Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fy
March 06, 2006 - March 27, 2006
and sustained pullout at this speed resulted in structural failure of the
left wing; the drag strut failed and the wing folded back alongside the fuselage."
Happily the pilot and plane safely parachuted to ground.
Kolb company rebuilt the plane and strengthened the wing even more and the improvements
were passed on to ultrastars, firestars and twinstars.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19920#19920
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 67 Msgs - 03/05/06 |
People die everyday on the highways around the country. After learning about one
on the news, we still get in our cars and drive without fear which means that
fear is a mindset.
Ralph
Original Firestar
19 years flying it
-- "flht99reh" wrote:
"Someone in the beginning of the Kolb site early pages said something to the tune
of: if you have a fear of flying to that degree (forget the reason of that
response), then maybe something is telling you not to fly. A man could very easily
decide after reading the Kolb web site from beginning to date that perhaps
flying IS DANGERIOUS. I'll take my chances as long as I look at the dangers
from a practical standpoint. When I purchased my Firestar one of the first things
a did was read everything I could get my hands on and take every woird as
gospel. Over the last eight months I have learned that there are voices that speak
from advice and voices that speak from fear. I read and listen mostly to
the voices of advice, and test them often. Usually they
have proven themselves to be true. Looking death in the face everyday Ohio Ralph"
Ted, you read my heart. I am one of the new guys. And I have to tell you, at
times "ignorance is bliss"! Now with that said, I have to add that we don't
have the lux. To pull of the side of the road if something happens. But then
I knew a health nut that was a major international runner. He died walking
across the street.Wasn't hit , just fell dead, heart exploded. I wanna have
fun and enjoy life as much as possible. I leave the major projects to God
and I handle the little ones; taking out the trash, fixing dinner, mowing
the lawn, preflight checks, etc. Speaking about mowing, you know that an
unbalanced mower blade traveling at 1,200 fpm circumferentially could come
loose and kill your neighbor.
Now how many of you are going to quit mowing your lawn? How many of you
would love to fly rather than mow their lawn? How many of you would love to
have your lawns mowed by someone else why they fly over their lawn /landing
strip?
Someone in the beginning of the Kolb site early pages said something to the
tune of: if you have a fear of flying to that degree (forget the reason of
that response), then maybe something is telling you not to fly. A man could
very easily decide after reading the Kolb web site from beginning to date
that perhaps flying IS DANGERIOUS. I'll take my chances as long as I look at
the dangers from a practical standpoint. When I purchased my Firestar one of
the first things a did was read everything I could get my hands on and take
every woird as gospel. Over the last eight months I have learned that there
are voices that speak from advice and voices that speak from fear. I read
and listen mostly to the voices of advice, and test them often. Usually they
have proven themselves to be true.
Looking death in the face everyday Ohio Ralph
just got to add my two cents in here. What a bunch of 'chicken littles'. I
cant believe it. we have a whole bunch of newbies to the Kolbs and you guys
are scaring the hell out of them. These Kolbs are probably one of the best
designed, best built - even by newbies - than anything out there. The cages
alone are worth the trouble. My friend's life was saved by them. Worry
this, worry that, change this, change that. Poooh. Keep it simple, fly the
darned thing. How do some of you guys even get out of bed in the morning?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 67 Msgs - 03/05/06 |
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
>From Matts list guidelines
"Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing"
Below is the type of post that he's referring to.
just got to add my two cents in here. What a bunch of 'chicken littles'.you guys
poluting the air waves
and minds of fine people unnecessarily. I need to remind you that some of
these guys been building theirs for years and have NEVER even flown one!!
Take the info for what it is worth and listen to the ones who KNOW what is
going on. Hawk and the others. I, for one, have a thousand or more hours
on Kolbs and you know what --. I have built and/or rebuilt 8 kolbs and lots of
other
types
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19970#19970
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading Edge |
I am going to put the BRS on.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:38 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Leading Edge
>
>
> jimh474(at)earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> In two instances this negative attitude has
>> scared the crap out of two new Kolb owners for no reason.
>>
>> I suggest the list refrain from making arbitrary statements to new comers
>> that they are going to have a catastrophic failure if they fly with a 5
>> rib
>> wing. This is pure BS.
>>
>>
>
>
> I dont think anyone made arbitrary statements about the 5 rib wing. In
> all my posts about it, I was very clear in telling the person that posted
> the question that this was a High Time, High stress issue. I think in the
> case of JDM I think he should be worried. Maybe at least this discussion
> will inspire him to install his BRS chute :) . If peope with low time
> average use firestars are getting scared because we are talking about this
> here, then they need to pay more attention to the details in the posts and
> educate themselves about fatigue.
>
> Almost every plane in the world has fatigue and failures associated with
> high time airframes, including Kolbs. We should post factual information
> that may save someone from getting hurt one day, which I think was done.
> We should not be afraid to talk about this kind of stuff just because a
> few fail to understand the difference between high time fatigue and a low
> time safe to fly airplane. I for one learn a huge amount on this list,
> and I hope people continue to post all known problems so that I can
> correct these things before they bite me. That is exactly what this list
> is for.
>
> Michael A. Bigelow
>
> --------
> NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
> !!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19953#19953
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | BRS 5 Installation on Original Firestar |
OK, now that you've got my attention, where is the best place to but the BRS 5
750 canister? I had a BRS 4 500 inside the cage under the tank. I took it out
because the BRS was 12 years out of date and not big enough for the fat airplane
and pilot. Unfortunately the larger canister won't fit inside the cage, which
is why it is on the shelf in the hanger.
I've seen them in front of the engine and I've seen them on the landing gear.
I don't particularly like either. Any suggestions? Pictures?
Perhaps the flat pack for on top of or under the gap seal? If so I need to sell
my current BRS. It's only a year old and has never been registered, so it is
considered new. I think they are good for ten years, but I don't have the manual
here at home.
Thank you in advance.
John Murr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS 5 Installation on Original Firestar |
At 07:14 PM 3/6/2006, you wrote:
>
>OK, now that you've got my attention, where is the best place to but
>the BRS 5 750 canister?
I put mine here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/BRSsys.jpg
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/Rubberduckanten.jpg
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/Rubberduckanten.jpg
But ask BRS - they know the plane real well.
Just remember, no matter which way you fire it
(up, back and down under the tail or sideways)- it will end up
directly behind the plane when it opens.
Hopefully it will come up over the top after it opens.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
In a message dated 3/5/2006 7:57:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jdm(at)wideworld.net writes:
All you need is a radio to fly into class D airspace.
John M,
I don't have a radio.
Yet.
Maybe in the future
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
Kolbers
Flew my first cross country today to an airport 17.3 miles away. Not
much of a cross country but it is a start. The Firefly burned about 3.2 gal
and took about 40 minutes ,to make the round trip. The weather is warm enough
down here that the mosquitos are starting to be a pest. I am still glad I
decided to build a KOLB. I think I saw 80 mph once when I was not keeping an eye
on the airspeed. The really good part is my leading edge did not fail on
either wing. I have the fold up time down to 15 minutes! Starting to trust Her
a little more each time I fly Her!
Ed Diebel ( In Houston Firefly # 62 , 6.5 hrs.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading Edge |
John/All,
About time someone said that John, you only just beat me.
I will say only a couple of things.
Buy the Kolb for what it is and not something you want it to be!.
If you don't know what you are talking about then keep your gob shut!.
Please do not use this site as a Bitch fight place but instead use it for
what it was intended for!.
If you think you know better than Homer, Dennis and all the team at TNK then
apply for a job there!.
As with any aircraft, fly it outside the envelope and soon enough it will
fail, Fly it as it was intended and you will probably be o.k!.
If you guys didn't think you know better than the designer and feel the need
to modify the aircraft in the first place then half of the issues being
discussed now would not even be relevant!.
The MkIII has been approved in the UK which holds the most stringent
airworthiness regulations in the world, if the Kolb design was as terrible
as some of you seem to think then it would have never been approved over
here1.
If some of you spent more time maintaining and flying your Kolb than
modifiying it, over loading it, and pushing it past the design limits, you
would have far less time to be at your computer writing so much rubbish, and
we might actually get some better posts again!.
We do want new people to come and Join the wonderful world of Kolb and not
send them away from this site scared to death of ever getting into a Kolb.
Just put it into context.
Thats My Rant over, (sorry)
Mike Moulai
Xtra/Jab 2200 and happy with it
----- Original Message -----
From: "JW Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Leading Edge
>
> Folks,
>
> I agree with Ted Cowan, 2 known catastrophic leading edge failures out of
> thousands of Kolb's built and thousands of hours flown in all kinds of
> conditions doesn't warrant all this negative attitude towards primarily
> the
> 5 rib wing. The 7 rib wing could have the same failure under the right
> conditions.
>
> Homer and Dennis always made updates on the design when a problem was
> discovered. So many of the updates are already in these A/C that are being
> bought from the used market. In two instances this negative attitude has
> scared the crap out of two new Kolb owners for no reason.
>
> I suggest the list refrain from making arbitrary statements to new comers
> that they are going to have a catastrophic failure if they fly with a 5
> rib
> wing. This is pure BS.
>
> Any wing regardless of type A/C under the right conditions will fail.
> Maybe
> from age, flying out of the design envelope or just a plain no answer why.
>
> I merely suggested time proven fixes for those that wanted to use them.
>
> In the case of my brothers failure,we examined the wings and this was the
> conclusion that we arrived at. The leading edge of the wings shifted
> outboard getting the ribs out of column and the leading edge folding up.
> The
> left wing went first and the right wing went second. The right wing more
> than likely failed from the instant acceleration forward.
>
> In the future lets put our mind in gear before we put our typing fingers
> in
> motion and not expound on something we only heard of.
>
> I hope that the two new comers reconsider about getting rid of their
> planes
> because of all the BS.
>
> Jim Hauck
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
Not to beat this topic to death, but.....
Another way to stiffen up the leading edge of the wing and to keep the ribs in
column is to cover from the leading edge back to the high point of the airfoil
with thin fiberglass sheet or aluminum. Rivet the thin sheet to each rib and
false rib at about two inch intervals. It adds a couple of pounds to each wing,
but really stiffens up the structure. It also eliminates the sag between
ribs and makes for a cleaner airfoil. Do the fabric over the entire wing after
the leading edge covering is intalled.
I built my FS2 wing this way, and I can guarantee that the ribs and leading edge
are not going have any spanwise movement. I think this would be the most simple
and structurally sound modification for a 5 rib wing. It does involve recovering
the wing.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20054#20054
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fs_with_fiberglass_le_covering_827.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
I guess we are all paranoid now! I saw 90 once and mine didn't fail either.
> I think I saw 80 mph once when I was not keeping an eye
>on the airspeed. The really good part is my leading edge did not fail on
> either wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar Gross weight 535? |
Someone said the Firestar gross weight was 535. Is that a structural gross weight
or a maximum take off weight with a 377? See where I'm going with this one?
If it's a maximum takeoff weight, then with a 477 or 503 it should be higher,
right?
John Murr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
Bill
I have a handheld you can borrow to get into controlled airspace;
I've used it when the main radio packed up. Not the greatest but it
works!
You c an also phone the tower & get a one-time clearance to enter,
using light signals -- I've always found them cooperative.
You're most welcome to try it --
Russ Kinne
On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:44 PM, WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/5/2006 7:57:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jdm(at)wideworld.net writes:
>
> All you need is a radio to fly into class D airspace.
>
>
> John M,
>
> I don't have a radio.
>
> Yet.
>
> Maybe in the future
>
> Bill Varnes
> Original Kolb FireStar
> Audubon NJ
> Do Not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Gross weight 535? |
-- "John Murr" wrote:
Someone said the Firestar gross weight was 535. Is that a structural gross weight
or a maximum take off weight with a 377? See where I'm going with this one?
