fell on it. When
> rebuilding I noticed that the boom had been repaired. Upon investigation I
> found the tube had broken in a trailering incident. Support the boom when
> trailering. Don't let the plane sit on the tail wheel.
>
>
--
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Walton crash/Flap Handles |
| Since there has been a fair amount of rumor on the Kolb list about
Walton's
| crash, it would probably be good to hear what Chuck Slusarczyk has
to say
| about it.
| Richard Pike
Richard P/All:
Thanks for the info. Chuck's comments sound much closer to actuality
than any of the "reporters" version of what lead up to the Walton
accident. As far as the cause of the accident, let's leave that up to
the experts.
Some of us that fly MKIII's, especially earlier versions, have had the
flap handle pop out of the detent on short final, just as John
Walton's Hawk did. When this happens, the aircraft will drop a short
distance causing the pilot to have a small heart attack. My fix was
to use a 5/32" chain saw file to cut a slight gap in the flap handle
stop. I believe the flat plate on the flap handle was heated to some
degree at the factory. This was to make it a spring to hold itself
into the detent system. Sometimes us club fisted pilots would pull
the handle to the side away from and down, bending the flat plate so
it would not seat in the detent. I had to take mine off and rebend it
to make it work correctly. That was a long time and many landings
ago. I use my flaps on every landing except when I am flying in high
wind and a great deal of turbulence.
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: boom failure |
After closer examination, I found that the 'H' brace located inside
the boom had failed. The sleive that is welded to each side of the
curved brace had broken at the weld. | Thank you .......Bill
|
|
Morning Bill P/Gang:
I am a little confused on your description of the tailboom "H" brace.
In particular, the part you refer to as "the curved brace". Can you
describe in further detail this "curved brace"?
The "H" braces I am familiar with, tail boom and wing, are straight
tube 4130 welded in the shape of an "H". No curved (bent) tubes
utilized in constructing the "H".
john h
titus, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: boom failure |
Maybe some more information on the airplane that he has/had would
increase credibility like a sn # etc... .
On Jul 4, 2005, at 6:12 AM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> After closer examination, I found that the 'H' brace located inside
> the boom had failed. The sleive that is welded to each side of the
> curved brace had broken at the weld. | Thank you .......Bill
> |
> |
>
> Morning Bill P/Gang:
>
> I am a little confused on your description of the tailboom "H" brace.
> In particular, the part you refer to as "the curved brace". Can you
> describe in further detail this "curved brace"?
>
> The "H" braces I am familiar with, tail boom and wing, are straight
> tube 4130 welded in the shape of an "H". No curved (bent) tubes
> utilized in constructing the "H".
>
> john h
> titus, alabama
>
>
Have a great day!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | N3 - Die Spring Gear |
Herb,
If your doing it right, the die spring type gear modification on the N3
will make a world of difference. My hangar mate put it on his N3 and it
worked great. Next item is to dump those bicycle brakes, put some band
brakes on it. There light and more effective but not so strong to easily
cause a nose over. What are you running for an engine? Email me back direct.
jerb
>
>Don , Bro. Beauford, all
>
> You are correct, Don, in that it was run really rich for the first
>few hours. The needle/clip was on the wrong side of the plastic keeper!
> Bro. Pike diagnosed that for me. I tend to think that the carbon build
>up was from that? I thought that finding the needle in the wrong
>location would solve the problem? No luck.
>
> Since this is a new, old ,points ign engine, it is possible the end
>seals are bad. One guy who repairs them. promises me that that is the
>problem.
>
> Piston and rings and jugs are in good shape. Carb is aligned.
>Compression was 117 and 120. How does that sound?
>
> Straight and level, I see abt 6200 rpms. 62 inch two blade. Ivo.
>
> Late this evening I buttoned it back up and moved on to timing and
>ignition. Gonna make an insert for my dial indicator in the morning.
>
>
> Thanks a bunch guys! :-) All asistance is appreciated. I haven't
>flown for a month or more. Working on an N3 Pup also. Herb
>
> ps something that might be of interest--In replacing the bungee gear
>on my Pup with die springs; I came across some interesting info. Turns
>out that an 10 inch , blue die spring, deflects one inch per hundred
>pounds. should make a good, cheap, static thrust tester. Just make it
>like a die spring gear leg and attach a 6 inch rule that reads in tenth
>of an inch. Should be good to 450 lbs or so.
>
>
><donghe@one-eleven.net> writes:
> > <donghe@one-eleven.net>
> >
> > Herb, check the jet , those washed off areas on that piston are a
> > definate
> > indication of to rich a mix...
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: boom failure |
|
|
| Maybe some more information on the airplane that he has/had would
| increase credibility like a sn # etc... .
Ron/All:
To the best of my knowledge, "H" braces have been constructed in the
same manner since March 1984, with the exception of the initial
MarkIII's begininning in Jan 1991. These were constructed of aluminum
tube rather than 4130. My MKIII is SN: M3-011. One of my
responsibilities at the Kolb Factory during this time frame was to
inspect MKIII fuselages after they were welded. My first airframe was
M3-001 which was going to Rudy Doctor. Got to meet Rudy a couple
years ago at Lakeland.
Wasn't looking for credibility, but what this particular "H" brace
looked like based on its failure and the fact it did not sound like a
standard Kolb "H" brace. If it was a non-standard item, it may have
contributed to the failure.
I snapped off a tailboom tube in a crash of my MKIII at the aft end of
the "H" brace. The aluminum "H" brace held up well with just a tad of
the aft legs of the "H" brace protruding out the end of the broken
tail boom tube.
Take care,
john h
MKIII - First flight March 1992.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N3 - Die Spring Gear |
In a message dated 7/4/2005 2:53:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
If your doing it right, the die spring type gear modification on the N3
will make a world of difference. My hangar mate put it on his N3 and it
worked great.
Where would one acquire the die spring gear?
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N3 - Die Spring Gear |
Note, Herb posted something about the gear he installed on his N3 Pup, not
a Kolb. Maybe he would post the picture of his to the Kolb list or to his
web space with a link. The gear on the N3 pup attaches in more
conventional manner for tube and fabric aircraft, different than the
typical socket mount used on the Kolb. Could it be adapted,
probably. Probably would be lighter than the aluminum legs but heavier
than the custom tempered chrome moly gear legs being manufactured by some
builders.
jerb
>
>In a message dated 7/4/2005 2:53:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
>If your doing it right, the die spring type gear modification on the N3
>will make a world of difference. My hangar mate put it on his N3 and it
>worked great.
>
>Where would one acquire the die spring gear?
>
>Howard Shackleford
>FS II
>SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N3 - Die Spring Gear |
In a message dated 7/4/2005 11:59:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
Note, Herb posted something about the gear he installed on his N3 Pup, not
a Kolb. Maybe he would post the picture of his to the Kolb list or to his
web space with a link. The gear on the N3 pup attaches in more
conventional manner for tube and fabric aircraft, different than the
typical socket mount used on the Kolb. Could it be adapted,
Wasn't inquiring for aa Kolb; it's a plane w/ gear similar to a Pup w/
bunjii.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Martin" <kolbdriver(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Selling Ultrastar |
Hi Guys,
Since my engine was ripped off in May, I'll be selling the Ultrastar
airframe at the Arlington fly-in this weekend. When I met many of you at
Monument Valley, I hoped that showing you its pics would help me find a
little of its history. No luck there. I bought the plane in Mississippi
and it had been modified by adding tapered wings, a pod and windscreen, 503
engine and a great landing gear.
I've no idea how much to ask for the airframe. It all seems to be in good
condition, Stits OK, full complements of instruments. Any ideas??
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Pictures of todays flight |
Greetings Kolb fans,
Below is a link for pictures I took today when flying around the SW desert.
Some of the picture show the Mexico-US border.
http://members.aol.com/firestartwo/today/
Enjoy
Guillermo Uribe
El Paso, TX.
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Low EGT Temps On Two Stroke |
| I noticed my engine is running a little rich
| Guillermo Uribe
Wil/Gang:
Two strokes are special engines and require special attention and
tuning.
Here's how I do it, right or wrong, it works for me.
1-Check the Rotax Tuning Chart. Gives correct main jet and needle
clip position for a given temperature range. Make sure your engine is
set up that way. When they come from the Rotax Factory, they have
been run, checked, and signed off for a "standard" day. I forget what
the temp parameters are, but they should be in the book somewhere.
2-Make sure the float and fuel needle are in good shape and doing
their job. Insure the float level is set correctly.
3-Make sure air filter is cleaned and oiled correctly.
4-Now.........do a static rpm check. Tie the airplane down, make sure
it is up to operating temp, then run it for a period of time at WOT.
I can't remember what I used for static rpm, but it was around 6200 or
6300 rpm range.
5-Replace the spark plugs with new ones, correct heat range.
6-Fly the airplane, WOT, straight and level flight, rpm should just
touch the red line for max continuous flight, which is 6,500 rpm if I
remember correctly (IIRC). The two stroke EGT is STRONGLY influenced
by prop loading. Too light and the EGT goes up. Too much prop
loading, engine is not turning max continuous rpm at WOT straight and
level, the EGT will be low. Dial the prop in as I described and your
egt's should be within the green.
I am not saying this is THE WAY to do it, but it is the way I have
done it successfully for many years.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N3 - Die Spring Gear |
In a message dated 7/5/2005 12:33:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
herbgh(at)juno.com writes:
I have .dwg files for the die spring gear if anyone wants them.
Scale em up or down. Herb
I would like the dwg files, please.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Peterson" <b1bookie(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Re: boom failure |
John and all............I will try and photograph this in the next few days which
will be better than a discription.
Thanks...........Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron <CaptainRon1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: boom failure
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:45:50 -0700
>
>
>
> Maybe some more information on the airplane that he has/had would
> increase credibility like a sn # etc... .
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2005, at 6:12 AM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> >
> > After closer examination, I found that the 'H' brace located inside
> > the boom had failed. The sleive that is welded to each side of the
> > curved brace had broken at the weld. | Thank you .......Bill
> > |
> > |
> >
> > Morning Bill P/Gang:
> >
> > I am a little confused on your description of the tailboom "H" brace.
> > In particular, the part you refer to as "the curved brace". Can you
> > describe in further detail this "curved brace"?
> >
> > The "H" braces I am familiar with, tail boom and wing, are straight
> > tube 4130 welded in the shape of an "H". No curved (bent) tubes
> > utilized in constructing the "H".
> >
> > john h
> > titus, alabama
> >
> >
> Have a great day!
>
>
--
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mid range heat |
Ted & Gene,
If your still on this list what size main jet did you use with this needle
for the Rotax 447?
jerb
>
>Ted,
>Based on your recommendation, I have been using the 11G2 needle in my
>447 which solved my heating problems also. It works rather well since
>I've put about 250 hrs on the engine with this needle and I have had no
>concerns about overheating as long as I adjust appropriately for the
>cooler winter weather in Ohio.
>Gene
>On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:11 AM, Terry wrote:
>
> >
> > Ted Cowan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> well, I solved the mid range problems with my 447s a long time ago.
> >> many
> >> wont agree with my method but it works great. I simply took a needle
> >> that
> >> was supposed to be on a 582 and put it in the single carb on the 447.
> >> solved the problem. I would have to pull the carb to check the needle
> >> number if you need it. It has a different shape in the center of the
> >> needle
> >> than the one recommended for the 447 and is a little bit thicker I
> >> believe.
> >> Would have to check the difference again. I use the mid notches and
> >> it
> >> stays in the 1100-1150- range throughout the year. no problemo. ted
> >> cowan.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Ted,
> >
> > I was wondering how long it would be before your responded to the
> > thread on mid
> > range carb problems. I took your advice two years ago and have been
> > using that
> > needle ever since, year round in my 447 on my FireFly. Got a couple
> > of my
> > friends to use it also. The number is 11G2 for the needle.
> >
> > So you see, some of us out there were listening!
> >
> > Terry - FireFly #95
> >
> > P's. Sorry your giving up your Baby.
> >
> >
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene D. Ledbetter" <gdledbetter(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mid range heat |
jerb.
I didn't change the main jet so it's the standard jet that came with
the 447. I've never changed the main jet yet but I have not
installed my intake silencer yet which will require a main jet
change. Temps continue to be almost too cool. I'll have to drop it
a notch the next time we go flying.
Gene
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:49 AM, jerb wrote:
>
> Ted & Gene,
> If your still on this list what size main jet did you use with this
> needle
> for the Rotax 447?
> jerb
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cowan <trc1917(at)direcway.com> |
thanks. didnt think anyone remembered me. I do miss my little kolb
firestar but I get over it every time I mount that great big high seated
SlingShot of mine. It might not have a 912 but it pushes my little body
quite well. You are right about the 582 needles. As John H. would say, it
works for me, might not for you. You gotta find your own way with a bunch
of guidance. What was weird to me was Kolb factory used to advise putting
the 582 on a tilt, one inch up in the back and now they dont even tell you
about it. I have mine at 7/8" up in the rear and raised up on 2" risers to
clear my wing fold (just barely clears). Soooo, check the archieves for
info, adjust to fit your particular needs, and test, test, test. NEVER take
one individuals word for anything. Do one change at a time and only small
changes. Keep records of the changes so you can go back or mix and match to
fit. Stay in the flight envelope you are used to and fits the plane. And
to all of you who think turning off the sound on your engine is cool -- YOU
ARE CRAZY. There is a multitude of reasons why that thing might not restart
and you are going to have the flight of your life -- maybe litterly. I
always practice with the engine on, just slightly higher than idle. That
produces what a call zero pitch. No push, no drag. It has worked on
several engine outs. Almost the same. You fuse will pitch up or down
depending and you can get used to it in your mind. Do what you want but I
do not like silence, sam I am.
Another note: "Go Casey" Right on brother. He was not a god, just a
man. Had more money but that dont make him better, smarter or whatever, I
mean, heck, he didnt buy a Kolb now did he? Ted Cowan, Alabama
Do not archieve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tenn Metfan <tnmetfanbeckett(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Grass landing strip question |
Hello to all on the list,
I have read and appreciated all your advice, and banter for over 3 months now.
This is my first "post".
I have a real question, but please bear with me while I "indulge" for a few moments...
I have been smitten with flight since my earliest age. Model planes abounded. First
"real" flight, was hang gliding (go figure), hours on the practice hill were
worth that first solo (circa 1987)!! Then, a Cessna 152 in 1988 (age 26).
Got to solo it too, then found the grassroots... Ultra lights. Bought a Sorrell
Hyper light. Cute little red bi-wing. Taxied it for hours, then, lift off for
a quick "round the patch" flight. Emergency landing prep in the 152 suddenly
became handy. On the first downwind leg, engine out (crappy 277 engine)... did
all the usual stuff, landed safe. Folks on the ground even thought it was intentional!
Not quite.
Well, I began my quest for a homebuilt aircraft in 1994. And my first visits to
Oshkosh and Lakeland found me adoring the Kolbs. But money was tight, so I had
to wait... and wait... and wait.
Well, here I am, almost 12 years later. 11 Oshkosh visits (never got back to Sun'n'fun),
and have considered every craft out there. But are you surprised to
hear, the one that stays at the top of the list, is the Kolb? Despite the change
of ownership over the years, they still seem to maintain impeccable stature
in the light plane community.
Now, (finally) to my question.
After all these years, I think, I can afford a plane. And Kolb, has won the vote
(want a Mark III X, but think a Fire Star II is best for starters). I wanted
to have a home-based flight line, hanger, and strip. And after years of searching,
finally (just) bought 20 acres that I hope will house this dream. But though
it appears to be adequate for a home-based airstrip... I (in my quest for
safety) feel I should ask for the opinions of those that know best.
I will have a 1000' clear strip, with 400' on each end (to clear 50' obstacles).
Is this enough for practical operations? As I peer out, and dream of flights
of fancy, can never avoid the thought about safety. Guess that first Ultra light
flight taught me a lesson!
What are your opinions about grass strip lengths (adequate for a Kolb), or any
other opinions, are all welcome!
I plan to be at OSK again this year, in the campground area. Anyone else going?
Thanks in advance for all your help!
Mike Schnabel
Manchester, Tennessee
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grass landing strip question |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
I will be there on Thursday and Friday Camping.
Todd
On 7/6/05 9:24 PM, "Tenn Metfan" wrote:
>
>
> Hello to all on the list,
>
>
> I have read and appreciated all your advice, and banter for over 3 months now.
> This is my first "post".
>
>
> I have a real question, but please bear with me while I "indulge" for a few
> moments...
>
>
> I have been smitten with flight since my earliest age. Model planes abounded.
> First "real" flight, was hang gliding (go figure), hours on the practice hill
> were worth that first solo (circa 1987)!! Then, a Cessna 152 in 1988 (age
> 26). Got to solo it too, then found the grassroots... Ultra lights. Bought a
> Sorrell Hyper light. Cute little red bi-wing. Taxied it for hours, then, lift
> off for a quick "round the patch" flight. Emergency landing prep in the 152
> suddenly became handy. On the first downwind leg, engine out (crappy 277
> engine)... did all the usual stuff, landed safe. Folks on the ground even
> thought it was intentional! Not quite.
>
>
> Well, I began my quest for a homebuilt aircraft in 1994. And my first visits
> to Oshkosh and Lakeland found me adoring the Kolbs. But money was tight, so I
> had to wait... and wait... and wait.
>
>
> Well, here I am, almost 12 years later. 11 Oshkosh visits (never got back to
> Sun'n'fun), and have considered every craft out there. But are you surprised
> to hear, the one that stays at the top of the list, is the Kolb? Despite the
> change of ownership over the years, they still seem to maintain impeccable
> stature in the light plane community.
>
>
> Now, (finally) to my question.
>
>
> After all these years, I think, I can afford a plane. And Kolb, has won the
> vote (want a Mark III X, but think a Fire Star II is best for starters). I
> wanted to have a home-based flight line, hanger, and strip. And after years of
> searching, finally (just) bought 20 acres that I hope will house this dream.
> But though it appears to be adequate for a home-based airstrip... I (in my
> quest for safety) feel I should ask for the opinions of those that know best.
>
>
> I will have a 1000' clear strip, with 400' on each end (to clear 50'
> obstacles). Is this enough for practical operations? As I peer out, and dream
> of flights of fancy, can never avoid the thought about safety. Guess that
> first Ultra light flight taught me a lesson!
>
>
> What are your opinions about grass strip lengths (adequate for a Kolb), or any
> other opinions, are all welcome!
>
>
> I plan to be at OSK again this year, in the campground area. Anyone else
> going?
>
>
> Thanks in advance for all your help!
>
>
> Mike Schnabel
>
> Manchester, Tennessee
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II passenger |
Larry Cottrell wrote:
>
>I My questions to
>
>
>>the Firestar II pilots on the list (and I am sure this
>>has probably been asked before) what was your weight
>>and what was the heaviest passenger you have flown
>>with and did you feel the plane handled that well?
>>
>>
>
>Hi,
> I kept waiting for someone else to respond to your question, since I
>didn't want to incriminate myself unnecessarily. I have flown My Firestar ll
>at a gross weight of 785 and the only thing is that you will burn more fuel
>and it flies a lot like a 150 on a hot day. I am not suggesting that you
>disregard the gross weight, that is a choice that no one but you can make. I
>do suggest strongly that you check to see what your stall speed is with your
>passenger and keep well above it. Keep your elevator and aileron inputs
>gentle and refrain from any "Watch this".
>Larry, Oregon
>
A couple of additional points:
On the assumption that the plane will be registered as a homebuilt
experimental, you as the mfgr, not Kolb, get to set the gross weight.
Does not mean to be reckless with the number, just that *you* control
the number on your paperwork. Set it too high & actually fly at the
too-high weight & you might die. Set it lower than the gross weight you
actually fly it at & you might lose your license. If you carry
insurance, they almost certainly won't pay if they discover it's been
flown above the 'paper weight'.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ElleryWeld(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Grass landing strip question |
Tenn Metfan You get a kolb You will be happy forever I use many 750 ft
strips with plenty of room
I am in a firestar and hoping to move into a 2 place the wife likes to fly
Also I will alwas be a Kolb User if my wife wants to fly with me she will have
to get in a Kolb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Grass landing strip question |
Sounds almost identical to my strip...
http://www.kilocharlie.us/images/briarpatch_large.jpg
Flew a RANS S7 out of it regularly as well as a Challenger 2 ultralight
(with my 270 lb. brother on several cool mornings...) and a Kolb will
best both of those birds in the short takeoff department...so no
problem. Have had 2 different Kolbs land at my strip as well.
That being said, when you do your first flights, go to a longer strip.
Practice there till you are comfortable with the plane then bring it
home.
Jeremy Casey
-----Original Message-----
From: Tenn Metfan [mailto:tnmetfanbeckett(at)yahoo.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Grass landing strip question
Hello to all on the list,
I have read and appreciated all your advice, and banter for over 3
months now. This is my first "post".
I have a real question, but please bear with me while I "indulge" for a
few moments...
I have been smitten with flight since my earliest age. Model planes
abounded. First "real" flight, was hang gliding (go figure), hours on
the practice hill were worth that first solo (circa 1987)!! Then, a
Cessna 152 in 1988 (age 26). Got to solo it too, then found the
grassroots... Ultra lights. Bought a Sorrell Hyper light. Cute little
red bi-wing. Taxied it for hours, then, lift off for a quick "round the
patch" flight. Emergency landing prep in the 152 suddenly became handy.
On the first downwind leg, engine out (crappy 277 engine)... did all the
usual stuff, landed safe. Folks on the ground even thought it was
intentional! Not quite.
Well, I began my quest for a homebuilt aircraft in 1994. And my first
visits to Oshkosh and Lakeland found me adoring the Kolbs. But money was
tight, so I had to wait... and wait... and wait.
Well, here I am, almost 12 years later. 11 Oshkosh visits (never got
back to Sun'n'fun), and have considered every craft out there. But are
you surprised to hear, the one that stays at the top of the list, is the
Kolb? Despite the change of ownership over the years, they still seem to
maintain impeccable stature in the light plane community.
Now, (finally) to my question.
After all these years, I think, I can afford a plane. And Kolb, has won
the vote (want a Mark III X, but think a Fire Star II is best for
starters). I wanted to have a home-based flight line, hanger, and strip.
And after years of searching, finally (just) bought 20 acres that I hope
will house this dream. But though it appears to be adequate for a
home-based airstrip... I (in my quest for safety) feel I should ask for
the opinions of those that know best.
I will have a 1000' clear strip, with 400' on each end (to clear 50'
obstacles). Is this enough for practical operations? As I peer out, and
dream of flights of fancy, can never avoid the thought about safety.
Guess that first Ultra light flight taught me a lesson!
What are your opinions about grass strip lengths (adequate for a Kolb),
or any other opinions, are all welcome!
I plan to be at OSK again this year, in the campground area. Anyone else
going?
Thanks in advance for all your help!
Mike Schnabel
Manchester, Tennessee
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Lift Strut Fitting Mods |
| I found an easy method to eliminate the lift strut rattle.
| -BB
Bob B/Gang:
Had problems with my Ultrastar and Firestar. The holes in the lift
strut fittings would elongate in a short period of flying. We solved
the problem on the Firestar when we went from round aluminum lift
struts to 4130 strealined struts. Brother Jim drilled out the old
holes to accept bushings cut to fit the slots, top and bottom of the
lift strut. An AN bolt and nyloc nut with a couple washers snug up
the fittings to airframe and wing.
Did the same thing for the MKIII. No slop in lift strut fittings in
well over 2,000 flight hours.
I remember someone on the Kolb List making a comment to the effect
that since we had made the lift strut connections rigid, we had now
weakened the system. Hope not. I need those lift struts.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass landing strip question |
| Sounds almost identical to my strip...
| http://www.kilocharlie.us/images/briarpatch_large.jpg
| Jeremy Casey
Hi All:
Jeremy has a nice airstrip, right in his front yard. Landed there
many times. Wish I had the same setup.
Gantt International Airport has been in existence since 1984. Started
out as unimproved 650 ft cow pasture. Only work done to it in the
beginning was bush hog the grass and weeds. Eventually got around to
leveling and stretching to 750 ft, if you use every possible inch of
it. Approaches and departures are complicated with tall trees to the
north and powerline and bushes on the south. I taught myself to fly
fixed wing off this strip. Enough room to fly passengers in and out
of it. Initially, it is intimidating, but gets to feeling normal
after a landing or two. Best to land north and takeoff south, winds
permitting.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lift Strut Fitting Mods |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
That seems worrisome; So you either get flexibility in the system and
elongation of the holes or you tighten it up and weaken the system?
Surely there is a better engineering solution than that?
Todd
On 7/7/05 9:07 AM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
>
> | I found an easy method to eliminate the lift strut rattle.
> | -BB
>
> Bob B/Gang:
>
> Had problems with my Ultrastar and Firestar. The holes in the lift
> strut fittings would elongate in a short period of flying. We solved
> the problem on the Firestar when we went from round aluminum lift
> struts to 4130 strealined struts. Brother Jim drilled out the old
> holes to accept bushings cut to fit the slots, top and bottom of the
> lift strut. An AN bolt and nyloc nut with a couple washers snug up
> the fittings to airframe and wing.
>
> Did the same thing for the MKIII. No slop in lift strut fittings in
> well over 2,000 flight hours.