If it's a maximum takeoff weight, then with a 477 or 503 it should be higher,
right?
John Murr
John,
As I understand it, gross weight is gross weight. Mine is 589 lbs with 11 gallons
on board and 447 engine. Kolb's design specs are very conservative, but there
is a limit. There are 503's installed on a few 5-rib wings, but it gets back
to how far do you want to push the limits. I wouldn't put a 503 on mine because
I'm already over gross. I would be better off going on a diet. It would be
good for the plane and pilot.
Ralph
Original Firestar
19 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Dave
How did you keep the Glass/metal from puckering between ribs back
toward the maine spar? Did you attach it to the spar? I am building a
set of single lift strut wings for my Firefly and have thought about
using a leading edge d cell configuration. I will wrap .016 2024-t3
around my wings since I already have it.. Actually thinking about
metallizing the whole wing! Likely as cheap as fabric and the stitts
process.. Herb
writes:
>
>
> Not to beat this topic to death, but.....
>
> Another way to stiffen up the leading edge of the wing and to keep
> the ribs in column is to cover from the leading edge back to the
> high point of the airfoil with thin fiberglass sheet or aluminum.
> Rivet the thin sheet to each rib and false rib at about two inch
> intervals. It adds a couple of pounds to each wing, but really
> stiffens up the structure. It also eliminates the sag between ribs
> and makes for a cleaner airfoil. Do the fabric over the entire wing
> after the leading edge covering is intalled.
>
> I built my FS2 wing this way, and I can guarantee that the ribs and
> leading edge are not going have any spanwise movement. I think this
> would be the most simple and structurally sound modification for a 5
> rib wing. It does involve recovering the wing.
>
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
> Kamuela, Hawaii
> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20054#20054
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fs_with_fiberglass_le_covering_827.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Its what we learn after we know everything that is the most important.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Eugene Zimmerman wrote: wrote:
> I submit that initial failure mode of the Kolb leading edge is much more likely
due to the compromise of the curved upper rib tube under excessive compression
load during a high speed, high wing loading situation. As speed increases
center of lift moves forward so that much more of the load is carried by the front
part of the rib. An increased portion of the load is transferred to the
spar by an increased compression load carried through a tube that by design and
of necessity is already out of column it suddenly buckles and breaks allowing
the leading edge to move back and up into the already excessive high speed
air flow above the wing.
>
> Such sudden failure would of course also destroys all diagonal braces pulling
the leading edge sideways as they fail.
Group,
Eugene's explaination makes the most sense to me. I have been trained as a mechanical
engineer and I am a Kolb flyer and builder/rebuilder.
I do not mean to alarm anyone by comenting on possible wing failures. But I also
would not suggest that the risk is not higher when someone flys over the gross
weights set by Kolb. I flew my original Firestar at about 600 pounds when I
carried extra gas and camping gear. I accepted the extra risk on those flights.
If I had to fly every flight at a gross weight substancially higher than that,
I would have sold the plane and bought a Firestar II. That's what I did,
but for different reasons. Just my opinion. Everyone has there own tolerance for
risk.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20089#20089
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:56 AM, John Murr wrote:
> I guess we are all paranoid now! I saw 90 once and mine didn't
> fail either.
Hey now,
If you fly 90 mph in that 5 rib I promise I will deny I never knew a
John Murr.
Please slow down.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George E. Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
I also built my FS II that way. I used thin roof flashing from the hardware
store. Makes a nice clean wing leading edge.
AZ. Bald Eagle.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:08 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Leading edge failures
>
> Not to beat this topic to death, but.....
>
> Another way to stiffen up the leading edge of the wing and to keep the
> ribs in column is to cover from the leading edge back to the high point of
> the airfoil with thin fiberglass sheet or aluminum. Rivet the thin sheet
> to each rib and false rib at about two inch intervals. It adds a couple
> of pounds to each wing, but really stiffens up the structure. It also
> eliminates the sag between ribs and makes for a cleaner airfoil. Do the
> fabric over the entire wing after the leading edge covering is intalled.
>
> I built my FS2 wing this way, and I can guarantee that the ribs and
> leading edge are not going have any spanwise movement. I think this would
> be the most simple and structurally sound modification for a 5 rib wing.
> It does involve recovering the wing.
>
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
> Kamuela, Hawaii
> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20054#20054
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/fs_with_fiberglass_le_covering_827.jpg
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
I assure you it was by accident.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Zimmerman" <etzim62(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Evening Flight
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:56 AM, John Murr wrote:
>
>> I guess we are all paranoid now! I saw 90 once and mine didn't
>> fail either.
>
> Hey now,
>
> If you fly 90 mph in that 5 rib I promise I will deny I never knew a
> John Murr.
>
> Please slow down.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
On Mar 7, 2006, at 11:11 AM, George E. Thompson wrote:
> I also built my FS II that way. I used thin roof flashing from the
> hardware
> store. Makes a nice clean wing leading edge.
Until it get a dent or two.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flht99reh" <flht99reh(at)netzero.net> |
Good for you Ed. I envious a little. But soon, perhaps within the early part
of summer, there I will also be. I am also somewhat envious of your mosquito
problem. That means heat and here in the Ohio area, we ain't got none! (my
spell checker hates me).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Evening Flight
Kolbers
Flew my first cross country today to an airport 17.3 miles away. Not
much of a cross country but it is a start. The Firefly burned about 3.2 gal
and took about 40 minutes ,to make the round trip. The weather is warm
enough
down here that the mosquitos are starting to be a pest. I am still glad I
decided to build a KOLB. I think I saw 80 mph once when I was not keeping
an eye
on the airspeed. The really good part is my leading edge did not fail on
either wing. I have the fold up time down to 15 minutes! Starting to
trust Her
a little more each time I fly Her!
Ed Diebel ( In Houston Firefly # 62 , 6.5 hrs.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flht99reh" <flht99reh(at)netzero.net> |
Mike,
"The MkIII has been approved in the UK which holds the most stringent
airworthiness regulations in the world, if the Kolb design was as terrible
as some of you seem to think then it would have never been approved over
here1"
Isn't that the same country that discovered the "Piltdown man" you know that
ling between man and ape! Oh those scientists, they will do anything to gain
attention! Ha, HA!
USA, Ohio Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mike moulai
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Leading Edge
John/All,
About time someone said that John, you only just beat me.
I will say only a couple of things.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
On Mar 7, 2006, at 11:25 AM, John Murr wrote:
>
> I assure you it was by accident.
Ok,
Think about that last eight letter word.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/7/2006 5:59:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jdm(at)wideworld.net writes:
I guess we are all paranoid now! I saw 90 once and mine didn't fail either.
> I think I saw 80 mph once when I was not keeping an eye
>on the airspeed. The really good part is my leading edge did not fail on
> either wing.
This was sarcastically!!!!!!!!!
Ed DO NOT ARCHIEVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/7/2006 8:32:29 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rlaird(at)cavediver.com writes:
Ed --
Where'd ya go... Volk? or Bailes?
-- Robert
>From Volks To Bube's in Alvin and back to Volks, Where I hangar. Not a long
trip, but I just have a little over 6 hours flying time in her. Slowly
gaining confidence in the plane and 447. I kept what I thought was a suitable
landing spot in sight most of the way. I still have not made a decision whether
it would be better to use flaps If the engine quit. All this talk about wing
failure seems a waste of time. Of course I built mine, and I fly within the
parameters it was designed. I think the chances of the 447 quitting are far
more realistic than the leading edge failing ! I feel more attention should be
focused on the 2- stroke. I think that is the weakest link in any Kolb
product.
Ed Do Not Archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:10 PM, DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote:
> I think the chances of the 447 quitting are far
> more realistic than the leading edge failing ! I feel more
> attention should be
> focused on the 2- stroke. I think that is the weakest link in any
> Kolb
> product.
I've never had a leading edge fail or a 2-stroke Rotax quit.
Ah but I think the weakest link in any Kolb product is always the
critter in the seat.
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Gene
One way to mask the dents is to overlay the aluminum with felt. The
dent is still there but the felt maintains the normal curve..
Lets see---Aluminum or Fiberglass sheet d cell and felt... By gosh I
think we have likely soothed everyones fears..:-) Herb
writes:
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 11:11 AM, George E. Thompson wrote:
>
> > I also built my FS II that way. I used thin roof flashing from the
>
> > hardware
> > store. Makes a nice clean wing leading edge.
>
> Until it get a dent or two.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Its what we learn after we know everything that is the most important.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading Edge |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Easy Ralph
These are likely the only firends we have left in the world..
I agree that their inspection and requirements are more stringent than
ours.. Do not always agree with some of their conclusions.. But would
rather deal with their volunteers over the FAA anytime... Herb
writes:
>
> Mike,
>
> "The MkIII has been approved in the UK which holds the most
> stringent
> airworthiness regulations in the world, if the Kolb design was as
> terrible
> as some of you seem to think then it would have never been approved
> over
> here1"
>
> Isn't that the same country that discovered the "Piltdown man" you
> know that
> ling between man and ape! Oh those scientists, they will do anything
> to gain
> attention! Ha, HA!
>
>
> USA, Ohio Ralph
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mike
> moulai
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:47 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Leading Edge
>
>
>
> John/All,
> About time someone said that John, you only just beat me.
> I will say only a couple of things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Its what we learn after we know everything that is the most important.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS 5 Installation on Original Firestar |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
jdm(at)wideworld.net wrote:
> OK, now that you've got my attention, where is the best place to but the BRS
5 750 canister? John Murr
John,
I have a soft pack in the gap seal. But if I had already owned a canister, I would
have mounted it in front of the engine, like so many others have. BRS should
have instructions for how to mount it on a Firestar.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20213#20213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
In a message dated 3/7/2006 8:48:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kinnepix(at)earthlink.net writes:
Bill
I have a handheld you can borrow to get into controlled airspace;
I've used it when the main radio packed up. Not the greatest but it
works!
You c an also phone the tower & get a one-time clearance to enter,
using light signals -- I've always found them cooperative.
You're most welcome to try it --
Hi Russ,
I thank you for the offer and advice. Regarding light signals, I'm somewhat
color blind and have difficulty with red and green. Even traffic signals
gave me trouble until I memorized that the top light is red and the lower is
green. Not sure how I would handle tower lights.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/7/2006 3:52:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
etzim62(at)earthlink.net writes:
I've never had a leading edge fail or a 2-stroke Rotax quit.
Ah but I think the weakest link in any Kolb product is always the
critter in the seat.
:-)
How many hours do you have with a 447? I only have 6 hours on mine! I
think it would be interesting to poll everyone on the list and get an hours flown
to rotax quitting ratio along with the cause of quitting. Anyone ever done
anything like that???
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
Whatever happened to the twin engine Kolb?
http://www.recpower.com/KOLB-1f.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
I used fiberglass rather than metal to avoid the dent problem. It takes some work
to smooth the fiberglass sheeting over the ribs without wrinkles. The natural
stiffness of the fiberglass prevents sagging between the ribs and false ribs.
It is not attached to the main spar and does not act as a D-tube. It just
stiffens up the leading edge structure and makes for a smooth sag free airfoil.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20300#20300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
On Mar 7, 2006, at 11:12 PM, DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/7/2006 3:52:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> etzim62(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> I've never had a leading edge fail or a 2-stroke Rotax quit.
> Ah but I think the weakest link in any Kolb product is always the
> critter in the seat.
> :-)
>
>
> How many hours do you have with a 447? I only have 6 hours on
> mine! I
> think it would be interesting to poll everyone on the list and get
> an hours flown
> to rotax quitting ratio along with the cause of quitting. Anyone
> ever done
> anything like that???
>
> Ed
Hey Ed,
As soon as I hit send on that post I realized I missed one key three
letter word.
" Y-E-T "
I have been flying ultralights since 1980 and have sons and now a
grandson flying 2-stroke Kolbs.
Ironically I personally have no actual experience with a 447 but have
had hundreds of hours with the 377, 503, and 582 Rotax engines and
have never had one unexpectedly quit. Oh yeah, I forgot son Earl did
have a 447 in a Minimax also.
It is no doubt a significant advantage that my sons and I have
experience as professional engine mechanics with a good sense what
can be expected of things mechanical and what is at the root of
mechanical failures.
It is my opinion that the Rotax engines used on Kolb planes today are
well made mechanical devices providing excellent performance
designed to last hundreds, yes , and in some cases even thousands of
hours, if operated within their unique design parameters.
In my opinion most engine failures are due to the software, not the
hardware.
In other words, as I said, the weakest link is not the mechanical
part, but the operator.
Having said that,,,,,,,,,,,
A good operator always knows that everything mechanical is subject to
failure and is prepared to deal with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS 5 Installation on Original Firestar |
I mounted a VLS 750 on top of a FireFly - modified the wing root gap
cover to partly cover the front part of the box case (opens at the
rear) - cut and hemmed the opening with elastic rope (3/16" if I
recall right) so it would pull up snug over the top front edge
veeing out towards and over the sides about half way back on the case
- the elastic rope makes it pull up snug against the sides, the
rocket and around the back. Turned out and worked pretty good.
jerb
At 05:42 PM 3/7/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>jdm(at)wideworld.net wrote:
> > OK, now that you've got my attention, where is the best place to
> but the BRS 5 750 canister? John Murr
>
>
>John,
>
>I have a soft pack in the gap seal. But if I had already owned a
>canister, I would have mounted it in front of the engine, like so
>many others have. BRS should have instructions for how to mount it
>on a Firestar.
>
>--------
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20213#20213
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:17:08 A.M. Central Standard Time,
etzim62(at)earthlink.net writes:
Having said that,,,,,,,,,,,
A good operator always knows that everything mechanical is subject to
failure and is prepared to deal with it.
Eugene,
Are you suggesting that a majority of Rotax failures come as a result of
improper maintenance, Not paying attention to warning signs or sounds,
improper oil mix ratio, which would fall into the category of pilot ERROR? I had
a
Kawasaki 440 that served me well for 117 hours till I sold the plane. Never
quit once. I never heard of one quitting! I heard of Cayunas quitting a few
times. There were not many Rotaxes around in 82 so I didn't hear much about
them! I understand without proper care and maintenance no engine will
last long, but I do know 2-cycles are less forgiving and more prone to seizure
than a 4-stroke. Maybe this list has made me paranoid. I know I was worried
about bending an axle because of all the talk on the list. So far I have made
28 landings and have not bent a gear yet. Im sure my time will come , but I
hope my fear of the Rotax is like my fear was of bending a leg.
Ed (Firefly # 62)
do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/8/2006 11:10:41 A.M. Central Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
How much do you weigh and what's the empty weight of your
FireFly? What wheels are you using?
jerb
Jerb,
My Firefly weighed 252 when I weighed it with small wheels. The way she
sits with BRS ,and 6" auzusa plastic wheels, with disc brakes made from table
saw blade discs is 286 lbs. According to the scales I used I am over weight
by 8 lbs., but I feel safer with brakes. I weigh 185lbs. Am I exceeding
gross? What is gross weight for the Firefly. I cannot find it in the Kolb Manual
or the Plans.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS 5 Installation on Original Firestar |
Thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: BRS 5 Installation on Original Firestar
>
> I mounted a VLS 750 on top of a FireFly - modified the wing root gap
> cover to partly cover the front part of the box case (opens at the
> rear) - cut and hemmed the opening with elastic rope (3/16" if I
> recall right) so it would pull up snug over the top front edge
> veeing out towards and over the sides about half way back on the case
> - the elastic rope makes it pull up snug against the sides, the
> rocket and around the back. Turned out and worked pretty good.
> jerb
>
> At 05:42 PM 3/7/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>jdm(at)wideworld.net wrote:
>> > OK, now that you've got my attention, where is the best place to
>> but the BRS 5 750 canister? John Murr
>>
>>
>>John,
>>
>>I have a soft pack in the gap seal. But if I had already owned a
>>canister, I would have mounted it in front of the engine, like so
>>many others have. BRS should have instructions for how to mount it
>>on a Firestar.
>>
>>--------
>>John Jung
>>Firestar II N6163J
>>Surprise, AZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20213#20213
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
>
>"Another way to stiffen up the leading edge of the wing and to keep the ribs in
column is to cover from the leading edge back to the high point of the airfoil
with thin fiberglass sheet or aluminum.
>
Kirk, & Kolbers,
This thread has really been interesting. To stabilize the leading edge wing
tube, the FireFly uses one 5/16 OD 0.035 inch thick tube brace starting next
to the most inboard rib from the nose tube back to the center line of main
spar at about a 45 degree angle. Two other shorter braces using the same
size tubing attach to the upper and lower nose rib tubes of the inner most
rib to stabilize the nose rib against the pull of the shrunk fabric.
Addition nose rib column stabilization comes from the fabric.
I question the need for an increase in stiffening the wing leading edge.
Basically, where is the sideways load going to come from that will cause the
nose ribs to be forced out of column? During normal or abusive flight (high
g loads), how is the leading edge tube going to forced sideways to move the
ribs out column?
The only way I can see a leading edge tube diagonal bracing failure is if
the outer wing was to strike the ground or the leading edge tube struck some
fixed object. Then one should cut an inspection hole through the fabric
next to the inboard nose rib to view all three braces.
If I wanted to increase nose rib strength, I believe you would get more for
less weight by adding 1/2 by 1/2 aluminum angle to each nose rib to help
carry rib compressive loads.
Some musings on a cold wet day.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failures |
If you exert pressure on the leading edge until it fails it won't break the
rib tubing. It has to bend. Since being "in column" is not an exacting
concept, it will fold up by swinging to one side or the other favoring the
easiest route to go since it's not built perfect. There are no external
forces to push it other than the LE collapsing and "swinging out of column
under the path of least resistance under the g force applied to it. Adding
cross braces will keep this from happening and under enough force the
leading edge would just crush upward. The question is at what point will it
fail? Out of column at 6 g's? If supported crush upward at 12g's I don't
know but I called BRS today and they e-mailed me pictures for installation
of the canister to the root tube. I generally fly at 1,000 AGL so I feel
safer now with the cute.
If you want to see how this will happen if you can't visualize it, go to the
hanger of the guy who is building one. Take three of your buddies along.
Assuming his plane is framed out and assembled but not covered, have
everyone line up on the leading edge with the wing achored to the ground by
tying the spar tube to the floor so it can't move. Now all at once push
straight up on the leading edge as hard as you can until the leading edge
fails. You will see that it has to swing one way or the other. It helps to
have a few beers first. Oh, don't forget to leave a note for the owner how
his sacrifice educated you and all the readers here!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Leading edge failures
>
>>
>>"Another way to stiffen up the leading edge of the wing and to keep the
>>ribs in column is to cover from the leading edge back to the high point of
>>the airfoil with thin fiberglass sheet or aluminum.
>>
>
> Kirk, & Kolbers,
>
> This thread has really been interesting. To stabilize the leading edge
> wing
> tube, the FireFly uses one 5/16 OD 0.035 inch thick tube brace starting
> next
> to the most inboard rib from the nose tube back to the center line of main
> spar at about a 45 degree angle. Two other shorter braces using the same
> size tubing attach to the upper and lower nose rib tubes of the inner most
> rib to stabilize the nose rib against the pull of the shrunk fabric.
> Addition nose rib column stabilization comes from the fabric.
>
> I question the need for an increase in stiffening the wing leading edge.
> Basically, where is the sideways load going to come from that will cause
> the
> nose ribs to be forced out of column? During normal or abusive flight
> (high
> g loads), how is the leading edge tube going to forced sideways to move
> the
> ribs out column?
>
> The only way I can see a leading edge tube diagonal bracing failure is if
> the outer wing was to strike the ground or the leading edge tube struck
> some
> fixed object. Then one should cut an inspection hole through the fabric
> next to the inboard nose rib to view all three braces.
>
> If I wanted to increase nose rib strength, I believe you would get more
> for
> less weight by adding 1/2 by 1/2 aluminum angle to each nose rib to help
> carry rib compressive loads.
>
> Some musings on a cold wet day.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Firefly gross weight |
In a message dated 3/8/2006 1:27:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net writes:
500 pound gross weight.
Jack,
I am at 518 gross. If your Firefly weighs 254 + 24(BRS) + 30 (fuel)
then max pilot weight would be 192 lbs. If you carried extra fuel you would
really be over weight. The Firefly has a different wing attach than a fire star.
I assume the single strut with steel H support is stronger than the Firefly
set up. Have there been any known structural failures in the Firefly? I am
thinking of going back to the original 4" wheels. Azusa makes makes a new light
weight spun aluminum wheel . They are about 75.00 each. Kinda pricey. Not
sure what they weigh ,but I would like to have a pair.
Ed
Do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
On Mar 8, 2006, at 12:44 PM, DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote:
> Are you suggesting that a majority of Rotax failures come as a
> result of
> improper maintenance, Not paying attention to warning signs or
> sounds,
> improper oil mix ratio, which would fall into the category of
> pilot ERROR?
Yep, that IS what I am saying.
Let me give you an example of a very common problem Ive seen over
the years.
I've seen guys who think they have an exhaust temp problem, so they
start changing needles and jets and chase the temp gauge all over the
place because they are sure the standard Rotax setup is all wrong.
They put more faith in the reliability and accuracy of a little cheap
temp gauge and sensor than they do in the experience and
recommendations of the company that designed and manufactured the
engine.
Just because the pilot really likes the numbers he see on a gauge
does not mean the engine does.
Because the 2-stroke engine has a much higher output of horsepower
per displacement than the average 4-stroke engine, the 2-stroke also
has much less tolerance and margin for error in its operational
requirements.
If a Rotax engine is running too lean with a stock setup, changing
the needles and jets is almost always merely camouflaging and
temporarily covering up another often more serious problem.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight/Operator Problems |
| I've seen guys who think they have an exhaust temp problem, so they
| start changing needles and jets and chase the temp gauge all over
the
| place because they are sure the standard Rotax setup is all wrong.
| They put more faith in the reliability and accuracy of a little
cheap
| temp gauge and sensor than they do in the experience and
| recommendations of the company that designed and manufactured the
| engine.
Gang:
Agree 100%. Amazing how well our outboard motors, weed eaters,
chainsaws operate without any gauges. Nothing to adjust (and screw
up). Fill'em up with gas and oil, run Hell out of them.
Like Eugene said, the engines are designed and tuned at the factory to
operate just like they are, if you prop it correctly. Propping the
engine and airplane correctly is essential. If done properly, your
egt and cht will be in the green.
How do I prop it? Straight and level, WOT (wide open throttle),
straight and level flight, and the tach should just bump the redline.
When propped this way, the aircraft will have the best of both worlds,
climb and cruise. I do the 4 strokes the same way. Works every time.
;-)
I have 150 hours on my Suzuki DRZ400E single four stroke. Not a
single gauge on it anywhere except an hour meter to help me with the
maintenance intervals. Sucker runs like a dream. Very reliable set
up. To bad it wouldn't work on a FS.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Guys
Changed the subject line to better reflect the conversation..