>
> I remember someone on the Kolb List making a comment to the effect
> that since we had made the lift strut connections rigid, we had now
> weakened the system. Hope not. I need those lift struts.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grass landing strip question |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Got a picture of it John? Mine is 1000 feet with 70 foot trees on either
end.
Todd
Reason for selling the 172 as a matter of fact. No matter how much silk I
pour into it the sow's ear smell will always persist. ;)
I need a Maule but they are wayyyyy too expensive and the Kolbs are
prettier.
One last thing, which routing did you take north and south when you
circumnavigated? I am trying to flight plan a trip out to Sacramento and I
wanted to minimize altitudes across the mountains. Direct takes me up to
MEAs of 18000' and the old 172 aint gonna git it.
On 7/7/05 9:13 AM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> | Sounds almost identical to my strip...
> | http://www.kilocharlie.us/images/briarpatch_large.jpg
> | Jeremy Casey
>
> Hi All:
>
> Jeremy has a nice airstrip, right in his front yard. Landed there
> many times. Wish I had the same setup.
>
> Gantt International Airport has been in existence since 1984. Started
> out as unimproved 650 ft cow pasture. Only work done to it in the
> beginning was bush hog the grass and weeds. Eventually got around to
> leveling and stretching to 750 ft, if you use every possible inch of
> it. Approaches and departures are complicated with tall trees to the
> north and powerline and bushes on the south. I taught myself to fly
> fixed wing off this strip. Enough room to fly passengers in and out
> of it. Initially, it is intimidating, but gets to feeling normal
> after a landing or two. Best to land north and takeoff south, winds
> permitting.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lift Strut Fitting Mods |
| That seems worrisome; So you either get flexibility in the system
and
| elongation of the holes or you tighten it up and weaken the system?
|
| Surely there is a better engineering solution than that?
|
| Todd
Todd/All:
I believe our system of attachment works well. With nearly 2,300
flight hours on the bushed lift strut fittings there is no slop. They
are still as snug as they were when we made them.
I don't believe we weakened the system by rigidly attaching the lift
struts. However, someone else did.
I think the fact that our system has provided excellent service over a
long period of flight is proof enough for me that we have not weakened
the system. The individual that made the comment that we had weakened
the system never provided any substantiating data other than his
comment that we had gone the wrong way.
My lift struts are absolutely not worrisome to me.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lift Strut Fitting Mods |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Did Kolb ever adopt the design? I mean the proof is in the pudding. If Miss
P'Fer can handle the trips she has in the turbulence and other conditions, I
am a believer.
On 7/7/05 9:35 AM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> | That seems worrisome; So you either get flexibility in the system
> and
> | elongation of the holes or you tighten it up and weaken the system?
> |
> | Surely there is a better engineering solution than that?
> |
> | Todd
>
>
> Todd/All:
>
> I believe our system of attachment works well. With nearly 2,300
> flight hours on the bushed lift strut fittings there is no slop. They
> are still as snug as they were when we made them.
>
> I don't believe we weakened the system by rigidly attaching the lift
> struts. However, someone else did.
>
> I think the fact that our system has provided excellent service over a
> long period of flight is proof enough for me that we have not weakened
> the system. The individual that made the comment that we had weakened
> the system never provided any substantiating data other than his
> comment that we had gone the wrong way.
>
> My lift struts are absolutely not worrisome to me.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass landing strip question |
| Got a picture of it John? Mine is 1000 feet with 70 foot trees on
either
| end.
|
| Todd
Todd/All:
Yes, I have a photo of my airstrip, but don't have time to post it
now.
I would not be comfortable flying out of a 1,000 ft strip with 70 ft
trees on each end. My strip has trees on the north end, but far
enough from the threshold to allow me to make a 90 degree turn before
I reach them.
I generally fly where I want to. John W and I have crossed the
Rockies many times. Max altitude required to get across the Sierra
Nevadas was 14,500 ft. If you don't want to go over, pick the nearest
pass.
Gary Haley flew the pass from Reno west along I-80 a month ago. I
flew south along US-395.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight.Kottke(at)hti.htch.com |
10:06:45 AM,
Serialize complete at 07/07/2005 10:06:45 AM,
Itemize by SMTP Server on HUDOMGW1/HTI(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at
07/07/2005
10:07:17 AM,
Serialize by Router on HUDOMGW1/HTI(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 07/07/2005
10:07:21 AM,
Serialize complete at 07/07/2005 10:07:21 AM
Captain John H./others:
I previously reported hard landing my Firestar and bending up my leg
sockets. I am nearing completion of that project and I am thinking of
switching to steel legs. I have two questions ya'll.
1. How did you transition the steel legs to the Kolb axle assembly?
2. Removing the old aluminium legs from the steel socket can be a real
pain in the glutious maximus. Putting a steel leg into a steel socket
could be worst. Are you plating or painting the legs after heat treating
for easy removal?
Dwight Kottke
The Flying (repairing) Farmer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
| Captain John H./others:
| 1. How did you transition the steel legs to the Kolb axle
assembly?
| 2. Are you plating or painting the legs after heat treating
| for easy removal?
|
| Dwight Kottke
Hi Dwight/All:
Must have me mixed up with someone else. I am just plain ole John H.
The rank part was dropped 25.5 years ago when I retired and put on
civvies. ;-)
To answer your questions:
1-Fabricated gear leg/axle sockets to fit the new gear legs.
2-4130 rust by quickly glancing at it. I prep with phosphoric acid
etch, diluted to what ever is on the jug. Prime with epoxy primer,
then shoot the finish coat. May have to hold off on finish paint on
that part of the leg that is inserted into the socket. No problem on
removing gear legs later on down the road.
I cut my legs for the original Firestar to 35.5", shoving them all the
way into the socket until they hit bottom (at the intersection of the
two sockets). I believe the factory is still cutting them to fit
halfway into the socket which automatically turns them into a shear on
extremely hard landings or crashes.
Make the gear leg/axle sockets stout. That is what failed on my MKIII
5 years ago at Muncho Lake, BC, but only after many, many hard, heavy,
club fisted landings.
Need more info, just holler.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
`For those Kolbers planning XC trips across mountain areas -- try
using a road map for route planning!
The 4-lane builders will have picked the lowest suitable pass and
that's what you want too. Also, you'll have a hundred-mile runway
beneath you 'just in case'. Works for me.
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot2(at)comcast.net> |
Russ and all,
If you follow the roads, you might as well just drive.
Airplanes were made to go where the roads don't.
John W.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
> Russ and all,
>
> If you follow the roads, you might as well just drive.
> Airplanes were made to go where the roads don't.
Ah! Spoken by someone who has a 912ULS pushing them around the air column!
Methinks that Russ was referring to novice-XC-over-mountains fliers, and maybe
especially those with less reliable powerplants.
But, it's an interesting question that I'd love to hear from everyone about: do
you fly IFR (I-Follow-Roads) when doing XC's, or do you just tear off into the
unknown, over piney forest, craggy mountains, grizzly-den'd wilderness, endless
desert, vast inland seas, alligator-infested swamp, or do you wimp-out/be
sensible (take your pick) and follow more forgiving terrain that would, in your
judgement, provide a more hospitable landing-out and/or proximity to recovery
resources?
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country or Follow Roads |
| Ah! Spoken by someone who has a 912ULS pushing them around the air
column!
| -- Robert
Robert L/Gang:
The 912UL and 912ULS added a tremendous amount of reliability to our
sport. Couple those engines with a good ole Kolb airplane and one is
almost unlimited where they can fly safely.
Two stroke days, one would have a hard time convincing me to fly any
where I could not make a good forced landing area. Throughout all the
engine failures with the two strokes, I was always where I needed to
be to make a good forced landing, except a couple times. Then.......I
was able to get a restart shortly before crash time. BTW only had one
two stroke forced landing that was caused by catastrophic engine
failure. The rest were fouled plugs, fuel filters, spark plug wire
disconnecting in flight from an inverted Cuyuna, aircleaner going
through a wooden prop, etc.
The aircraft commander/pilot in command is the one that makes the
ultimate decision on where the airplane flies. When I make a decision
to fly over terrain that is not suitable for a successful forced
landing or water, I am agreeing to accept the results should the motor
decide to stop. As a back up I have a BRS ballistic parachute that
might be a good idea is it looks like I am going to have to try and
land in tall trees, rocky terrain, glaciers with big holes in them,
etc.
For the most part, we fly cross country, if we can not go through it
or over it, then I will follow what ever is necessary to make a good
flight and keep the aircraft commander happy. ;-)
Take care,
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
Russ,
Famous LAST words of scores of late departed dumb pilots.
John Williamson wrote:
Russ and all,
If you follow the roads, you might as well just drive.
Airplanes were made to go where the roads don't.
John W.
---------------------------------
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country and Following Roads |
| The 4-lane builders will have picked the lowest suitable pass and
| that's what you want too. | Russ Kinne
Russ K/Gang:
Well, almost the lowest suitable pass.
Learned on my first flight to Alaska, 1994, from local bush pilots,
when the ceiling comes down:
1-Follow the road. If that does not work..........
2-Follow the rail road. If that does not work...........
3-Follow the river.............This is the lowest suitable terrain,
followed by the rail roads, then the highway passes.
I have done all of the above during my short period of flying in
Canada and Alaska. Watch out for cables strung across the rivers and
creeks though. Folks in the Far North are famous for stringing them
up for trolleys to get across the river. Most are not on the
Sectionals. Even if they were, you will be so busy flying and
maintaining terrain clearance you will not have time to look at a
Sectional.
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country and Highways |
|
| Russ,
| Famous LAST words of scores of late departed dumb pilots.
Ray A/Gang:
Please qualify the statement you made, above, about "dumb pilots"?
From down here in Alabama looks like you are putting every pilot that
flies over inhospitable terrain in the "dumb pilot" category? Is my
assumption correct?
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
PS: I took the liberty to change the subject line a little. At first
I was not going to have this one put in the archives, but after a
second thought, it probably has a place in there for future reference
for those contemplating committing cross country flight in their Kolb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country and Highways |
To all,
I have flown as much as anybody in "straight line" cross country since
1935, but in aircraft capable of crossing inhospitable terrain safely ,ie, proven
engines with power to handle the situation. Most likely a certified aircraft
engine in good condition. My reference to late departed dumb pilots were
those and those now living who are not smart enough (dumb) to educate themselves
in what is required to do "straight" line flying safely. There are hundreds
and hundreds of new, low time, unprepared pilots with unreliable two cycle engines
and marginal aircraft out there who are not ready for such, and when one
gets into trouble, we all suffer.
< Airplanes were made to go where the roads don't.>
In my humble opinion, a statement like that, even in jest, might encourage a beginner
to want to show he's cool and macho and strike out across deadly terrain
before he's ready in experience and equipment. There's nothing wimpy in using
common sense where called for. Nothing cool and macho in tempting fate either
under some circumstances. What's that old statement, something like this.
'There's lot's of bold pilots but not many old bold pilots'.
In the case of my statement, it's a case of where the shoe fits.
John Hauck wrote:
|
| Russ,
| Famous LAST words of scores of late departed dumb pilots.
Ray A/Gang:
Please qualify the statement you made, above, about "dumb pilots"?
From down here in Alabama looks like you are putting every pilot that
flies over inhospitable terrain in the "dumb pilot" category? Is my
assumption correct?
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
PS: I took the liberty to change the subject line a little. At first
I was not going to have this one put in the archives, but after a
second thought, it probably has a place in there for future reference
for those contemplating committing cross country flight in their Kolb.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross Country Routes |
>
>Robert and all,
>
>I changed the title:
>
A word from the "five gallon" club. If you are going to go some where,
often times you have to fly over rough country, and it is imperative to fly
the shortest distance to stretch the fuel. By cruising at 3,000 feet agl,
the FireFly will glide about three miles with the engine off.
From ferrying the FireFly, I found the biggest problem is running into
unexpected wind conditions, from which you could run out of fuel before
reaching your expected destination. The safety net is the gps and a timer
on the stick. I start the timer at lift off and I watch the gps reading for
expected flight time to arrive at the next gas stop. If the stick timer and
expected flight time added together exceed my fuel capacity burn time, I
have to divert. I punch up the nearest way points starting with the ones
closest to my destination. If the sum total of stick timer and expected
flight time fall with in limits, I continue on. If not I bump to the next
less desirable destination and try again. This works well in the midwest
because just about every county has an airport so that the next nearest
airport is about thirty miles away.
I learned this process while trying to fly from Perryville to Painton,
Missouri to my EAA Chapter 453 meetings. Two or three times, I had to turn
around because I did not have enough fuel to fly 54 miles.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
If I might chime in on this thread; one of the reasons why I don't own a
Rockwell Commander or something 'faster' and I chose a 172 but want to sell
it and buy a Kolb is because I realized that after flying Caravans and Beech
1900s that I will never own anything which can compete with what I can buy a
$250.00 ticket to fly on if what I want is fast.