Let me see if I have it straight?? No Kolb wing has been documented
to fail in normal operation! That would include running headlong at
speed into some mean thermals in the south west..
Only two leading edges have failed and this was the result of flight
way ,way,way above and beyond normal operation.. Aerobatic flight!
Even Dennis told us that he was young and heroic at one time..
I think we have a couple of guys here who are doing damage to the
Kolb Reputation.. Well deserved that it is...
So what are we really talking about?? Someones fears?? That
conversation will last a long time...
Herb --pining for the good old days when Sea Foam and oil choices
ruled!! :-)
writes:
>
> If you exert pressure on the leading edge until it fails it won't
> break the
> rib tubing. It has to bend. Since being "in column" is not an
> exacting
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
I noticed on the frapper site we have at least one Kolb with a BMW.
It sure would be interesting to hear about how this engine is
working out?
If Tim Warlick is lurking here or if someone knows of him and his plane,
please give us a report on this very interesting engine setup.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
Good words well spoken. I should have thought of saying that - but I didn't
- so thank you Herb!
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Gayheart
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal
operation
Guys
Changed the subject line to better reflect the conversation..
Let me see if I have it straight?? No Kolb wing has been documented
to fail in normal operation! That would include running headlong at
speed into some mean thermals in the south west..
Only two leading edges have failed and this was the result of flight
way ,way,way above and beyond normal operation.. Aerobatic flight!
Even Dennis told us that he was young and heroic at one time..
I think we have a couple of guys here who are doing damage to the
Kolb Reputation.. Well deserved that it is...
So what are we really talking about?? Someones fears?? That
conversation will last a long time...
Herb --pining for the good old days when Sea Foam and oil choices
ruled!! :-)
writes:
>
> If you exert pressure on the leading edge until it fails it won't
> break the
> rib tubing. It has to bend. Since being "in column" is not an
> exacting
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
| Only two leading edges have failed and this was the result of
flight
| way ,way,way above and beyond normal operation.. Aerobatic flight!
| Even Dennis told us that he was young and heroic at one time..
| I think we have a couple of guys here who are doing damage to
the
| Kolb Reputation.. Well deserved that it is...
| Herb --
Herb/Gang:
I don't believe Dennis Souder intended to test the Ultrastar to
destruction, but it happened. Was not the result of a leading edge
failure, but a drag strut which allowed the wing to fold. The US
Dennis was flying had no drag strut brace. The drag strut brace came
along as the result of Dennis folding the US wing.
My original FS normally never pulled more than 3 to 3.5 G's indicated
on a certified accelerometer (G meter). I can only remember pulling
more than 3.5 G's once, in an attempt to see how much I could pull,
which was 5.0 G's and I really had to work hard to accomplish that.
The aerobatics I flew were well within the stress allowance of the FS.
However, the FS was not and is not an aerobatic aircraft. Have not
flown any aerobatics since 11 March 1990. Think I learned my lesson.
Those of you that like to push the envelope, raise Hell, have fun, but
don't hurt any innocent bystanders.
Please explain the second paragraph above. I am not sure what you
mean and who you are talking about.
If you are referring to me, I do not think sharing my experience,
mistakes, failures, successes is in any way going to damage the
reputation of The New Kolb Aircraft Company. If it was, I am sure
Bruce Chesnut, Donnie Sizemore, and Travis Brown would rap me up side
my hard head or put a boot up my butt to get my attention.
I'm working on a post to the Kolb List now. Hopefully, it will
explain what has happened and how "I" prepared to preclude this from
happening again.
I have never stopped flying Kolbs, mine and factory, since I made my
first flight July 1984. If I had any doubt about the reliability or
safety of Kolb aircraft, I would never get in another one.
I think it is very important, especially on the 5 rib wings, to insure
the lateral bracing is in place. Contrary to popular belief, those
little 5/16" fabric braces on the leading edge will break from
vibration and end up riding on the bottom wing fabric. You can smack
the bottom fabric of the wing with the palm of your hand in all the
rib bays to see if there is anything in there riding around freely.
If there is, you will hear it rattle.
The best way to check the leading edge bracing, which is really fabric
bracing, is make a small slit with a razor blade in the inboard rib
fabric. Get a flashlight and look inside to see what you have. When
you are finished, get a roll of 2" plastic electrical tape and seal up
the hole to keep the windstream and bugs out.
If I was going to fly a 5 rib of my own, I would make the "hauck" mods
to insure I was going to land under the wings and not a parachute. My
own personal desire because I have experienced wing failure and do not
want to ever go through that again. OK? If you had walked in my
shoes, you would understand where I come from.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
What others do is their business. Based on history of Kolb aircraft,
there ain't no problem. ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:26:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
herbgh(at)juno.com writes:
Herb --pining for the good old days when Sea Foam and oil choices
ruled!! :-)
Oh Herbie,
You are so funny. hehehe
Billy Varnes
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
John
Uh! Uh!! You would be the last on my list... I do not even want to go
back and look at the last several days of mail to make any named
acusations..
My understanding of your failure was that it did not happen in the
normal flight envelope.. Same for the fatility..
Seems that both accidents have been written about before?
I would be the last to discourage sharing info of any type about
Kolbs and flying them.. Think I have griped about my Firefly going over
on its nose easily... Cannot think of one gripe about the mkIII that I
owned..
Perhaps my building a set of single lift wings muddied the water a
bit? I am doing that just because I like the idea.. Ain't going to toss
the current set of wings... Adding the d cell might have implied some
concern--not so---Just like the idea.
What I was referring to was the harrangue that has gone on about
structural reliability when flown normally with a subject line that was
clearly wrong..
I sensed that a real fear was developing about the Kolb
aircraft,particularly the 5 rib Firestar, with no evidence of a problem..
While TNK does not build a 5 rib wing Firestar, they are clearly
identified with the name..
Ain't gonna defend anyone when they are wrong... Nor out of mis placed
loyalty.. :-)
What I think and likely the last 20 or so years tends to indicate
is:---Kolb makes the strongest airplane of its type in the country. The
aproval by the Brits is a clear indication of that!
Herb
>
> | I think we have a couple of guys here who are doing damage to
>
> the
> | Kolb Reputation.. Well deserved that it is...
>
> | Herb --
>
> Herb/Gang:
>
> >
> Please explain the second paragraph above. I am not sure what you
> mean and who you are talking about.
>
> If you are referring to me, I do not think sharing my experience,
> mistakes, failures, successes is in any way going to damage the
> reputation of The New Kolb Aircraft Company. If it was, I am sure
> Bruce Chesnut, Donnie Sizemore, and Travis Brown would rap me up
> side
> my hard head or put a boot up my butt to get my attention.
>
> I'm working on a post to the Kolb List now. Hopefully, it will
> explain what has happened and how "I" prepared to preclude this from
>
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
> What others do is their business. Based on history of Kolb
> aircraft,
> there ain't no problem. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Its what we learn after we know everything that is the most important.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Gene
BMW MkIII flying or nearly so in Greenville,Ky as I recall? That him?
Herb
writes:
>
>
> I noticed on the frapper site we have at least one Kolb with a
> BMW.
> It sure would be interesting to hear about how this engine is
> working out?
>
> If Tim Warlick is lurking here or if someone knows of him and his
> plane,
> please give us a report on this very interesting engine setup.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Its what we learn after we know everything that is the most important.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
Look here - project is moving along:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=3398&start=10
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20500#20500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
| What I think and likely the last 20 or so years tends to indicate
| is:---Kolb makes the strongest airplane of its type in the country.
|
| Herb
That's why I chose it in 1983, finally got the $3,495.00 to buy my
first one in March 1984, and still flying them in 2006.
I looked for 6 months at what was available before I made my final
decision. Back then, nothing came close. Today, it is still my first
choice, because these little airplanes do for me what I want to do in
aviation. Satisfy all my flying desires.
Well...........I wouldn't mind cruising at 150 mph when I get in a
hurry, but I'll give up the unrealistic cruise for all the other
attributes of the Kolbs.
Take care,
john h
MKIII (SN: M3-011)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/8/2006 6:38:57 P.M. Central Standard Time,
etzim62(at)earthlink.net writes:
If a Rotax engine is running too lean with a stock setup, changing
the needles and jets is almost always merely camouflaging and
temporarily covering up another often more serious problem.
I am with you. I moved my needle clip one notch when my exhaust temps were
high in the mid-range, but it was not until I put more pitch in the prop that
the numbers got in the ball park. I think it was John H. that suggested that.
I also heard that the EGT would go even lower as the air temperature goes
up. I for one feel the manufacture knows his product better than I do so I
will follow their suggestions. So far so good
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Evening Flight |
In a message dated 3/8/2006 9:36:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
richard(at)bcchapel.org writes:
My opinion is that Rotax was (maybe?) responsible for the lead-balled
spark plug, (or maybe it was Amsoil's fault?) & the broken starter
recoil spring in the 277, the split exhaust in the 532 exhaust pipe,
(however that is apparently a problem that only affects the curlicue
sections of the side mount pipes) and the slipped gear on the 532 crank.
None of those caused an engine stoppage, in each event the engine kept
running and I was able to fly to an airstrip and land.
Obviously others have not been so fortunate, but I am satisfied that
Rotax 2 cycle engines are not as bad as some would make them out to be.
I baby my 582, I get 65 mph at 5100 rpm, the plugs burn clean, the rings
stay free, the carbon is nil, and it burns 3.5 gph. Still not as good as
a four stroke, but close enough for me. The 532 burned a bit less gas,
but didn't run as smoothly, it had flat spots and "chased the pipe." If
I want to go 85 mph, I run 5900 rpm and burn 5 gph. 2-stroke
reliability? I am satisfied that they are good enough. But I also think
that if I had an 80 HP 4 cycle Rotax, I would probably like it better.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Thanks for taking the time to share this info. I will be a little less on
edge when I fly
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:39 PM, John Hauck wrote:
> That's why I chose it in 1983, finally got the $3,495.00 to buy my
> first one in March 1984, and still flying them in 2006.
John,
I saw that nice Firestar of yours at Bill Lock's Flight Farm when
you were in route to Oshkosh. I dont remember if I met you in
person there or not but I remember it as being an excellent fly-in.
Bert Howland was there with his two little planes and I forgot the
guys name with his Monarch flying wing glider, which Bill Lock towed
to altitude with his 582-powered Terratorn.
Bill Martin trailered in Kolbs demonstrators but someone forgot to
pack the struts for their Firestar so the guys back home quickly UPS-
ed them up the next day and I remember being impresses with the fast
shipping service ,,,,,,,,,,,,, but then again Homer was still working
for UPS back then. :-)
Earl flew in that year with our modified Mark II with a 582 while I
provided ground support, hauling all our fuel, gear and grub.
This plane is the one pictured in Earls Frapper profile and is still
flying great with that same engine.
I gave it a face-lift and Earl rebuilt the engine this winter and it
will likely be flown to Homers place again by grandson Eddie as it
was last year on Fathers Day weekend.
Like you, I too am still flying a Kolb with no regrets.
PS
Sure would be nice to have you join the event at Homers this year.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Leading edge failure |
Dave,
Don't want to cause anymore anxiety cause there seems to be a lot going
around the list right now.... But ......if you used fiberglass on the leading
edge on top of dacron you may have caused a problem...dacron fabric is used
as a peel ply for fiberglass....check your Aircraft Spruce book or call Ceconite....From
personal experience it peels real easy....the resin will not go
through the weave....if you did it after the dac-proofer you may be OK ????
uncharted waters ?
Inquiring mind ED in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
I wonder how the airflow will be between the props inboard? Piper did this
with overlapping props on a cub many years ago but I never heard how that
experiment went.
I also wonder how the mount will fare under the torque of single engine
flying. Are the props counter-rotating?
Very interesting and also something that could be applied to bigger machines
I would think :)
Todd
On 3/8/06 10:37 PM, "Dave Bigelow" wrote:
>
>
> Look here - project is moving along:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=3398&start=10
>
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
> Kamuela, Hawaii
> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20500#20500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Todd Fredricks, DO
Flying Fox Services
Visit my Blog at www.flyingfoxhangar.blogspot.com
POWERED BY MAC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
| I saw that nice Firestar of yours at Bill Lock's Flight Farm when
| you were in route to Oshkosh.
| Sure would be nice to have you join the event at Homers this year.
|
| Gene
Gene/Gang:
Yep, those were the days. ;-) That would have been the 1989 Flight
Farm Flyin. That was the second year I flew the FS up there. And
yes, I was enroute to Oshkosh. Powered with the old point ign 447, I
had flown to Homer Kolb's for a few days, then up to Bert Howland's in
Maryland, NY, for a week, then flew through all the New England
States, over to the Flight Farm at Monterey, NY. Spent about a week
there, then flew over Niagra Falls for the second time, around
Detroit, up to Sault St Marie, Canada, and finally west and south into
Oshkosh 1989. Weather was terrible the day I flew into OSH. Had been
scud running, right on the deck all the way from Manistique, MI, where
I had RON'd. The "dealers show case" was in full bloom when I circled
the UL strip to land. Before I got out of the FS someone stuck a
microphone in my face. Very exciting times. My little bird won OSH
Grand Champion UL that year. Was a very happy two day flight home to
Alabama from OSH. I think this flight was 25 days and over 3,000
miles, the longest I had done in an UL.
This was 17 years ago with a single point ign 447, and you all are
wondering if your new Rotax will get you around the patch. hehehe
Eugene, that was the year Bert put me in his Honey Bee. Little did he
know he would have a hard time getting me out of it. Was a fun
airplane to fly, landed by itself at 25 mph, but it wasn't a Kolb.
The next year, 1990, is when Homer and Dick Rahill forgot the lift
struts for the FS and had to go back to get them. By that time I had
lost my FS and was ground bound and making plans to build the MKIII I
am flying today.
Got a bc email from Dennis Souder last night. In my reply to him I
mentioned I was considering making the Father's Day Flyin at Homer's
this year. Been 12 years since I have been to the Kolb Farm, 1994,
when I was on my way home from Alaska via the US border. Unless
something unforeseen happens between now and then, I will be at
Homer's for the flyin.
Time sure is flying.
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gittj" <gittj(at)earthlink.net> |
I have had these Brakes laying around here for two years or better , There Tracy
Obrien Hydraulic brakes , I take 150 bucks and you pay the shipping , there
like new they came from Kolb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
On Mar 9, 2006, at 10:25 AM, John Hauck wrote:
> Unless
> something unforeseen happens between now and then, I will be at
> Homer's for the flyin.
Good! Looking forward to meeting you there at the Kolb Farm with all
the "classic" pilots and planes. :-)
Someone should put a marker on the Kolb Frapper satellite map for
Homers place. It can be found easily on the road map. Just look for
Homers little lake between Spring City and Phoenixville then click
satellite and zoom in for amazing detail.
>> Time sure is flying. <<
Yes, for sure! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, pun intended :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
Herb,
The guy on the Frapper site is Tim Warlick @ Spanish Fort (AL)
His profile pict shows a BMW powered Kolb flying.
Sure would like to know how the R-100 is working out and some details
about the engine setup?
On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Herb Gayheart wrote:
>
> Gene
>
> BMW MkIII flying or nearly so in Greenville,Ky as I recall?
> That him?
> Herb
> writes:
>>
>>
>> I noticed on the frapper site we have at least one Kolb with a
>> BMW.
>> It sure would be interesting to hear about how this engine is
>> working out?
>>
>> If Tim Warlick is lurking here or if someone knows of him and his
>> plane,
>> please give us a report on this very interesting engine setup.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Its what we learn after we know everything that is the most important.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Gene
Do not know him--but am relatively sure that the guy that I saw
several years ago at the Ky state EAA flyin at Rough River State Park has
a BMW on his plane.. Seems that he had some problems with his 582?:-)
Pretty sure his name is Mike Richardson.. I sent his phone to you
privately.. Herb
writes:
>
>
> Herb,
> The guy on the Frapper site is Tim Warlick @ Spanish Fort (AL)
> His profile pict shows a BMW powered Kolb flying.
>
> Sure would like to know how the R-100 is working out and some
> details
> about the engine setup?
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Herb Gayheart wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Sure would like to know how the R-100 is working out and some
details
| about the engine setup?
Eugene/Gang:
I flew Tim Warlick about a year ago to get some familiarization in a
MKIII. He had flown his BMW/MKIII a few times before he came up to
fly with me, but did not have much data based on the short time he had
flown it.
Have not heard anything from Tim since our flight.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> operation |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
What are the coordinates for Homer's farm?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Zimmerman" <etzim62(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal
operation
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 10:25 AM, John Hauck wrote:
>
>> Unless
>> something unforeseen happens between now and then, I will be at
>> Homer's for the flyin.
>
> Good! Looking forward to meeting you there at the Kolb Farm with all
> the "classic" pilots and planes. :-)
>
> Someone should put a marker on the Kolb Frapper satellite map for
> Homers place. It can be found easily on the road map. Just look for
> Homers little lake between Spring City and Phoenixville then click
> satellite and zoom in for amazing detail.
>
> >> Time sure is flying. <<
> Yes, for sure! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, pun intended :-)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Frantz <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal operation |
John Murr wrote:
>
>What are the coordinates for Homer's farm?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eugene Zimmerman" <etzim62(at)earthlink.net>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:29 AM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Leading edge that has never failed in normal
>operation
>
>
>
>
Hey guy's, how about cooling it about the fly-in to Homer's. I have
sent an e-mail message to them to see if their interested in doing it
again this year. It's premature and presumptuous to assume that it is
going to be welcomed again this year. How about waiting to see how they
feel about it. Will let you know!
Terry - Firefly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Anticipated Flyin at Homer's |
| It's premature and presumptuous to assume that it is
| going to be welcomed again this year. |
| Terry - Firefly #95
Terry/Gang:
Reckon you are right.
May not be around come next June. No guarantees, ya know.
I'll probably fly up there anyhow to visit, talk airplanes, look at
and play with all those John Deeres. Didn't have much interest in JD
antiques back when I frequented the Kolb Farm regularly, but now I
have been bitten quite seriously. ;-)
Take care,
john h
PS: Gonna plan on going, if I am still around, but will keep it to
myself, for now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Frantz <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anticipated Flyin at Homer's |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> | It's premature and presumptuous to assume that it is
>| going to be welcomed again this year. |
>| Terry - Firefly #95
>
>Terry/Gang:
>
>Reckon you are right.
>
>May not be around come next June. No guarantees, ya know.
>
>I'll probably fly up there anyhow to visit, talk airplanes, look at
>and play with all those John Deeres. Didn't have much interest in JD
>antiques back when I frequented the Kolb Farm regularly, but now I
>have been bitten quite seriously. ;-)
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
>
>PS: Gonna plan on going, if I am still around, but will keep it to
>myself, for now.
>
>
>
John,
Hope that Clara and homer are agreeable again this year, if so I look
forward to seeing and talking to you again! There a bunch of guys up
here that would like to make your acquaintance.
Just didn't want to have them feel obligated to host us again this
year! They go out of their way to make us welcome and I want to make
sure they wish to do it again this year. You have known them far longer
then most of us and know how gracious they are.
Terry -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ElleryWeld(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | update on my Job description |
I now have closed my welding business and have gone to work for Telford
Aviation as a Mechanic /Welder/ Machinist. I am working on DH-7's and DH- 8's and
SAAB 340's working 4 days a week and still building other kit planes on the
side and still running my machine shop for Telford Aviation just to keep you all
posted
and flying every chance I get
Ellery in Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: HELLO - Dolly take-off... |
Here is a email that I received from one of my friends and I think it is worth
seeing, especially you float plane guys.
Larry, Oregon
Subject: Dolly take-off... You have seen thousands of float planes come
and go...but I'll bet you haven't seen one take off like this. Video was
taken in Prince George, BC....and got to give the pilot full marks for
guts. I imagine you only get one shot at this.--.. notice the fire truck
following them... they obviously had a few doubts themselves.
"Anyway, you have probably heard in "aviation lore" about all sorts of
things pilots have attempted with airplanes. Well, be prepared to witness
one of them. When a floatplane is landed on the grass and taken to the
hangar for maintenance, obviously it has to depart once again. Landing a
floatplane o n grass is easier than becoming airborne on grass. This is
where "Dolly" comes in. Put the aircraft on a "dolly", fire it up, tow it
down the runway, and once a certain speed is attained, push the throttle
to "Warp Factor 9", and you are airborne. Get ready, here is how the good
people at Hill Aircraft Service Ltd. in Prince George, B.C., accomplish a
"dolly take-off"!"
http://www.hillair.com/images/Dolleytakeoffweb3.wmv
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: HELLO - Dolly take-off... |
On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Larry Cottrell wrote:
>
> Subject: Dolly take-off... You have seen thousands of float planes
> come
> and go...but I'll bet you haven't seen one take off like this.
Another one
http://lazair.com/kitfox/index.php?showtopic=127
click "Trailer Launch"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
On Mar 9, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
> The guy on the Frapper site is Tim Warlick @ Spanish Fort (AL)
> His profile pict shows a BMW powered Kolb flying.
Hey guys check this out .
Tim just added a few more picts of his BMW
http://www.frappr.com/?a=viewphoto&id=700224&pid=1524936
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks Tim,
VERY neat picts!
Have you experienced any cooling problems with the engine?
Is that a Rotax C gear box?
> http://www.frappr.com/?a=viewphoto&id=700224&pid=1524936
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge failure |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
Guess you didn't read my post carefully. The fiberglass is underneath the fabric.
Also, I didn't lay up the fiberglass - it is commercially laid up material.
The fabric is attached as per the plans. One piece on top, and one piece
on the bottom from the LE to the TE over the full length of the wing. Instead
of rib stitching, the standard Kolb riveting to the ribs is used.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20767#20767
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fire_star_wing_le_226.mpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
There is a crop duster (forget the name) that has a similar setup in a tractor
configuration - it was successful. The props rotate in the same direction, but
are moving in opposite directions across the overlap area. I made the mounts
quite beefy. The engines are 17 inches off the center line of the aircraft,
so the twisting moment during single engine operation should not be too high.
Each engine should produce about 180 lb of thrust at sea level.
The plan is to do static full power runup in all engine configurations with video
of the mount areas before test flying. Won't know for sure until I try it
out. That's a big part of the challenge (and fun) of this sport. The airframe
is fully tuned out with about 50 hours of time with a 503 pushing it. I will
have to do another weight and balance before flying it with the twins.
The biggest suspected potential problem is vibration. I've used slightly different
spacing between the mounts on each engine to help prevent harmonics, but
I'm pretty sure there will be an RPM range that will need to be avoided. Time
will tell!
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20769#20769
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Bill Locks flight farm |
>
> > Gene writes
> I saw that nice Firestar of yours at Bill Lock's Flight Farm when
> you were in route to Oshkosh. I dont remember if I met you in
> person there or not but I remember it as being an excellent fly-in.
> Bert Howland was there with his two little planes and I forgot the
> guys name with his Monarch flying wing glider, which Bill Lock towed
> to altitude with his 582-powered Terratorn.