So if that is the case and I still want to engage in my passion of flying
across the land, then I bettered go the route of the 'safest' airplane I can
find. Since spec made airplanes don't routinely shed parts and engine
failures and fuel exhaustion are the biggest worries, I determined that the
shortest I could land safely the better. Helios are way out of my price
range and they lack the visibility I want. Can't afford maintenance on an
OH-6 and I prefer airplanes anyway. So in the end I want something that if
the need arises can land in a football field. I can consistently get the 172
down and stopped in 3-400 feet of runway.
As long as you are not pushing the single engine night issue, a 3-400 foot
stopping distance affords you a lot of options. So that said, and aside from
ideas of crossing the Everglades single engine (I would opt out on that one)
I think the best planes for tearing off into the unknown or wilderness are
small single high lift airplanes that are carrying a good pack for
contingencies. I don't fear deserts or grizzly's as long as I have thought
through the possibilities before hand and as has been said before, Fly a Cub
or Kolb or T-craft along the interstates and minimize your time over the
crags and you really are picking the widest margin for the greatest utility
and fun.
For the Everglades, I think I would pick and AirCam, but at $80K that's a
bit beyond me.
Todd
On 7/7/05 6:20 PM, "Robert Laird" wrote:
>
>
>> Russ and all,
>>
>> If you follow the roads, you might as well just drive.
>> Airplanes were made to go where the roads don't.
>
> Ah! Spoken by someone who has a 912ULS pushing them around the air column!
>
>
> Methinks that Russ was referring to novice-XC-over-mountains fliers, and maybe
> especially those with less reliable powerplants.
>
> But, it's an interesting question that I'd love to hear from everyone about:
> do you fly IFR (I-Follow-Roads) when doing XC's, or do you just tear off into
> the unknown, over piney forest, craggy mountains, grizzly-den'd wilderness,
> endless desert, vast inland seas, alligator-infested swamp, or do you
> wimp-out/be sensible (take your pick) and follow more forgiving terrain that
> would, in your judgement, provide a more hospitable landing-out and/or
> proximity to recovery resources?
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: q & straying off topic) |
Todd Fredricks wrote:
>
>If I might chime in on this thread; one of the reasons why I don't own a
>Rockwell Commander or something 'faster' and I chose a 172 but want to sell
>it and buy a Kolb is because I realized that after flying Caravans and Beech
>1900s that I will never own anything which can compete with what I can buy a
>$250.00 ticket to fly on if what I want is fast.
>
>So if that is the case and I still want to engage in my passion of flying
>across the land, then I bettered go the route of the 'safest' airplane I can
>find. Since spec made airplanes don't routinely shed parts and engine
>failures and fuel exhaustion are the biggest worries, I determined that the
>shortest I could land safely the better. Helios are way out of my price
>range and they lack the visibility I want. Can't afford maintenance on an
>OH-6 and I prefer airplanes anyway. So in the end I want something that if
>the need arises can land in a football field. I can consistently get the 172
>down and stopped in 3-400 feet of runway.
>
>As long as you are not pushing the single engine night issue, a 3-400 foot
>stopping distance affords you a lot of options. So that said, and aside from
>ideas of crossing the Everglades single engine (I would opt out on that one)
>I think the best planes for tearing off into the unknown or wilderness are
>small single high lift airplanes that are carrying a good pack for
>contingencies. I don't fear deserts or grizzly's as long as I have thought
>through the possibilities before hand and as has been said before, Fly a Cub
>or Kolb or T-craft along the interstates and minimize your time over the
>crags and you really are picking the widest margin for the greatest utility
>and fun.
>
>For the Everglades, I think I would pick and AirCam, but at $80K that's a
>bit beyond me.
>
>Todd
>
A little good natured disagreement (only with your 1st paragraph):
One of the reasons I bought something 'faster' was to easily beat the
airlines. Pick any pair of non-hub cities less than 1000 miles apart &
I'll bet I can beat the airlines, actual origin to actual destination,
(not loading ramps) about 80-90% of the time & I don't have to put up
with some minimum wage felon getting paid a federal executive's salary
telling me to bend over so he can inspect my orifices. Living in a
non-hub city means $250 tickets are rare as hen's teeth, as well.
To top it off, I've only seen one airliner get upside down & I get to do
it just about any time the mood strikes during a trip. :-)
BTW, the Aircam truly deserves an 'awesome ride' label. I had the
intense pleasure of flying around about 20' above the MS River for about
40 minutes a few years ago & never had to worry about getting wet. 2
rotax 912S's on an 'ultralite'! Single engine? No problem. Helicopter
performance? Pretty close. What a blast!
Charlie
Flying RV-4, wishing for a Kolb for after-supper flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country and Highways |
My reference to late departed dumb pilots were those and those now
living who are not smart enough (dumb) to educate themselves in what
is required to do "straight" line flying safely.
Hi Ray A/Gang:
Guess I know what category I fall into. ;-)
I love to get in my little airplane and go exploring. Some of the
best was experienced during the 15 day flight in May. I flew along
side a two stroke powered Firefly over terrain that made my knees weak
flying in a very reliable 4 stroke. Was a truly exciting two hour
flight over the Canyonlands National Park, Utah.
There is a certain amount of risk in most everything we do. I am
somewhat of an adrenalin junky. Always have been as long as I can
remember. That is why I have hobbies like flying, riding dirt bikes,
mountain biking, big old heavy powerful antique tractors. All that
machinery makes my heart race and fills me with excitement. I can see
my demise from a broken neck as the result of a fall while getting up
in the dark and trying to find a place to take a leak while on a very
long cross country flight in my little MKIII. hehehe
BTW: The saying you were trying to remember goes:
There are old pilots and bold pilots,
But no old, bold pilots.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I remember hearing it.
I don't think what John W or I say on this List will influence anyone,
one way or the other to head out over the Pocanos or the Brooks Range
in a two stroke powered Firestar unprepared. Maybe we can plant a
seed that will sprout and they, the young, inexperienced pilots, will
be able to adequately prepare for and execute some truly exciting
cross country flights, not necessarily in a straight line either.
Straight lines can be very boring.
Take care,
john h
PS: However, I have flown the Pocanos twice in my 447 two stroke
powered original Firestar, 1988 and 1989. Also the Blue Ridge,
Appalacians, the mountains in North Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, NE
Texas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and a few others I can not
remember right now. Did a lot of those same mountains in a two stroke
powered MKIII that has been 4 stroke powered since 1994. Could not
have done it if I had not pushed the throttle forward and pointed the
nose the direction I wanted to go. Never had any idea I could fly all
the way to New York State in 1988, until I did it. If I had not taken
a chance, I would still be sitting here at hauck's holler wishing I
had. Got an old friend told me about 5 years ago that a lot of men
die never realizing their dreams. My old friend convinced me to make
a second attempt to fly to Point Barrow, Alaska in a span of one year.
Sure am glad I did. Thanks Grey Baron.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country and Highways |
At 11:26 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
>
>Life shouldn't be a journey to the grave with the
>intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well
>preserved body, but rather, to skid in broadside,
>thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly shouting ...
>WOW! What a ride! Thank you Lord!!!
>
>Bryan Green Elgin SC
I agree ...some times I fly 10 feet above the Etowah river (in my
case) for five miles, knowing that if
my engine stops I'm going in the water - again.....but, with the
knowledge that after 642 hours on
my 503 - the odds are slim that - "that 10 minutes" will be the time
that the engine decides to seize.
And WOW what a ride/adrenaline rush it is! And if it does - I've
been there before and it didn't kill me
last time. Besides, it makes great videos.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/Submarine.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
To All, I know that this question has come up before and there is quite a
bit in the archives but what is the current thought on when or if to Decarbon a
447?
My temps are great the 447 runs smooth powerful.
Steve
FF#007
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: q & straying off topic) |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
I suppose that I should qualify that. I haven't flown an RV-4 but I did fly
an RV-7 for a bit and for my tastes it wasn't as fun cross-country as I
would have liked. I guess I Have grown soft flying my buddies 182 and like
it's mushiness cross country. The RV-7's roll rate was too high for me to
like it on an ILS.
I am with you all the way on the utility of cross country. I have frequently
called the 172 a "750NM" airplane in that I can beat any commercial trip of
750NM or less by flying myself, precisely because I live 1.5 hours from any
big hub and by the time I figure in drive, TSA delays and the flight, I can
easily hop into the Skyhawk and be there. The biggest issue that I have had
is living in the Eastern Part of Ohio the winters are full of ice and the
summers are full of thunderstorms and most of my business takes me to the
NorthEast which gets even worse. With a demanding civilian job schedule I
can never budget a "slop" day on either end to avail for weather, not to
mention the horrific expense of a strikefinder and NEXRAD, so I end up
commercial.
BUT
Because those morons strip-searched myself and my decorated full colonel
friend on our way back from Iraq (and we were in uniform with orders) I do
everything I can to avoid the TSA. I was livid when they did that. I was
about 6 days removed from carrying a machine gun and all manner of knives
and some dude felt compelled to protect the Union from a 6 foot 3 inch
German-Swede American wearing DCUs with an American Flag on them and a
combat service patch from Iraq. It was at that point that I destined that
unless it was over 1000 miles of driving I would never opt for commercial
again. So far I have kept my promise and that was two years and 7 trips ago.
Unfortunately, my family lives in California so I am still forced to fly
across in a jet...at least until the wife agrees to the motor home and I am
semi-retired enough to take off for three weeks in my Mark IIIX :)
Now if Kolb would just build a Twin like the AirCam, I will have reached
Nirvana.
I flew the 'Cam for about 1/2 and hour one year at Sun and Fun and it was
the nicest feeling being able to shut an engine down and motor
along...or...fly 100 feet AGL and not worry a jot. Someday.
By the way, did you see Garmin's 396 with NEXRAD? A portable GPS with
Weather. WOW!!!!
Todd
On 7/7/05 11:00 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
>
> Todd Fredricks wrote:
>
>>
>> If I might chime in on this thread; one of the reasons why I don't own a
>> Rockwell Commander or something 'faster' and I chose a 172 but want to sell
>> it and buy a Kolb is because I realized that after flying Caravans and Beech
>> 1900s that I will never own anything which can compete with what I can buy a
>> $250.00 ticket to fly on if what I want is fast.
>>
>> So if that is the case and I still want to engage in my passion of flying
>> across the land, then I bettered go the route of the 'safest' airplane I can
>> find. Since spec made airplanes don't routinely shed parts and engine
>> failures and fuel exhaustion are the biggest worries, I determined that the
>> shortest I could land safely the better. Helios are way out of my price
>> range and they lack the visibility I want. Can't afford maintenance on an
>> OH-6 and I prefer airplanes anyway. So in the end I want something that if
>> the need arises can land in a football field. I can consistently get the 172
>> down and stopped in 3-400 feet of runway.
>>
>> As long as you are not pushing the single engine night issue, a 3-400 foot
>> stopping distance affords you a lot of options. So that said, and aside from
>> ideas of crossing the Everglades single engine (I would opt out on that one)
>> I think the best planes for tearing off into the unknown or wilderness are
>> small single high lift airplanes that are carrying a good pack for
>> contingencies. I don't fear deserts or grizzly's as long as I have thought
>> through the possibilities before hand and as has been said before, Fly a Cub
>> or Kolb or T-craft along the interstates and minimize your time over the
>> crags and you really are picking the widest margin for the greatest utility
>> and fun.
>>
>> For the Everglades, I think I would pick and AirCam, but at $80K that's a
>> bit beyond me.
>>
>> Todd
>>
> A little good natured disagreement (only with your 1st paragraph):
>
> One of the reasons I bought something 'faster' was to easily beat the
> airlines. Pick any pair of non-hub cities less than 1000 miles apart &
> I'll bet I can beat the airlines, actual origin to actual destination,
> (not loading ramps) about 80-90% of the time & I don't have to put up
> with some minimum wage felon getting paid a federal executive's salary
> telling me to bend over so he can inspect my orifices. Living in a
> non-hub city means $250 tickets are rare as hen's teeth, as well.
>
> To top it off, I've only seen one airliner get upside down & I get to do
> it just about any time the mood strikes during a trip. :-)
>
> BTW, the Aircam truly deserves an 'awesome ride' label. I had the
> intense pleasure of flying around about 20' above the MS River for about
> 40 minutes a few years ago & never had to worry about getting wet. 2
> rotax 912S's on an 'ultralite'! Single engine? No problem. Helicopter
> performance? Pretty close. What a blast!
>
> Charlie
> Flying RV-4, wishing for a Kolb for after-supper flying
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
"love to hear from everyone"? OK, I'll add a little.