>
Hi Gene and gang, I was also at the "flight farm" in Horseheads NY back
then. I came with my Paraplane (powered parachute) and flew the beautiful
country there. I saw John Hauck doing his loops and hammerheads in his firestar
but
thought of him as show performer, of somekind, that one was not supposed to
approach or bother, so I also did'nt get to meet him either. I would see him
early in the morning wiping down his plane. 9 years later I bought my MK3, took
3 years to build and I have been flying for 10 years now.
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| The plan is to do static full power runup in all engine
configurations with video of the mount areas before test flying.
| Dave Bigelow
Dave:
A friend of mine, during testing of his Suzuki powered 3/4 scale
Jenny, used a strobe light at night on the prop. Amazing what the
strobe uncovered. At certain rpm the prop blades were dancing in all
directions and configurations. This may proved to be a critical
element of your test program. I don't know how he had the strobe
configured, but could find out if you are interested.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Address Change Alert |
CC: aarpnews(at)news.aarp.org
Please note my new email address:
rallynq(at)netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | BMW R100 on Kolbs |
Hello all,
There are at least 4 of us with BMW R100s on Kolbs. Hans VanAlphen has one
on an X-tra and must have over 150 hours by now, Jim Gerkin has one on his
MKIII and is flying, Tim Warwick has one on his MKIII and is flying, and I
have a MKIII with one which will fly in a couple of months. You don't hear
much from me because mine is not flying yet. Both Hans and Jim have posted
results that can be found in the archives. Us alternate engine'ers are a
little shy about posting on the list because it always seems to start a
discussion like seafoam, leading edge reinforcement and 2 stroke
reliability. I must have thin skin, because it seems like it would be hard
to walk away feeling good about what you shared and peoples response to it.
Jason
MKIII
BMW R100
Will fly this summer
Portland, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrmf(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
Jason
It's great to hear from you. Yes there is usually allot of comments on
alternative engines because those that have spent so much on their 912s just
can't stand to hear that they spent too much.
We need alternative engines for our Kolb's. Rotax has had a lock on aircraft
engines for too long and make us (some of us) pay way too much. They do have
a good product at least in their 4 stroke engines. I have no doubt that with
a bit of refinement some other engine could be as good for a bunch less
money.
Please tell us about your engines. I know there are GEOs, BMWs. other VWs
and maybe others out there that we don't hear about. Yes there are 912 fans
that always jump in and tell us about the zillion hours they have on their
engines. We know how good your engines are. That's not the point. We want
to hear from those people that are developing other engines....... Those of
that don't have that kind of money or choose not to spend that kind of money
on their airplanes need to hear from you.
I will get off my soap box now.......
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Omelchuck" <jason@trek-tech.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: BMW R100 on Kolbs
>
> Hello all,
>
> There are at least 4 of us with BMW R100s on Kolbs. Hans VanAlphen has
> one
> on an X-tra and must have over 150 hours by now, Jim Gerkin has one on his
> MKIII and is flying, Tim Warwick has one on his MKIII and is flying, and I
> have a MKIII with one which will fly in a couple of months. You don't
> hear
> much from me because mine is not flying yet. Both Hans and Jim have
> posted
> results that can be found in the archives. Us alternate engine'ers are a
> little shy about posting on the list because it always seems to start a
> discussion like seafoam, leading edge reinforcement and 2 stroke
> reliability. I must have thin skin, because it seems like it would be
> hard
> to walk away feeling good about what you shared and peoples response to
> it.
>
> Jason
> MKIII
> BMW R100
> Will fly this summer
> Portland, OR
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
| Us alternate engine'ers are a
| little shy about posting on the list because it always seems to
start a
| discussion like seafoam, leading edge reinforcement and 2 stroke
| reliability. I must have thin skin, because it seems like it would
be hard
| to walk away feeling good about what you shared and peoples response
to it.
|
| Jason
Jason:
I can understand how you feel. I have had my share of being told I
was full of crap. However, it is a discussion group and maybe we
should look at it that way. Everyone will never agree on anything on
this list or any other.
A lot of comments come from folks with little or zero Kolb experience.
Not easy, but consider the source and drive on.
I for one am interested in the BMW conversions. I would like to see
one of the newer engines, like the 100hp on the R1200GS on a MKIII,
Kolbra, or Xtra. The 85 hp BMW would make a nice engine also. All of
them will do better going through a gearbox, I think.
I noticed on Tim Warlicks photos that he had brought the air intakes
to the carbs 180 to face into the wind. I have found the Bing CV carb
performs better when in the normal BMW position facing to the rear.
The reason is these carbs do not like forced air because it upsets the
differences in static pressure which results in incorrect fuel
calibration by the vacuum piston. One of our Kolb people
experimented with reversing the 912 intake manifolds to reverse the
intakes on the Bing carbs. It worked much better in this
configuration.
Don't be shy. I don't think anyone has actually drawn any blood on
the Kolb List, although some of you all would love to see me bleed a
little, I am sure. ;-)
Take care,
john h
MKIII with the other kind of engine.................
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VIDEO FIRESTAR II |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Nice Flying Bill !!!
The kolb is very stable, but you obviously have some skills there :D
Nosewheels are really heavy and just add lots of drag... I would not want a nosewheel
on my Kolb even if it were offered...
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20948#20948
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VIDEO FIRESTAR II |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Bill V: Very impressive flying! Love my Kolbs.
Back copy me reference changing over from a dvd to a file I can send to the List.
I have some footage of the MKIII landing at Skelton Airstrip, Eureka Lodge,
AK, 19 July 2004, when I landed for one of those big Alaska breakfasts. Didn't
know the footage existed until Paul Petty was chatting with a pilot in AK
who mentioned he had shot video of an UL in AK. Shortly thereafter, Paul got
a copy and sent me a DVD. Thanks Paul.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20950#20950
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Question For Mr. Honda (Don Gherardini) |
Earl,
YEs sirree, they are Chinese copies...very poor quality, and with no parts avaiable...read
that as ...if you loose the oil filler plug...you cabbot replace it
....ZERO parts. The Chinese have observed that there are alot of very short
life engines sold in the USA, and they have decided to participate in this market...life
expectancy about 200 hours. They figure there is no need for parts.
PLus, since many of the threaded holes are hand drilled, they simply cannot supply
parts because there is no interchangeability among there own engines. A
sump cover taken from one engine wont fit on another...I tried this... Let the
buyer beware!
There is a law suit Filed by American Honda against jiangsu,,,or however you spell
it that has to do with them useing Hondas name and trademarked logos.
--------
Don G
FireFly#098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20962#20962
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel steerability |
Hey ya'll,
My Firestar II is tough to steer using the rudder pedals & tailwheel. I use
the brakes often to get it into a turn & most times have to use them
throughout the turn especially when turning the tail into the wind.
I've got the tailwheel chains snugged up pretty tight so that shouldn't be
the problem. I've also lubricated everything in sight in the tailwheel area.
Mine has that tiny 25 cent tailwheel...which I figure is probably the reason
as it doesn't have the tread to grip the surface & actually turn. The
tailwheel slides around a turn, on pavement or grass.
Thanks for any ideas!
Wild Bill Catalina
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Frantz <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Fly-in at Homer's |
Gentlemen,
Just spoke to Clara Kolb and the word is that they are not going to be
there over the Father's Day weekend. They are going to Iowa for a
vintage tractor expo and will be gone for a couple of weeks. Those of
you that know him or were there last time, saw his collection of John
Deer's and his passion for them.
That precludes any fly-in to their place on that date, although she said
that they will look at other dates to possibly still have a fly-in.
They thoroughly enjoyed having the last two! I told her that it was OK
and it was never intended to become an annual event, but only if they
wanted to have it.
Will let you know if any other date is suggested by them,
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fly-in at Homer's |
I guess then it's Shreveport then! 07N
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Frantz" <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:26 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fly-in at Homer's
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> Just spoke to Clara Kolb and the word is that they are not going to be
> there over the Father's Day weekend. They are going to Iowa for a
> vintage tractor expo and will be gone for a couple of weeks. Those of
> you that know him or were there last time, saw his collection of John
> Deer's and his passion for them.
>
> That precludes any fly-in to their place on that date, although she said
> that they will look at other dates to possibly still have a fly-in.
> They thoroughly enjoyed having the last two! I told her that it was OK
> and it was never intended to become an annual event, but only if they
> wanted to have it.
>
> Will let you know if any other date is suggested by them,
>
> Terry - FireFly #95
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fly-in at Homer's |
Terry:
Thanks for your effort.
Let us know if you come up with a new date.
Take care,
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Jason,
I would like to encourage you and other BMW flyers to post their finding on the
list. While a few on the list seem defensive, there are many that are open to
new ideas.
I just spent an hour searching the archives about BMW's on Kolbs. I found that
the cost is around $3000, the weight is about 146 pounds, the hp is around 70,
the thrustline with a Rotax C box in the down position is about right. There
also seems to be some question on the availability of adapters for the gear box,
and maybe the availability of the R100 itself.
But if I had the chance to put a BMW on my Firestar II for less than $4,000, I
would consider it. I welcome any information about alternative engines. If I don't
like what I read, I can keep flying with my 503. I would like to replace
my 503 with a 4-stroke before it is wore out.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21035#21035
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel steerability |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Blumax008(at)aol.com wrote:
> My Firestar II is tough to steer using the rudder pedals & tailwheel. Wild Bill
Catalina
Bill,
I still use the stock tailwheel on my Firestar II and the only time I have to use
the brakes for steering is to spin around a wheel (u-turn?). I do not use stock
springs and that may be the difference. My springs are compression types,
like found on a screen door.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21066#21066
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel steerability |
Wild Bill
FWIW - all the time I flew my 170, I nearly always had to tap the
brake to make a turn . Even with that big rudder! Tightening chains
wouldn't do it. Maule tailwheel. I just considered that a brake-tap
was simply the way you had to do it, and it always worked..
In a crosswind, sometimes there's just no way to keep it straight;
you have to gun it & do a circle. Once at Des Moines , they were
expecting the C-5 to come in and there were several thousand people
watching (of course!) I made a good landing but had a long taxi with
a strong crosswind. Ended up doing SEVEN circles on the taxiway. Most
embarassing. Maybe they thought it was a show, the Flying Farmer or
something. Hope so.
Tower: "What are your intentions?"
Me: "you ever fly a taildragger?"
Twr: "No"
Me: "Just be patient then, I'll get there eventually"
And I did, all ended happily. The C-5 came in & maybe they forgot
all about this spinning fool.
I wouldn't keep the chains real tight as it has to wear bearings,
bushings, shafts, whatever. Doesn't seem to work anyway, IMExperience
at least.
I doubt tread is a big factor; I've flown quite a bit with bald
tailwheels.
Good luck
On Mar 11, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Blumax008(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hey ya'll,
>
> My Firestar II is tough to steer using the rudder pedals &
> tailwheel. I use
> the brakes often to get it into a turn & most times have to use them
> throughout the turn especially when turning the tail into the wind.
>
> I've got the tailwheel chains snugged up pretty tight so that
> shouldn't be
> the problem. I've also lubricated everything in sight in the
> tailwheel area.
>
> Mine has that tiny 25 cent tailwheel...which I figure is probably
> the reason
> as it doesn't have the tread to grip the surface & actually turn. The
> tailwheel slides around a turn, on pavement or grass.
>
> Thanks for any ideas!