Personally, I usually prefer to use the passes through the mountains,
rather than go high and get bumped around in stronger winds. Being a
photographer, I like low flying anyway. And I like to keep a
"suitable landing area" within reach if possible, especially at night.
And if I were flying a 2-stroke I'd do it a lot more. I've done a lot
of far-from-roads flying, over much of Quebec and British Columbia,
wildlife surveys and spotting for swordfish boats 40-50 miles from land
at 1000' or less.
That doesn't scare me (too much) but when there's a "safety net"
nearby, other things being equal, I like to keep it within reach.
I've had two engine failures (Lycoming and Continental), made an
airport once, didn't the other time.
I usually plan rhumb-line XC flights, detouring for interesting
things. Tend to land at big airports where the food is better, but fuel
& RON at smaller ones where they need my money more & will let me
sleep under the wing or even in their lounge. Nicer people too,
in my experience. I just like grass better than asphalt.
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | IFR? i follow roads or not |
But, it's an interesting question that I'd love to hear from everyone about: do
you fly IFR (I-Follow-Roads) when doing XC's, or do you just tear off into the
unknown, over piney forest, craggy mountains, grizzly-den'd wilderness, endless
desert, vast inland seas, alligator-infested swamp, or do you wimp-out/be
sensible (take your pick) and follow more forgiving terrain that would, in your
judgement, provide a more hospitable landing-out and/or proximity to recovery
resources?
-- Robert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it depends on where i am going and who i am with......when flying by my self over
rough country i try to stay within sight of a road but i dont follow it exactly.......
when going with others i will go where the need to be takes us....
if anyone in the group has a problem there is someone who can send help....
so far in the rocky mountains i have been able to avoid the alligator-infested
swamps. but the rest of your list has been on the menu....
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flycrazy8(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: q/Cross Country and Highways |
Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson
We would challenge the local police to handcuff my hands behind my back and
I would jump from the Ford with an old Irvin seat pack, before the modern
sky diving chutes. Obviously I never failed to get at least one hand out of
their cuffs. Did the same act for airshows from Tri Motor Stinson, Wacos and
others. My point, I too enjoyed adrenalin highs, and believe me , that can give
you a high.
I have been to Eastern Turkey seven times climbing Mt Ararat looking for
Noah's Ark. I have located it's resting place on the glacier at 16,000 ft. I'm
now too old, but a scientific team is even this summer hopefully getting
Turkish permits to go up and examine the site. Another Adreline high for me.
Didn't intend to go into this but someone keeps mentioning doing dangerous flying
for adrenalin highs. Just wanted to note that I'm aware I'm now 87 and past
that, but I was once young, believe it or not
Hey All of the Gang
LQQks Like we have an exception to that saying:
" There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are
NO old bold pilots"
Way to GO RAY !!!!!
I feel like I have some of that boldness flying my two -stroke....I choose
to take the chances for the THRILL of Flight.....Otherwise I'd be spending my
time on the Golf course or checking out the " Hooters" at the local "Show and
Tail "
Stephen
BamaGa Firefly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR? i follow roads or not |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Robert
I had the advantage of some good Army training a few years ago that was
essentially how to recover from upsets in an airplane. It really instilled a
sense of confidence in my abilities to handle an airplane in slow and
unusual flight. I was taught tailwheels by some older (late 60 year olds)
pilots who lent me their rebuilt airplanes to try and kill myself in. Stuff
like L-2s and Cubs that have no electrical systems and that started me along
an entire train of thought about airmanship and situational awareness.
I have no Kolb experience and my CGS Hawk time is now well over 10 years old
but If the Kolb flies like a J-3 then I should be pretty close to good here.
We'll see.
I think more than anything I try to watch for roads but John W made an
excellent point about wires. Helicopter flying has made me very aware of
looking for towers and if I lost an engine it would not bother me to land on
a road provided I had a good feel for the towers in the area, because when
you know where the towers are you can get a good idea on the wires.
After that when you have to go across miles of mountains in West Virginia
you are looking for roads, meadows and fields all the time. I also like
altitude because it gives me a good margin of time to consider options when
the fan quits. I always fly with my moving map GPS as well because the road
behind me might be better than the field in front of me.
I think the concept of risk management is very good. Crossing the Rockies I
would want to have some survival essentials. I installed shoulder harnesses
in the 172 years ago because the numbers are pretty clear that most small
aircraft injuries and fatalities are preventable if the occupants had been
wearing shoulder harnesses. Water, a method for fire and some days of food
and warm clothing. Good shoes, compass and a knife. Across a lot of
wilderness, a shotgun as well.
Finally, a good flight plan is pretty much worth its weight in gold. I NEVER
fly cross-country without being on at least a flight following basis with
ATC. Doesn't mean I file IFR but if something bad does happen at least I can
shout out to ATC and they can get a good idea on where I am and follow the
track down. Could save hours of looking where I am not.
Todd
On 7/8/05 11:08 AM, "b young" wrote:
>
>
> But, it's an interesting question that I'd love to hear from everyone about:
> do
> you fly IFR (I-Follow-Roads) when doing XC's, or do you just tear off into the
> unknown, over piney forest, craggy mountains, grizzly-den'd wilderness,
> endless
> desert, vast inland seas, alligator-infested swamp, or do you wimp-out/be
> sensible (take your pick) and follow more forgiving terrain that would, in
> your
> judgement, provide a more hospitable landing-out and/or proximity to recovery
> resources?
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> it depends on where i am going and who i am with......when flying by my self
> over rough country i try to stay within sight of a road but i dont follow it
> exactly....... when going with others i will go where the need to be takes
> us.... if anyone in the group has a problem there is someone who can send
> help.... so far in the rocky mountains i have been able to avoid the
> alligator-infested swamps. but the rest of your list has been on the
> menu....
>
> boyd
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| I think more than anything I try to watch for roads but John W made
an
| excellent point about wires. Helicopter flying has made me very
aware of
| looking for towers and if I lost an engine it would not bother me to
land on
| a road provided I had a good feel for the towers in the area,
because when
| you know where the towers are you can get a good idea on the wires.
| Todd
Todd/All:
I am gonna guess you are talking about guy wires on the towers, right?
Big concern landing on roads in the Lower 48 and populated areas of
Canada and Alaska is power lines crossing highways and roads.
Normally, look for houses, buildings, etc., because there are going to
be wires running to these places, unless they are old Amish. Down
here in my part of the country and other areas serviced by REA (Rural
Electric Association) one never knows where the wires are going to be
because REA rant the line the shortest distance to the structure, not
necessarily along roads and highways, and across same. In the
Sparsely Populated Areas of the Far North and places out West there is
no electricity, so no power wires. There are still a few places along
the Alaska Highway sporting the old telephone wires and poles. When
cross countrying I look for power poles and power towers. Always look
for more than one so you know which way the line is oriented. Bad
feeling to be right on top of the wheat, catch a big power
transmission line tower out the corner of your eye, then be unable to
see the wire or locate the second tower. Got caught in that trap a
few years ago heading north. The longer you fly, the hotter it is,
the hungrier you are, the tired you feel, the easier it is to make
dumb decisions that are awfully expensive in terms of money and lives.
john h
titus, alabama
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cross Country |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
John;
With you on that. We have the same problem up here in Appalachia, nary a
thought to how to get the power to the house except set the pole and run
with it. That and the dense hardwood forests and the enviro-wackos who
wanted to paint the cell and power towers like tree to "blend-in" with the
surroundings and you have a mess.
Two years ago a friend was flying for an oil company and hit the high
tension lines in his 406. He saw the wire, held what he had, felt a WHUP!
And realized that he still had full cyclic and collective control. No
lights, no alarms and he was still flying.
He landed in the only flat backyard he could find in the closest hollar and
low and behold found out that those wire cutters do actually work.
When I say towers I always mean two. For precisely the reasons that you
mention; you can figure out where the wires stretch between them.
But in a pinch and all I got is Oak forest on both sides and I-70, I will do
my best to drop altitude with as little ground covered as possible and then
land the thing on the road. Failing that, I suppose a good Wal Mart parking
lot might work. They seem to be everywhere and I have never seen a wire
across one of them. :)
Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
Todd
On 7/8/05 5:28 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
>
> | I think more than anything I try to watch for roads but John W made
> an
> | excellent point about wires. Helicopter flying has made me very
> aware of
> | looking for towers and if I lost an engine it would not bother me to
> land on
> | a road provided I had a good feel for the towers in the area,
> because when
> | you know where the towers are you can get a good idea on the wires.
> | Todd
>
> Todd/All:
>
> I am gonna guess you are talking about guy wires on the towers, right?
>
> Big concern landing on roads in the Lower 48 and populated areas of
> Canada and Alaska is power lines crossing highways and roads.
> Normally, look for houses, buildings, etc., because there are going to
> be wires running to these places, unless they are old Amish. Down
> here in my part of the country and other areas serviced by REA (Rural
> Electric Association) one never knows where the wires are going to be
> because REA rant the line the shortest distance to the structure, not
> necessarily along roads and highways, and across same. In the
> Sparsely Populated Areas of the Far North and places out West there is
> no electricity, so no power wires. There are still a few places along
> the Alaska Highway sporting the old telephone wires and poles. When
> cross countrying I look for power poles and power towers. Always look
> for more than one so you know which way the line is oriented. Bad
> feeling to be right on top of the wheat, catch a big power
> transmission line tower out the corner of your eye, then be unable to
> see the wire or locate the second tower. Got caught in that trap a
> few years ago heading north. The longer you fly, the hotter it is,
> the hungrier you are, the tired you feel, the easier it is to make
> dumb decisions that are awfully expensive in terms of money and lives.
>
> john h
> titus, alabama
> MKIII/912ULS
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross Country |
|In the
| Sparsely Populated Areas of the Far North and places out West there
is
| no electricity, so no power wires. | john h
Folks:
Let me qualify the above statement. It ain't entirely true. Last
summer I started seeing powerline along populated areas along the
Alaska Highway and other roads. So, if you are headed that way,
beware!!!
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)pegasusbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross Country |
hey john, need a favor, your web site link ,i lost it,,thanks ronw in west
"HOT" tx.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cross Country
>
> |In the
> | Sparsely Populated Areas of the Far North and places out West there
> is
> | no electricity, so no power wires. | john h
>
> Folks:
>
> Let me qualify the above statement. It ain't entirely true. Last
> summer I started seeing powerline along populated areas along the
> Alaska Highway and other roads. So, if you are headed that way,
> beware!!!
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cross Country |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Kind of figuring on getting the Kolb and learning to fly it before I venture
off into the Great White North.
Just checked Air Cam's and they are $82K minus instruments. Lot's of dough.
Todd
On 7/8/05 6:51 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
> |In the
> | Sparsely Populated Areas of the Far North and places out West there
> is
> | no electricity, so no power wires. | john h
>
> Folks:
>
> Let me qualify the above statement. It ain't entirely true. Last
> summer I started seeing powerline along populated areas along the
> Alaska Highway and other roads. So, if you are headed that way,
> beware!!!
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
Don=92t want to plug up the Archives, and this an item that may affect
only a very few of you, but it would be good to have it on the back
shelf of your memory-bank.
I doubt many of you fly XC at night; when I do I ALWAYS try to keep a
4-lane within reach. (Sorry John) because it=92s a great smooth surface
to aim for. BUT you can=92t see the wires or BRIDGES at night, and that
could spoil your whole day (night). Hope it never happens, to you or to
me, but -- Be Prepared -- to land with the traffic of course, pass them
overhead, faster than they are, probably, come down & you=92ll slow down
in front of them, they CAN=92T not see you -- then slow down & turn off
wherever you can. If no idiot ahead of you slams on the brakes, you
should be OK -- except for bridges.
So. Watch traffic ahead of you, & if their lights go out/blink, there=92s
probably a bridge there; remember, probably wires too. Your approach
should be steep, sort of diving toward the road, then level off at 20=92
or so and slow down. Not ideal, but should be survivable. Your
landing-light will hopefully show you any bridge or wires that are a
hazard, in time to avoid them.
And I certainly hope you never have to go there!
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Engines and Reliability |
| Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
|
| Todd
Todd/All:
More engines, more parts, more problems, more maintenance, more fuel,
more cost.
Nothing wrong with the 912 series engines from what I can tell. With
2,160.0 hours in front of two of them, I have had two engine outs
caused by contaminated fuel and water in the fuel. Both times fuel
from other than my 5 gal cans or a pump at an airport. John W has
been trying to train me to use only fuel out of the pump at airports.
Had I done that in 1994 and 1998, I would be able to say I have never
had an engine out. Well, that ain't true either. I lost the 912ULS
at idle on short final to Toad River, BC, because of ice in 2000. I'd
say that is a pretty good record, and good enough for me to feel
comfortable with single engine. Of course, all the components, prop,
throttle cables, air filters, etc., have to be top notch to compliment
the system.
john h
MKIII-2,370.9 hours
912ULS-1025.0 hours
912UL-1135.0 hours
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engines and Reliability |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
But you gotta admit it would look pretty cool.