> Wild Bill Catalina
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
Copied this off of the engines list. ~ Earl
> Here's a Beemer on a Firestar:
> http://www.daytonulclub.org/id151.htm
>
> There are a number of Avids that use BMW engines. An
> Avid dealer use to sell adapter plates in Idaho, but I
> don't see it on their site any longer. Here's some
> other info:
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/engineinfo/bmwconversion.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
On Mar 11, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Earl & Mim Zimmerman wrote:
> Copied this off of the engines list. ~ Earl
>
>> Here's a Beemer on a Firestar:
>> http://www.daytonulclub.org/id151.htm
Ok but,
It is not a Firestar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JW Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
Folks, I do believe that is a MKIIIX
Jim Hauck
On 3/11/2006 6:52:39 PM, kolb-list(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> Copied this off of the engines list. ~ Earl
>
> >
> Here's a Beemer on a Firestar:
> > http://www.daytonulclub.org/id151.htm
> >
> > There are a number of Avids that use BMW engines. An
> > Avid dealer use to sell adapter plates in Idaho, but I
> > don't
> see it on their site any longer. Here's some
> > other info:
> > http://www.ultralightnews.com/engineinfo/bmwconversion.htm
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JW Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net> |
Folks;
Reading the article about the Beemer, Wonder why they change the camshaft to
a reverse camshaft when it would be a bunch cheaper to have a prop built for
tractor configuration.
Only thing I can think of is the Beemer turns the wrong direction for the
gear box.
Wonder which way that sucker turns?
Jim Hauck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Here is a link to the BMW Extra (not Firestar) that works better:
http://www.daytonulclub.org/id149.htm
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21118#21118
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 on Kolbs |
Guys,
I also want to hear everything you BMW flyers and builders are willing to
share, also Jabiru flyers, it seems there is a growing number of both out
there.
Denny Rowe, Mk-3, 2SI 690L-70
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Schnabel <tnfirestar2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Grass strip turf question |
Gentlemen,
Finally spring is nearing, and the rain has stayed away long enough for ground
preparation on my grass runway. We have been working the ground the last few
months, and have disked and dragged to what is now a very nice level surface.
My question: its now time to decide what grass to attempt to grow that is best
suited for a runway (if it really makes much difference). Does anyone have an
opinion?
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
Mike S
Firestar2 503
Manchester TN
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
| My question: its now time to decide what grass to attempt to grow
that is best suited for a runway (if it really makes much difference).
Does anyone have an opinion?
|
| Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
|
| Mike S
Mike:
I'm not a grass man, but I am lucky enough to have a little grass
strip.
I can't remember what kind of seed I sewed after tilling, but never
put any more on it after the initial planting. My strip is surrounded
by and was part of the hay fields/pastures of the farm.
I'd check with the local country agent or the man at the feed/seed
store, and go with his recommendations. For me, all I want is
something to cover the dirt and keep the dust and errosion down.
No matter what you put on it, it will grow too fast in the summer.
;-)
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Frantz <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
Mike Schnabel wrote:
>
>Gentlemen,
>
> Finally spring is nearing, and the rain has stayed away long enough for ground
preparation on my grass runway. We have been working the ground the last few
months, and have disked and dragged to what is now a very nice level surface.
>
> My question: its now time to decide what grass to attempt to grow that is best
suited for a runway (if it really makes much difference). Does anyone have
an opinion?
>
> Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
>
> Mike S
> Firestar2 503
> Manchester TN
>
>
>
>
>
Mike,
Ask your local Agway dealer about "Shortcut" grass.
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
>
> My question: its now time to decide what grass to attempt to grow that is
best suited for a runway (if it really makes much difference). Does anyone
have an opinion?
>
Mike,
After moving to Winchester, IN and moving into a new home, I had to figure
out what lawn seed to use. I talked to a fellow who baby sits I22 about
what grass to use. He had a home landing strip and recommended Manhattan
II. It is a dwarf perennial rye grass. If you are not going to graze your
strip and you are going to mow it, this may be the grass for you.
I Googled the web and found a source at:
http://www.ryegrasses.com/info/turfseed/manhattan.html
The latest variety is Manhattan IV. I have used this grass to establish a
new lawn around the house. It is a little pricey, but I believe it is well
worth it, just for the difference in mowing expense. When I get my runway
levelled, I will be using it on the runway too.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
| From: | "Bill Vincent" <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
Hi Gang
I agree with Kirk, but personally, I think you should plant any type of grass that
deer dislike (maybe even plant astro turf :-)
The deer on the runway that I fly from usually come out at dusk, they used to run
when they heard me coming in for a landing, but now they just stand there and
stick their tongues out at me...four times last year I had to abort my landing
because they were either standing in the way or they were running across
the runway in front of me, I am thinking it is the clover in the grass they like.
--------
Bill Vincent
Firestar II
Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21287#21287
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question/And Obstacles |
| The deer on the runway that I fly from usually come out at dusk,
they used to run when they heard me coming in for a landing, but now
they just stand there and stick their tongues out at me | --------
| Bill Vincent
Bill;
There are 50 to 100 cows that love my airstrip. They are born there
with the little red and yellow airplane, which is a normal part of
their life. When they become old mama's some will play games with me
when I try to land and they won't get off the strip.
Worst part is the land mines they leave behind, especially during the
winter when they are fed hay by the airstrip. I exercise my old
tractors pulling 8 truck tires fixed in a diamond shape to spread out
the cow pies so they will dry quicker.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Vincent" <emailbill(at)chartermi.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Grass strip turf question
>
> Hi Gang
> I agree with Kirk, but personally, I think you should plant any type of
grass that deer dislike (maybe even plant astro turf :-)
> The deer on the runway that I fly from usually come out at dusk, they used
to run when they heard me coming in for a landing, but now they just stand
there and stick their tongues out at me...four times last year I had to
abort my landing because they were either standing in the way or they were
running across the runway in front of me, I am thinking it is the clover in
the grass they like.
>
> --------
> Bill Vincent
> Firestar II
> Upper Peninsula of Michigan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21287#21287
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
they used to run when they heard me coming in for a landing, but now
they just stand there and stick their tongues out at me...four times
last year I had to abort my landing because they were either standing
in the way or they were running across the runway in front of me, I am
thinking it is the clover in the grass they like.
deer in your area scared of a bullet? ;-)
Jeremy
P.S. The local law enforcement might frown on the gun in the
cockpit...maybe you can convince them you're an air marshall?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
On 19 July 2004, I shot a landing at Eureka Lodge, Alaska. I had taken off from
a gravel strip on the bank of the Knik River near Palmer, AK. It was about
0830, I was hungry and looking for coffee. Nearly two years later I got the video
clips of my landing, which I did not know had been taped. Paul Petty while
communicating with a gentleman in Alaska discovered Miss P'fer's landing at
Skelton Airstrip, Eureka Lodge, AK.
Thanks Paul. Here's the url for 4 segments. Recommend "saving as" and downloading
to your hard drive before playing. Each clip is 16 mb.
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Eureka%20Lodge/
Not worth the effort to try and download these if you have a dial up. May not
be worth the effort to download if you have cable. ;-)
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21346#21346
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
The url broke on the previous. You can cut and paste it, or use this condensed
url:
http://urlsnip.com/383692
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21347#21347
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
The shortened version didn't work either, but I double checked this one and I think
it will get you to the index page and the four files.
http://xrl.us/keii
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21349#21349
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Paul Petty recorded a DVD from the orginal VHS tape. I stuck the DVD in my computer
and downloaded the file to my HD. It works with Window Media Player and
Real Player, plus a couple others that I can not remember.
Paul's DVD recorder automatically put the 16mb chaps in the DVD. He never could
figure out how to get them out and into one clip. Neither do I.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21374#21374
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
Mike Schnabel wrote:
>
>Gentlemen,
>
> Finally spring is nearing, and the rain has stayed away long enough for ground
preparation on my grass runway. We have been working the ground the last few
months, and have disked and dragged to what is now a very nice level surface.
>
> My question: its now time to decide what grass to attempt to grow that is best
suited for a runway (if it really makes much difference). Does anyone have
an opinion?
>
> Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
>
> Mike S
> Firestar2 503
> Manchester TN
>
We use Bermuda here in central Mississippi; it's durable & grows low &
fairly slow. Cuts down on mowing a lot if we can keep the dallas grass &
other weeds off it. One or two treatments a season with MSMA helps a lot.
Be sure to check on whether the grass you choose will thrive in your
climate. One of the founding members of our strip did a lot of research,
found some expensive custom breed that's great for runways, bought a lot
of it & it all died. Seems it was bred for northern climes & 'couldn't
take the heat.'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
Mike,
I bought Timithy (hay) seed from a local farmer. Several farmers sell it
around here for $20-$25 a bushel.
You may have the deer problems with it that someone mentioned as they do
like it but it is dirt cheap and that makes it easy to overseed so it comes
in thick, it also came up nice and quick.
You might want to check with the local farmers.
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Miles <ultrastarrick(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass strip turf question |
Go to your local golf coarse and see which farway grass they use for your area.
or the greans which would be shorter and a finer blade but may not be as derable
as the farway grass
Mike Schnabel wrote:
Gentlemen,
Finally spring is nearing, and the rain has stayed away long enough for ground
preparation on my grass runway. We have been working the ground the last few months,
and have disked and dragged to what is now a very nice level surface.
My question: its now time to decide what grass to attempt to grow that is best
suited for a runway (if it really makes much difference). Does anyone have an
opinion?
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
Mike S
Firestar2 503
Manchester TN
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)commspeed.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
List;
That file name "VOB" runs fine in any DVD-type
program. That's what I ended up using to see it.
Looked like a beautiful pattern & landing. For a
guy that's never been notrth of the border, flying
without parka, in Alaska, seems strange.
Guess every place on earth has a few 'good' days.
Blue Skies,
George Bass
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
[/quote]Looked like a beautiful pattern & landing. For a
guy that's never been notrth of the border, flying
without parka, in Alaska, seems strange.
>
>
> Weather has been much warmer in Alaska. It can change in a minute though. Best
be prepared for everything. Flew from North Pole to Anaktuvuk Pass, above
the Arctic Circle, in a T-Shirt and flight jacket. Next morning took off from
Deadhorse bound for Kaktovik (Barter Island) in a T-Shirt and no jacket. 25
miles east and I was freezing. Found a gravel bar by a river to land on. Dug
out some more clothes before continuing east. It was 70F when I left Deadhorse
and 40 when I got out of the MKIII at Kaktovik. Clear blue shy and sunshine,
but the wind was howling.
>
> Point Barrow, a few days later, was also very nice. I have a photo of Eskimo
girls in shorts on the gravel streets of Barrow. Never thought I would see that.
>
> Here is a photo I took flying south from Eagle Plains, YT, to Dawson City, YT.
A beautiful morning for a little while. 30 minutes later and I was down on
the road waiting for the ceiling to lift enough to fly again.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21481#21481
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ak040678_1_973.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ak040678_1_346.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
I took the liberty of taking the 4 VOB files and combining them into a
single Windows Media file...
You can view it here:
http://www.Texas-Flyer.com/images/Hauck-Alaska-landing.wmv
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
| I took the liberty of taking the 4 VOB files and combining them
into a
| single Windows Media file...
|
| You can view it here:
|
| http://www.Texas-Flyer.com/images/Hauck-Alaska-landing.wmv
|
| -- Robert
Thanks Robert:
Best images come on the DVD player on the TV. Also good sound. Can
hear the guys discussing the airplane, engine running in the air and
on the ground.
Again, thanks for your help.
john h
PS: I will take the 4 big files off Paul P's web page in a few days
and folks can look at Robert L's.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
Hi John,
Your flying on the wrong side of the cockpit. ;-)
Who do you think you are, a helicopter pilot? ;-)
In a message dated 3/13/2006 12:03:05 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck"
| I took the liberty of taking the 4 VOB files and combining them
into a
| single Windows Media file...
|
| You can view it here:
|
| http://www.Texas-Flyer.com/images/Hauck-Alaska-landing.wmv
|
| -- Robert
Thanks Robert:
Best images come on the DVD player on the TV. Also good sound. Can
hear the guys discussing the airplane, engine running in the air and
on the ground.