On 7/8/05 7:08 PM, "John Hauck" wrote:
>
>
> | Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
> |
> | Todd
>
> Todd/All:
>
> More engines, more parts, more problems, more maintenance, more fuel,
> more cost.
>
> Nothing wrong with the 912 series engines from what I can tell. With
> 2,160.0 hours in front of two of them, I have had two engine outs
> caused by contaminated fuel and water in the fuel. Both times fuel
> from other than my 5 gal cans or a pump at an airport. John W has
> been trying to train me to use only fuel out of the pump at airports.
> Had I done that in 1994 and 1998, I would be able to say I have never
> had an engine out. Well, that ain't true either. I lost the 912ULS
> at idle on short final to Toad River, BC, because of ice in 2000. I'd
> say that is a pretty good record, and good enough for me to feel
> comfortable with single engine. Of course, all the components, prop,
> throttle cables, air filters, etc., have to be top notch to compliment
> the system.
>
> john h
> MKIII-2,370.9 hours
> 912ULS-1025.0 hours
> 912UL-1135.0 hours
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rusty" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Engines and Reliability |
> | Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
Funny, but Dennis and I talked about this years ago. I've always wanted a
centerline thrust twin, and figured that cheap (they used to be cheap) Rotax
engines would be fine, since the chance of both failing at once would be
slim.
As it turned out, Dennis already had a SS cage, and two 532 engines that he
planned to make into such a beast. He was going to mount one in the normal
location, and one up front, then fly from the rear seat. AFAIK, he never
started working on it.
Cheers,
Rusty
Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-3 (flying, until Dennis gets here)
Kolb Slingshot (Mazda single rotor project, damaged by Ivan, waiting for
Dennis)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Engines and Reliability |
Rusty,
Very sporadic lurker here ...
Not sure what AFAIK means, but if it means just a lot of talk - you are
probably pretty close to nailing it. Actually, the more I thought about it,
the thought of putting an engine up front bothered me more and more. I
couldn't bear to put an engine up front and spoil the beautiful view. If I
were ever to do a twin, it would be just like the ultrastar configuration
with one engine to each side instead of one on centerline. I'd use
Swiderski's tallllll gear. Completely open and just for flying low over the
valleys and rivers and doing outrageous climb-outs. I'd like to race the
airboats on the Susquehanna - side-by-side. But John is too right, a twin
has many negatives compared to singles. But the advantages of a twin do
offer some intriguing possibilities. All depends upon what you want to do
with it.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rusty
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Engines and Reliability
> | Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
Funny, but Dennis and I talked about this years ago. I've always wanted a
centerline thrust twin, and figured that cheap (they used to be cheap) Rotax
engines would be fine, since the chance of both failing at once would be
slim.
As it turned out, Dennis already had a SS cage, and two 532 engines that he
planned to make into such a beast. He was going to mount one in the normal
location, and one up front, then fly from the rear seat. AFAIK, he never
started working on it.
Cheers,
Rusty
Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-3 (flying, until Dennis gets here)
Kolb Slingshot (Mazda single rotor project, damaged by Ivan, waiting for
Dennis)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Well the Air Cam has no specifically nasty tendencies. Pulling an engine is
a non-event in the machine. It has a lot of tail, the elevator is mounted
high and its engines are mounted very close to one another. There is double
the cost of engines but you reach over, pull the go lever back and you feel
a slight pull into the 'bad' engine and then you keep flying.
The thing is that because the engines are mounted nearly centerline and they
each have enough power to fly the machine you really get a lot of insurance
out of the package with little in terms of the conventional twin "scariness"
though I would hasten to add that aside from the conspicuous absence of
sound, an engine out in the C-12 is pretty unremarkable because of the
autofeather system and even on the Seminole I trained in it was noticeable
but as long as you keep it as blue line or above you are fine.
I wouldn't want to fly any twin without some instruction but I think a
bigger Kolb with twin engines would be awesome as another alternative. If I
could figure out the cage geometry and had a modicum of engineering ability
I would love to build one myself.
You might gain some greater efficiency as well by moving both fans outward
and into cleaner air.
Just my thoughts.
Todd
On 7/8/05 9:36 PM, "Dennis Souder" wrote:
>
> Rusty,
>
> Very sporadic lurker here ...
>
> Not sure what AFAIK means, but if it means just a lot of talk - you are
> probably pretty close to nailing it. Actually, the more I thought about it,
> the thought of putting an engine up front bothered me more and more. I
> couldn't bear to put an engine up front and spoil the beautiful view. If I
> were ever to do a twin, it would be just like the ultrastar configuration
> with one engine to each side instead of one on centerline. I'd use
> Swiderski's tallllll gear. Completely open and just for flying low over the
> valleys and rivers and doing outrageous climb-outs. I'd like to race the
> airboats on the Susquehanna - side-by-side. But John is too right, a twin
> has many negatives compared to singles. But the advantages of a twin do
> offer some intriguing possibilities. All depends upon what you want to do
> with it.
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rusty
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Engines and Reliability
>
>
>> | Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
>
>
> Funny, but Dennis and I talked about this years ago. I've always wanted a
> centerline thrust twin, and figured that cheap (they used to be cheap) Rotax
> engines would be fine, since the chance of both failing at once would be
> slim.
>
> As it turned out, Dennis already had a SS cage, and two 532 engines that he
> planned to make into such a beast. He was going to mount one in the normal
> location, and one up front, then fly from the rear seat. AFAIK, he never
> started working on it.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty
> Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-3 (flying, until Dennis gets here)
> Kolb Slingshot (Mazda single rotor project, damaged by Ivan, waiting for
> Dennis)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engines and Reliability |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Something of interest. Try this link
http://www.spectrumaircraft.com/g_a36vulcan.shtml
I think Kolb could do better.
On 7/8/05 9:36 PM, "Dennis Souder" wrote:
>
> Rusty,
>
> Very sporadic lurker here ...
>
> Not sure what AFAIK means, but if it means just a lot of talk - you are
> probably pretty close to nailing it. Actually, the more I thought about it,
> the thought of putting an engine up front bothered me more and more. I
> couldn't bear to put an engine up front and spoil the beautiful view. If I
> were ever to do a twin, it would be just like the ultrastar configuration
> with one engine to each side instead of one on centerline. I'd use
> Swiderski's tallllll gear. Completely open and just for flying low over the
> valleys and rivers and doing outrageous climb-outs. I'd like to race the
> airboats on the Susquehanna - side-by-side. But John is too right, a twin
> has many negatives compared to singles. But the advantages of a twin do
> offer some intriguing possibilities. All depends upon what you want to do
> with it.
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rusty
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Engines and Reliability
>
>
>> | Kolb needs to build a twin the more I think about this.
>
>
> Funny, but Dennis and I talked about this years ago. I've always wanted a
> centerline thrust twin, and figured that cheap (they used to be cheap) Rotax
> engines would be fine, since the chance of both failing at once would be
> slim.
>
> As it turned out, Dennis already had a SS cage, and two 532 engines that he
> planned to make into such a beast. He was going to mount one in the normal
> location, and one up front, then fly from the rear seat. AFAIK, he never
> started working on it.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty
> Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-3 (flying, until Dennis gets here)
> Kolb Slingshot (Mazda single rotor project, damaged by Ivan, waiting for
> Dennis)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
Hi Todd,
Good to hear from a fellow twin-hugger.
Actually handling characteristic were not negatives in my thinking as a
close-to-centerline twin need not have these traditional twin vices.
The negatives I was referring to were the ones John Hauck had mentioned -
and they are very valid. Higher cost for engines, more fuel costs, more
maintenance, less payload. For a hard core cruiser like John, the
additional drag and additional fuel cost would be a big deal because payload
and range would decrease with a twin by a substantial margin. (Figure out
the fuel mileage of the Spectrum single vs the twin.)
These negatives are compounded because a twin, for it to be truly redundant,
needs much more power than a single engine aircraft. Because if an engine
quits, the good engine must not only fly the aircraft with its payload, but
it must also carry the weight of the dead engine and the drag of the stopped
prop. Did I mention that more wing area is needed to carry the extra weight
for a given stall speed?
So the properly redundant twin not only needs much more power, but it is
also bigger, heavier and dreggier than its svelte single brother. This
means more power yet.
If a twin does not have adequate single engine performance then you are
twice as likely to come out of the sky due to an engine failure - because
you have twice the probability of having an engine out.
I hope I am not sounding like a twin hater, but this is what makes designing
a twin so maddening - it is a tough nut to crack ... and do it well.
For a round-the-patch flyer like myself, these negatives would not be a big
deal as I would be enjoying the twin's main positive virtue: redundancy
while flying it only as a single-place aircraft.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd Fredricks
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV
Well the Air Cam has no specifically nasty tendencies. Pulling an engine is
a non-event in the machine. It has a lot of tail, the elevator is mounted
high and its engines are mounted very close to one another. There is double
the cost of engines but you reach over, pull the go lever back and you feel
a slight pull into the 'bad' engine and then you keep flying.
The thing is that because the engines are mounted nearly centerline and they
each have enough power to fly the machine you really get a lot of insurance
out of the package with little in terms of the conventional twin "scariness"
though I would hasten to add that aside from the conspicuous absence of
sound, an engine out in the C-12 is pretty unremarkable because of the
autofeather system and even on the Seminole I trained in it was noticeable
but as long as you keep it as blue line or above you are fine.
I wouldn't want to fly any twin without some instruction but I think a
bigger Kolb with twin engines would be awesome as another alternative. If I
could figure out the cage geometry and had a modicum of engineering ability
I would love to build one myself.
You might gain some greater efficiency as well by moving both fans outward
and into cleaner air.
Just my thoughts.
Todd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Decarbon 447 |
Dwight, You must have missed my email last week. sorry but I already sold
the chute. I try to go with the first guy to give me a commitment. I will let
you know if he changes his mind.
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gaffers Tape |
In a message dated 7/6/2005 3:53:37 PM Central Standard Time,
planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com writes:
I was going to order some of that gaffers tape in white for my aileron Gap
seal.....But
look around, you can find white duct tape. BUT I found some strong clear
tape at mills fleet farm that worked well. what I did was put the tape on for
the gapseal and then put some tape
on the other side of that (sticky side together) to keep the dirt from
sticking to it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
John
Thank you for the long email quoting extensively from Part 103 and the
AIM . Anyone who flies anything should be familiar with the material
you sent. We all should be flying loegally, have to obey the same
rules, and work with the FAA, hopefully in a friendly and cooperative
manner.
But I don't know why you addressed it specifically to me. I have Com
SEL,SES,MEL and an Instrument
rating so am well acquainted with Part 103. I don't fly ultralights and
freely admit I'm not "up to speed" on the regs concerning them, so the
second part of your email is useful to me. If I start flying UL's I'll
have to study them carefully.
I hope everyone on the list will copy your email for its reference
value and read it over until they've memorized it. Too much information
is way better than too little.
I never considered a Wal-Mart parking lot as an emergency field, but
have often looked at beachside lots in the winter when they're empty,
and plenty long enough.
I consider your opinions "better than anyone else's" due to your
wide expereience. We can all profit from listening to high-time pilots
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
Russ,
No, no, heaven forbid!!! Not against traffic on the roadway. (sorry
I didn't state that more clearly) If clear, against traffic ON THE MEDIAN.
Around here the medians are usually fairly level and wide enough to permit this.
If a motorest saw even something as small as a Kolb approaching in their face,
most wouldn't die from a head on crash, but an instant heart attack. I would.
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Dennis:
The differences between twins and singles are well noted, however, when
dealing with aircraft like the AirCam specifically you are dealing with a
twin with 100% redundancy. That is, the aircraft can fly its mission
entirely on a single engine alone. I have personally done this by departing
flying and landing all on a single engine in the AirCam at gross weight.
I am very familiar with the concept of SE service ceilings and limitations
in most GA twins and I would never be cavalier with something like a King
Air 200 loaded to gross on a typical Southeast Ohio Summer Day. The
performance on single engine, even with those beautiful Pratts turning is
remarkably different than when both fans are turning.
But I hasten to add that the principle reason Phil Lockwood designed the
AirCam was so that when the National Geographic people were buzzing over
dense jungle taking pictures they would have assurance that they had total
power redundancy. In essence the AirCam is WAYYYYYYY over powered, even with
a 582 application, for its basic needs. This in light of the oft spoken 80
20% twin engine rule (A twin's second engine provides only twenty percent
additional performance but accounts for 80% of the aircraft's reserve power,
a phenomenon I witnessed first hand during my MEL checkride when the 12,000+
hour RC-121 veteran examiner pulled the low time engine right after rotation
and with not enough runway left to abort. Flying a 10 mile Upwind to reach
pattern altitude on a wheezy TBO'ed Lycoming in a beat up Seminole will
convince you about the inadequacy of most twins' twin).
But buying a twin light aircraft like an AirCam is not for performance like
that of a Seneca, it can cruise barely fast enough to get out of its own
way, it is specifically for Phil Lockwood's purpose which is to have a
machine that allows for significant piece of mind when you are plowing
around 30 feet off of the surface of the forest canopy or threading mountain
passes while your front seater is buzzing away with an IMAX camera.
My only problem with the AirCam is that it is a tandem seat airplane. I
would prefer it to be side-by-side seating, which defeats its utility as an
awesome IMAX platform but would allow both passengers to utilize a common
panel in the event of IMC or simply the need to fly right to left seat. That
is why I would love to see the MarkIII developed into a twin application.
I know it sounds extreme, but my purpose for the Kolb I buy is for
photography and cross country flying. It is without question that John H and
John W as well as others are Subject matter experts on long range flying in
the Kolbs so I try and suck up everything they have to say, but for shear
utility, for my tastes, which would involve occasionally flying IFR in the
machine, I would love to have the absolute redundancy of that second 912
engine.
Yes costly, very, to the tune of 14K and the additional fuel burn, but when
I am winging out across Lake Erie or the Pacific Ocean I will take the
additional risk of failure and cost for the knowledge that if I lose one fan
the overwhelming odds are that the second one, on such a light machine, will
be more than adequate to get me back to a safe landing area.
Finally, if I am totally honest, I have $30,000 tied up into a 172 that
burns 8.5 GPH and gets me there at 105knots. It is a very old airplane as
well. For me it would be worth it to spend the additional dollars to have an
airplane that goes almost as fast when needed, burns just a little bit more
but can fly much slower and burn a lot less when desired AND still be
capable of handling my farm field with ease AND going on a single fan if
needed. The point about drag is well taken, but when we are talking about
these airplanes, including Kolbs, there is only so much you can gain in
terms of speed.
My take on John H, if I might be so bold is that we are dealing with a very
experienced and wise aviator who has seen and experienced much and is
intimately familiar with his machine. He has spent a lot of time, sweat and
presumably sore backside hours learning his art of long range flying. His
comfort level with Miss P'Fer is unquestioned as are his reasons for
tweaking her just as she is, but I still find myself, from my perspective,
wishing for the additional margin that second engine would afford my piece
of mind.
I am sure you know all of this so forgive me if I am preaching to a well
informed "choir". :)
I really appreciate this forum. I enjoy reading the words of everyone and it
is a great alternative to some of the more "nose-high" groups that I have
encountered in the past. I feel like I learn something good everyday I read
my email. Thanks.
Todd
On 7/8/05 11:03 PM, "Dennis Souder" wrote:
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Good to hear from a fellow twin-hugger.
>
> Actually handling characteristic were not negatives in my thinking as a
> close-to-centerline twin need not have these traditional twin vices.
>
> The negatives I was referring to were the ones John Hauck had mentioned -
> and they are very valid. Higher cost for engines, more fuel costs, more
> maintenance, less payload. For a hard core cruiser like John, the
> additional drag and additional fuel cost would be a big deal because payload
> and range would decrease with a twin by a substantial margin. (Figure out
> the fuel mileage of the Spectrum single vs the twin.)
>
> These negatives are compounded because a twin, for it to be truly redundant,
> needs much more power than a single engine aircraft. Because if an engine
> quits, the good engine must not only fly the aircraft with its payload, but
> it must also carry the weight of the dead engine and the drag of the stopped
> prop. Did I mention that more wing area is needed to carry the extra weight
> for a given stall speed?
>
> So the properly redundant twin not only needs much more power, but it is
> also bigger, heavier and dreggier than its svelte single brother. This
> means more power yet.
>
> If a twin does not have adequate single engine performance then you are
> twice as likely to come out of the sky due to an engine failure - because
> you have twice the probability of having an engine out.
>
> I hope I am not sounding like a twin hater, but this is what makes designing
> a twin so maddening - it is a tough nut to crack ... and do it well.
>
> For a round-the-patch flyer like myself, these negatives would not be a big
> deal as I would be enjoying the twin's main positive virtue: redundancy
> while flying it only as a single-place aircraft.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd Fredricks
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV
>
>
> Well the Air Cam has no specifically nasty tendencies. Pulling an engine is
> a non-event in the machine. It has a lot of tail, the elevator is mounted
> high and its engines are mounted very close to one another. There is double
> the cost of engines but you reach over, pull the go lever back and you feel
> a slight pull into the 'bad' engine and then you keep flying.
>
> The thing is that because the engines are mounted nearly centerline and they
> each have enough power to fly the machine you really get a lot of insurance
> out of the package with little in terms of the conventional twin "scariness"
> though I would hasten to add that aside from the conspicuous absence of
> sound, an engine out in the C-12 is pretty unremarkable because of the
> autofeather system and even on the Seminole I trained in it was noticeable
> but as long as you keep it as blue line or above you are fine.
>
> I wouldn't want to fly any twin without some instruction but I think a
> bigger Kolb with twin engines would be awesome as another alternative. If I
> could figure out the cage geometry and had a modicum of engineering ability
> I would love to build one myself.
>
> You might gain some greater efficiency as well by moving both fans outward
> and into cleaner air.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
I=92m a owner of Mark II built in 1989, very good plane with stretch
fuselage and only 38hp Rotax 462, but it works very well.
My plane have got on the nose for 3 or 4 times when we are two people
on board, especially when the runaway is heavy like high grass. (and
probably the previous owner had the same problem) But the reason that
I=92m writing this is, that at I had to lend on very rough place few days
a go, when the engine stop suddenly on the mountain trip.
The lending was very good, but at the end the plane stick the nose to
the ground (not so hard) and back on the tail, and the tail boom bent
in half. I was very surprised because it was not so hard. The =91H=92 brace
is ok. I=92m wondering is there any update of the tail boom, like
stronger boom or different =91H=92 brace or shall we all replace the boom
after 10-15 years and few nose-overs=92
Thank you, Johannes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
Hi Johannes,
I am curious about the "stretched" fuselage you mention; I am pretty
familiar with most of the Kolb models - but I don't know what this is.
Could you describe the stretched aspect of the fuselage in more detail?
Thanks
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Tail boom
I=92m a owner of Mark II built in 1989, very good plane with stretch
fuselage and only 38hp Rotax 462, but it works very well.
My plane have got on the nose for 3 or 4 times when we are two people
on board, especially when the runaway is heavy like high grass. (and
probably the previous owner had the same problem) But the reason that
I=92m writing this is, that at I had to lend on very rough place few days
a go, when the engine stop suddenly on the mountain trip.
The lending was very good, but at the end the plane stick the nose to
the ground (not so hard) and back on the tail, and the tail boom bent
in half. I was very surprised because it was not so hard. The =91H=92 brace
is ok. I=92m wondering is there any update of the tail boom, like
stronger boom or different =91H=92 brace or shall we all replace the boom
after 10-15 years and few nose-overs=92
Thank you, Johannes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Peterson" <b1bookie(at)lycos.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Tail boom
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:14:35 -0400
> Hi Dennis and Johannes,
I had the same experience having the boom bend when doing a high speed taxie and
will post some photos when I get a chance. My 'Firestar' was also built in 1989.
Bill
>
> Hi Johannes,
>
> I am curious about the "stretched" fuselage you mention; I am pretty
> familiar with most of the Kolb models - but I don't know what this is.
> Could you describe the stretched aspect of the fuselage in more detail?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Tail boom
>
>
>
> I=92m a owner of Mark II built in 1989, very good plane with stretch
> fuselage and only 38hp Rotax 462, but it works very well.
> My plane have got on the nose for 3 or 4 times when we are two people
> on board, especially when the runaway is heavy like high grass. (and
> probably the previous owner had the same problem) But the reason that
> I=92m writing this is, that at I had to lend on very rough place few days
> a go, when the engine stop suddenly on the mountain trip.
> The lending was very good, but at the end the plane stick the nose to
> the ground (not so hard) and back on the tail, and the tail boom bent
> in half. I was very surprised because it was not so hard. The =91H=92 brace
> is ok. I=92m wondering is there any update of the tail boom, like
> stronger boom or different =91H=92 brace or shall we all replace the boom
> after 10-15 years and few nose-overs=92
>
> Thank you, Johannes
>
>
--
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
Twinners,
Actually we built and flew 3 different twins during the Kolb years. The
Flyer was one. Flyers were powered with a variety of engines. The Chryslers
were used as direct drive engines and these were just okay with light
pilots. Then we added tuned expansion chambers and this helped noticeably.
Then we tried Chryslers with belt reductions and while these made much more
power, we really did not like the complexity of 2 added belt drives. So we
switched to direct drive 209 Solos and these were the most practical
arrangement.
The next twin also had 2 Solo engines mounted to the leading edge of
the wing. We flew this one very briefly but did not pursue it as it had an
unconventional control system and we did not like the way it handled.
The third twin was the SlingShot with 2si (430 Cuyuna) engines,
driving counter-rotating props. This flew very well and handled very well
and this would be one way to retro-fit a twin engine package to a Kolb ...
if you were a machinist. The one negative was that the drive system was not
totally redundant; the counter-rotating shafts shared common bearings. If
the bearing failed, you could loose all power. Probably not a likely
scenario - but still a possibility. The counter-rotating props were torque
canceling and of course they provided centerline thrust. Weight was
reasonable. I recall that at the static run-up how ferocious the thrust was.
It was tied to a tree but it seemed like it wanted to just jump off the
ground. It was powerful for a very short period of time. I lost an engine
on one of the first flights and when I landed the engine could not be
restarted. Upon pulling it apart, the piston was melted so badly that you
could almost slip a pencil under the rings at the exhaust port! I think
this twin engine package could have been developed as a reasonable
powerplant, but it would have taken a lot of work to de-bug and while some
would undoubtedly have been sold, most would probably opted for the 912.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
It's nice to see Dennis bringing his expertise to the list. Talk about a
wealth of knowledge. Anyone who was at Sun N Fun back in 1997 should remember
seeing the twin 2si Slingshot. As I recall, it needed a considerable amount of
weight in the nose to balance the added weight behind the CG,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Comcast <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Multi-engine Kolbs |
Dennis,
What's the story with the 4-engined plane hanging in Homer's barn? Next to the
Flyer.
Chuck
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV
Twinners,
Actually we built and flew 3 different twins during the Kolb years. The
Flyer was one. Flyers were powered with a variety of engines. The Chryslers
were used as direct drive engines and these were just okay with light
pilots. Then we added tuned expansion chambers and this helped noticeably.
Then we tried Chryslers with belt reductions and while these made much more
power, we really did not like the complexity of 2 added belt drives. So we
switched to direct drive 209 Solos and these were the most practical
arrangement.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | NTSB findings on Labhart crash |
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/12091317.htm
Clay Stuart
Danville KY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tail boomTail boom |
you can sea my bird on that link, before and after crash
http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c7qw4ih1.32lpy951&x1&y81y59b
Bi=F0 a=F0 heilsa.
J=F3hannes Gunnar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rusty" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
But buying a twin light aircraft like an AirCam is not for performance like
that of a Seneca, it can cruise barely fast enough to get out of its own
way, it is specifically for Phil Lockwood's purpose which is to have a
machine that allows for significant piece of mind when you are plowing
around 30 feet off of the surface of the forest canopy or threading mountain
passes while your front seater is buzzing away with an IMAX camera.
------------------
This is really my idea of what a twin should be. I'd love to fly at night,
or just over the pine trees, and not have to worry about an engine failure.
Scaling this down to Kolb size would be possible, but only using light 2
strokes, or maybe some of the vaporware engines that are being developed now
(we hope). Who knows, maybe after hurricane Dennis destroys my RV-3 and SS
in the next few hours, I'll get to start over with a clean slate.
Cheers,
Rusty (amazingly, still have power, but not for long)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com> |
bobdorly(at)aircraftsuper-market.com, rt51job(at)comcast.net,
LedbStev(at)aol.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com, raeburn(at)direcway.com,
tomrahe(at)glasscity.net, glenr(at)keymaker.com
| Subject: | FW: Fuel cited in fatal plane crash |
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:23:18 GMT
From: c_stonex(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Fuel cited in fatal plane crash
This Story has been sent to you by : c_stonex(at)yahoo.com
Fuel cited in fatal plane crashFuel contamination stopped the engine of an ultralight
airplane that crashed last year near London, killing the pilot, the National
Transportation Safety Board has concluded.
The full article will be available on the Web for a limited time:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/12091317.htm
(c) 2005 Lexington Herald-Leader and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
You are not going to fly them out of there?
On 7/10/05 11:58 AM, "Rusty" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> But buying a twin light aircraft like an AirCam is not for performance like
> that of a Seneca, it can cruise barely fast enough to get out of its own
> way, it is specifically for Phil Lockwood's purpose which is to have a
> machine that allows for significant piece of mind when you are plowing
> around 30 feet off of the surface of the forest canopy or threading mountain
> passes while your front seater is buzzing away with an IMAX camera.
> ------------------
>
>
> This is really my idea of what a twin should be. I'd love to fly at night,
> or just over the pine trees, and not have to worry about an engine failure.
> Scaling this down to Kolb size would be possible, but only using light 2
> strokes, or maybe some of the vaporware engines that are being developed now
> (we hope). Who knows, maybe after hurricane Dennis destroys my RV-3 and SS
> in the next few hours, I'll get to start over with a clean slate.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty (amazingly, still have power, but not for long)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Multi-engine Kolbs |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
So Dennis:
It would not be entirely out of character to find a Kolb Mark IIIX with two
Rotax 912 ULS's would it then?
Man I am drooling.
Todd
On 7/10/05 8:28 AM, "Comcast" wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> What's the story with the 4-engined plane hanging in Homer's barn? Next to
> the Flyer.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV
>
>
> Twinners,
>
> Actually we built and flew 3 different twins during the Kolb years. The
> Flyer was one. Flyers were powered with a variety of engines. The Chryslers
> were used as direct drive engines and these were just okay with light
> pilots. Then we added tuned expansion chambers and this helped noticeably.
> Then we tried Chryslers with belt reductions and while these made much more
> power, we really did not like the complexity of 2 added belt drives. So we
> switched to direct drive 209 Solos and these were the most practical
> arrangement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Contamination |
| What measures do you take to reduce fuel contamination in the
lines?
| Filters?
|
| Todd
Todd/All:
No matter how realiable our engines and airplanes are, contaminated
fuel will put you on the ground.
I have a finger strainer in the outlet of my fuel tank which is the
lowest part of the tank. From there it goes through a homemade sump
that can be drained off daily into a clear glass container (maynaise
jar's are good if you can find a glass one), thru electric boost
pump, fuel filter in line prior to engine driven pump.
I have mentioned on the Kolb List before to check float bowls on
carbs, both 2 and 4 stroke engines. I try to do it at least once a
month or more. Usually I find a couple drops of water which is
turning into some kind of brown colored crap. A drop of water in the
zamack (pot metal) float bowl will begin corroding almost immediately.
Little flakes of crud are created. The fence around the main jet well
in the float bowl will keep things going for a while. Eventually, the
crap in the bottom of the float bowl will spill over into the main jet
well. At the same time the idle jet is also being restricted.
Doesn't take much to get a rough weak engine or total failure under
these conditions.
What we don't see can hurt us.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Twin Engine Firestar |
Several years ago, I looked into the idea of building a twin engine Firestar.
The first order of business was to determine just how much thrust would be needed
to maintain flight in a Firestar. Dave Starbuck determined the minimum RPM
needed to maintain level flight in his Firestar 2. We then attached the tail
to a fish scale and measured the static thrust at the same RPM. The thrust
needed for minimum level flight was 135 lb. I looked at a number of engines,
looking for light weight and reasonable reliability. The one I liked best was
the single cylinder Hirth F-33, 28 HP that weighs 42 lb. with redrive. This
engine is capable of putting out 175 lb of thrust, and two of them weigh roughly
the same as a Rotax 503. Thrust of 175 lb is enough to maintain a climb of
several hundred feet per minute in a Firestar 2.
I planned on mounting a beam on the existing Firestar motor mount, and then mounting
the F-33's on either end of the beam with an overlap of the props. The
main engineering problem is to make sure the props can never interfere with each
other when the motors are torqued in their mounts. Also, depending on prop
size and overlap, the ailerons may need to be shortened a bit to provide clearance.
Single engine operation would not be centerline, but is close enough so
yaw could be easily controlled with available rudder.
With the overlapping props, both engines could be taken out if anything comes off
of one, like shedding a belt or muffler part. Careful engineering could reduce
the chances of this happening to a minimum. One of these days when I'm feeling
ambitious, I may go ahead and acquire the engines and do the conversion.
Dave Bigelow
FS 2, 503 DCDI
Kamuela, HI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Fuel contamination (topic modified) |
>
>What measures do you take to reduce fuel contamination in the lines?
>Filters?
>
>Todd
A 12.5 main fuel tank in the gap seal area, under and in front of the
engine that feeds into a 2.5 gallon hopper tank behind the passenger. The
lowest point in the tank is where the fuel drain is located, 2.5 inches
higher up from there is the actual fuel pickup, which due to the pointed
bottom of the fuel tank gives me about .5 pint of unusable fuel. The fuel
pickup has a very large nylon finger strainer on it. I need to get almost a
half pint of water into the system before it will make it's way to the fuel
pickup.
Details here:
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg1.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KOLB-RELATED QUESTION |
| John H
| Do you think there are any alcohol "Dry-Gas" type fuel additives
that
| are SAFE to use in Kolb fuel systems, to avoid water-contamination
| problems?
| Russ Kinne
Russ K/Gang:
I don't know.
Doesn't alcohol act to place the water into suspension in the
gasoline?
I think the best method is to build your fuel system to have a sump
that can be drained prior to each day's flight, frequent inspections
of fuel filter and carb float bowls.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Paule" <dpaule(at)frii.com> |
I follow roads in the FS II. Sometimes I don't.
I go direct in the Skywagon. Sometimes I follow roads or other terrain
features.
I always go VFR since I'm not instrument rated. Sometimes I don't go at all
because the weather's bad.
A pilot must assess the conditions and determine the appropriate, safe
route. I use a simple motto: "Arrive alive." As I get older, I tend to be
more careful because I've learned more ways that circumstances can hurt me.
One useful tool I've learned is to make a clearance decision in real time,
when approaching a difficult spot. I make an assessment of local conditions
at the actual decision point. Here's two examples:
As I approach the Continental Divide, I'll decide whether the winds are
acceptable to cross it. The decision usually gives me "clear to cross."
Sometimes I need to abort.
For some mountainous airports, when I'm above the field, I'll be looking
over the field and the local terrain. I'll decide then when I need to make a
go-around. Often I can't make a go-around from the runway or even on short
final because of rising terrain or other conditions past the runway. As I
approach the decision point, I'll either commit to the landing or go around.
"Clear to land" is what I'd like; sometimes I'm not at the right altitude or
there's some other factor like wind to affect the decision. Once I pass the
point where the decision to land is made, a go-around is impossible and I'm
committed to landing.
David Paule
Boulder, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
It would be interesting to see a dual engine dual shaft counter-rotating
prop application. There is an obvious beauty to separate engine/prop
combinations but a common transmission fed with two powerplants driving
either a single or counter-rotating prop would be very interesting.
I suppose it is depdendent only upon money and imagination.
On 7/10/05 5:37 PM, "David L. Bigelow" wrote:
>
> Several years ago, I looked into the idea of building a twin engine Firestar.
> The first order of business was to determine just how much thrust would be
> needed to maintain flight in a Firestar. Dave Starbuck determined the
> minimum RPM needed to maintain level flight in his Firestar 2. We then
> attached the tail to a fish scale and measured the static thrust at the same
> RPM. The thrust needed for minimum level flight was 135 lb. I looked at a
> number of engines, looking for light weight and reasonable reliability. The
> one I liked best was the single cylinder Hirth F-33, 28 HP that weighs 42 lb.
> with redrive. This engine is capable of putting out 175 lb of thrust, and two
> of them weigh roughly the same as a Rotax 503. Thrust of 175 lb is enough to
> maintain a climb of several hundred feet per minute in a Firestar 2.
>
> I planned on mounting a beam on the existing Firestar motor mount, and then
> mounting the F-33's on either end of the beam with an overlap of the props.
> The main engineering problem is to make sure the props can never interfere
> with each other when the motors are torqued in their mounts. Also, depending
> on prop size and overlap, the ailerons may need to be shortened a bit to
> provide clearance. Single engine operation would not be centerline, but is
> close enough so yaw could be easily controlled with available rudder.
>
> With the overlapping props, both engines could be taken out if anything comes
> off of one, like shedding a belt or muffler part. Careful engineering could
> reduce the chances of this happening to a minimum. One of these days when I'm
> feeling ambitious, I may go ahead and acquire the engines and do the
> conversion.
>
> Dave Bigelow
> FS 2, 503 DCDI
> Kamuela, HI
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel contamination (topic modified) |
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
I was surfing this just last night. How do I go about getting your plans?
Todd
On 7/10/05 6:19 PM, "Richard Pike" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What measures do you take to reduce fuel contamination in the lines?
>> Filters?
>>
>> Todd
>
> A 12.5 main fuel tank in the gap seal area, under and in front of the
> engine that feeds into a 2.5 gallon hopper tank behind the passenger. The
> lowest point in the tank is where the fuel drain is located, 2.5 inches
> higher up from there is the actual fuel pickup, which due to the pointed
> bottom of the fuel tank gives me about .5 pint of unusable fuel. The fuel
> pickup has a very large nylon finger strainer on it. I need to get almost a
> half pint of water into the system before it will make it's way to the fuel
> pickup.
>
> Details here:
> http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg1.htm
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
I have always used the camp grounds across the road from the ultralight
barn. Good prices and easy to sneak into the EAA showers.
>
> I plan to be at OSK again this year, in the campground area. Anyone else
going?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-engine Kolbs |
I believe that was Homers first "lighter than man" aircraf and great
grandfather to his first comercial kit plane..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Comcast" <davis207(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Multi-engine Kolbs
>
> Dennis,
>
> What's the story with the 4-engined plane hanging in Homer's barn? Next
to the Flyer.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV
>
>
> Twinners,
>
> Actually we built and flew 3 different twins during the Kolb years. The
> Flyer was one. Flyers were powered with a variety of engines. The
Chryslers
> were used as direct drive engines and these were just okay with light
> pilots. Then we added tuned expansion chambers and this helped
noticeably.
> Then we tried Chryslers with belt reductions and while these made much
more
> power, we really did not like the complexity of 2 added belt drives. So
we
> switched to direct drive 209 Solos and these were the most practical
> arrangement.
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Rotax 503 & 447 Reliabllity |
This is going to be a long post - been researching and thinking about two stroke
reliability for a long time. I started out with ultralights in the 70's, my
first being an Icarus 5 rigid wing hang glider with a Mac 101 go cart engine.
Been through a number of ultralights and two stroke engines since. I'm concentrating
on the 503 and 447, since they are the most recent engines that I'm
most familiar with, although what I have to say does apply to other two strokes.
The failures I've had and others that I know about fall into four categories:
1. INTERNAL ENGINE COMPONENT FAILURE
These are actually pretty rare. I had a rod needle bearing fail in a Koenig three
cylinder engine. The engine continued to run on the other two cylinders,
and got me home. I also had a Hirth engine with a pinhole casting defect in the
crankcase that gradually opened up and slowly leaned the mixture. There's
not much you can do to prevent this type of failure other than selecting a good
engine, doing overhauls at the appropriate time, and keeping a close eye on
performance gauges.
2. EXTERNAL PARTS COMING OFF THE ENGINE AND GOING THROUGH THE PROPELLER
This is pretty common with pusher installations. I've had part of a muffler fatigue,
break off, and go through the prop - also had a drive belt fail. Things
like muffler springs and items not well secured will find their way to the prop.
This type of failure is easily preventable through good installation procedure
and just some careful contemplation of your engine installation. Careful
attention to prop balance and other vibration sources helps minimize the vibration
that causes parts to shed. The Rotax gearbox has eliminated the problem
of belts coming off.
3. IGNITION FAILURE
This used to be a pretty common source of engine failure when single ignition systems
with points were used. The dual solid state ignition systems on the Rotax
engines have for all practical purposes eliminated ignition failure. The
ignition systems are also fail safe in that the master switch must be grounded
to stop the engine. Spark plugs have a much shorter life than in four cycle
engines, but are not a problem when changed regularly.
4. FUEL RELATED FAILURES
This is the big one! The great majority of engine failure are directly attributable
to fuel starvation or improper mixture. Most of the items here also apply
to four cycle engines too. The two subjects are the fuel delivery system and
the fuel mixture system.
A. Fuel Delivery
First is ensuring that only clean uncontaminated fuel goes into your tanks. A
really good way to make sure this happens is to purchase a "Mr. Funnel" and carry
it with you in the airplane. This funnel has a fine stainless steel filter
that will not pass water and will filter particles of a size that will foul
a carburetor. It also has a small sump, so you can see any bad stuff that you
have tried to pour into your tanks.
June 21, 2005 - July 10, 2005
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fl