Again, thanks for your help.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
For those of you who cannot get the WMV version of the video to work, if
you'll make sure that Flash will work with your browser, then you'll be able
to view it as a Flash video... here:
http://www.texas-flyer.com/images/Hauck-video.html
This should work for Windows, Mac, and Linux, as long as you have the Flash
driver loaded for your browser. To do it this way, there's a little bit of
sacrifice in quality, but at least everyone can view it.
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
Hey Guys,
Sorry for not jumping in here till now but I have been busy with Ms.Dixie. As John
stated I met an Alaskan Pilot that I have become friends with and he sent
me about 5 hrs of VHS of his flying in Alaska over the past few years. When I
talked about my buddy who flew his Kolb to Barrow and described it's color and
design he said "Man I think I have him on video!"
When I got my hands on the VHS I was amazed it was John H. I have for the longest
wanted to convert my old VHS over to DVD and bought a recorder to do just this.
However for reasons unknown to JVC and myself, these recordings stop and
start over every so often. We first thought that the tape was so long the DVD
recorder may be thinking it was at the end tape due to drag. But I dont think
that is the problem. It appears that there is some sort of "signal" in the VHS
that is telling the recorder that there are different "chapters" and the 5 hrs
of VHS took 5 DVD's to record all of the material on. The max on "chapters"
is 51 per DVD.
Anyone have a clue? I would love to capture this segment on one continous DVD as
the entire collection for my Kolb brothers. Also like anyone with Kolb flying
footage, I would be happy to convert the VHS to DVD for all of us to enjoy!
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21597#21597
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey gang,
I have posted this before however thought I might toss it one more time. as you
know there are a few chat services out here yahoo/ICQ/AOL yada yada...even our
hero matt tried made a chat room for us kolb guys. Didn't fly erggg.. I like
the idea of when I am in front of this screen to be able to ask questions in
"real time"..... what ya think gang? get with it!
I cant even get my old fart buddy John H to down load yahoo messanger [Rolling
Eyes]
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21600#21600
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
Paul --
This is a common problem with VHS->DVD recorders... They've tried to make
it "easy" for the dummies, but they end up creating more problems than they
solve. For reasons I'm unable to fathom, the manufacturers of these devices
have created some of the WORST user-interface issues known to man.
Currently, the solution I use in a similar situation is to "rip" the files
off the DVS, piece them together in a video editing software, then burn the
result back to a DVD (kind of like I did with the 4 VOBs).
-- Robert
On 3/13/06, Paul Petty <lynnp@g-gate.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> Sorry for not jumping in here till now but I have been busy with Ms.Dixie.
> As John stated I met an Alaskan Pilot that I have become friends with and he
> sent me about 5 hrs of VHS of his flying in Alaska over the past few years.
> When I talked about my buddy who flew his Kolb to Barrow and described it's
> color and design he said "Man I think I have him on video!"
> When I got my hands on the VHS I was amazed it was John H. I have for the
> longest wanted to convert my old VHS over to DVD and bought a recorder to do
> just this. However for reasons unknown to JVC and myself, these recordings
> stop and start over every so often. We first thought that the tape was so
> long the DVD recorder may be thinking it was at the end tape due to drag.
> But I dont think that is the problem. It appears that there is some sort of
> "signal" in the VHS that is telling the recorder that there are different
> "chapters" and the 5 hrs of VHS took 5 DVD's to record all of the material
> on. The max on "chapters" is 51 per DVD.
> Anyone have a clue? I would love to capture this segment on one continous
> DVD as the entire collection for my Kolb brothers. Also like anyone with
> Kolb flying footage, I would be happy to convert the VHS to DVD for all of
> us to enjoy!
>
> --------
> Paul Petty
> Kolbra #12
> Ms Dixie
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D21597#21597
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
Paul --
AOL is still pretty much "king" of the chats, I think. It's not a "chat
room" but a one-on-one chat process. I think Matt's is a "chat room", which
can be fun if there are multiple people logged in and chatting. I did this
years and years ago for a scuba forum I belonged to, but the ONLY way it
worked was to have a "bartender" who will annouce when everyone should
attend, and annouce when "the bar is open", and provide a little impetus
during the early minutes when everyone is shy.
I think it would have to be the same on this chat room. Someone will have
to step up and volunteer for that role, and follow through. It's made more
difficult due to time differences; finding the right time is a chore, and
there will always be someone that complains.
Whether it's worth the effort or not is unknown. It takes so much effort...
almost like a telephone conference call, because you have to be there,
"LIVE". EMail is "store-and-forward" and works much better for people
scattered all over creation... thus the enduring popularity of email.
If one-on-one chats works for you, then maybe we should start announcing our
AOL account names. (If it turns out that people use a variety of instant
messaging, then you can always use a multiple-account IM client, like
Trillian.
-- Robert
P.S. My AOL IM name is: rtlaird553, but I'll admit to not having it up and
running all the time.. most of the time, but not all the time.
On 3/13/06, Paul Petty <lynnp@g-gate.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hey gang,
>
> I have posted this before however thought I might toss it one more time.
> as you know there are a few chat services out here yahoo/ICQ/AOL yada
> yada...even our hero matt tried made a chat room for us kolb guys. Didn't
> fly erggg.. I like the idea of when I am in front of this screen to be able
> to ask questions in "real time"..... what ya think gang? get with it!
>
>
> I cant even get my old fart buddy John H to down load yahoo
> messanger [Rolling Eyes]
>
> --------
> Paul Petty
> Kolbra #12
> Ms Dixie
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D21600#21600
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
This afternoon, I just took my first flight with 102 LandShorter VG's on my Firestar
II. It sure is different! It used to stall with a somewhat clean break at
38 to 40 mph. I had it down to 30 mph with no actual break. It was sinking at
500 ft/min at 30 mph and it sort of rocked from side to side, but the nose never
dropped. It was a thermally afternoon, so I will get better information on
future flights. The one landing was a little surprising. I sort of expected
it to float down the runway, but it settled gently at 38 mph.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21607#21607
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert,
I for the most part use yahoo (Kolbra012) I spend most of my day with the computer
running at my desk. I frequent a chat room called the "Hanger" under recreation
and sports. Thats where I met the fella that caught John H on tape. I also
use yahoo messanger as well as ICQ for John H heheh
contact me
Regards
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21613#21613
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | McCarthy, Alaska, 2004 |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Gang: Here's a photo I took same day the video at Eureka Lodge was taken. This
was at the new airstrip at McCarthy, Alaska, and Kennecott Copper Mine. It
is a beautiful area at the end of the line. One of the reasons I like this photo
is the Super Cub and gear of an outfitter or miner on the other side of the
strip. I probably had enough fuel to get back to the Knik River, but don't
like to take chances with fuel. Struck up a conversation of a fella that was
flying one of the tour aircraft out of McCarthy. There was no fuel for sale for
the public, but he bent the rules and sold me 10 gals out of their company
tank. This fuel is haued in to the airstrip during the winter with the river
is frozen. From McCarthy I flew back to Eureka Lodge with one stop in a borrow
pit near the highway for a "pit stop". The Lodge closes the kitchen at 2200
and I was pushing hard to get there in time for some good food.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21618#21618
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ak040338_1_117.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Vincent" <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Landing Eureka Lodge, Alaska |
WOW John, what a great video!
Looks like you put her down in some squirrelly wind and the strobes look awesome!
Thanks for sharing it with the list.
I would like to thank Robert Laird for putting the video on his video editing software
and making it a "wmv" file....last night my wife and I made popcorn, got
all ready for the "movie" and we couldn't make the video work. After working
all day today and shoveling snow tonight it was a pleasant surprise to be able
to view the video.
Bill Vincent
Firestar II
Upper Peninsula of Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
Instead of a "chat room" why not use one of the voice over IP type of
programs like Teamspeak or Ventrilo?
Then you can log in and just talk and not have to pound a keyboard... :-)
Carlos Grageda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <lynnp@g-gate.net>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: live chat
>
> Hey gang,
>
> I have posted this before however thought I might toss it one more time.
> as you know there are a few chat services out here yahoo/ICQ/AOL yada
> yada...even our hero matt tried made a chat room for us kolb guys. Didn't
> fly erggg.. I like the idea of when I am in front of this screen to be
> able to ask questions in "real time"..... what ya think gang? get with it!
>
>
> I cant even get my old fart buddy John H to down load yahoo messanger
> [Rolling Eyes]
>
> --------
> Paul Petty
> Kolbra #12
> Ms Dixie
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21600#21600
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans van Alphen" <BMW_flyer(at)bellsouth.net> |
Cc: "Hans van Alphen"
| Subject: | BMW R100 - Update |
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: "JW Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Kolb-List: Beemer
>>
>>
>> Folks;
>> Reading the article about the Beemer, Wonder why they change the camshaft
>> to
>> a reverse camshaft when it would be a bunch cheaper to have a prop built
>> for
>> tractor configuration.
>> Only thing I can think of is the Beemer turns the wrong direction for the
>> gear box.
>> Wonder which way that sucker turns?
>> Jim Hauck
>>
To Jim and all Kolb listers interested in the BMW conversion.
Received emails this weekend that my BMW flying machine was a topic of
discussion on the list lately and I felt it necessary to update everyone and
correct some misunderstandings about the BMW.
As some of you know I started flying the BMW in 2001 and I have over 200
hours on it. It really has been quite boring the last few years as I have
had no problems with the BMW. It always starts and never misses a beat.
It has been very cheap to operate and it only burns 3 gallons per hour. I
made a mistake and changed sparkplugs when it wasn't needed and created an
intermittent miss, it turned out to be a bad plug (brand new)
I purchased the BMW R100 boxer engine for $950.- from a wrecked bike, it had
a scraped valve cover, but the bike was totaled.
I played with the engine on a stand for a few months before I decided to put
it on an airplane. I purchased one of the first Mark III extra's (#14) at
Sun-N-Fun, after a test flight with Norm Labhart, Bless his soul....
Just before his passing we had planned to do a picture shoot and video an
alternative engines for the Kolb.
My Xtra is the original "heavy" version. My empty weight is 625 pounds.
I think I was the first one to fly a BMW in the States, I thought I was a
pioneer until I found out that in 1997 another Dutchman by the name of
Adrien van Loenen flew a BMW on a trike in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Apparently he used a belt reduction drive on his but I really don't have any
further info on his project.
Then I found out that there were several BMW's flying in Europe, e.g. UK,
Holland, France, South Africa and Australia. Some as pusher and some in the
tractor configuration, which brings me to the question Jim had on why a
reverse mirror camshaft ?
The only time you need a reverse camshaft is in a tractor situation, the BMW
MUST be installed in the same position as in the bike or it will NOT cool
properly, many people have tried and failed miserably. That was one reason I
wanted a pusher so I could use the BMW without modifications. Looking at the
prop from the back it turns clockwise with the Rotax C gearbox installed.
I tried a centrifugal clutch RK400 , it failed three times and got rid of it
and instead used a heavier flywheel. K.I.S.S.
I tried an oilcooler and one of the brackets broke shortly and replaced it
with cooling fins from a car amplifier bolted to the bottom of the oilpan,
it works fine. K.I.S.S. (see pictures on my website)
I dual plugged the engine as is quite common on the bikes, it starts easier,
runs smoother and has a few more HP.
I estimate my power to be slightly more than the Rotax 582, about 70 hp.
Also dual ignition.
I agree with John Hauck on the placement of the Bing carbs just as they are
on the bike. K.I.S.S , also no problem with carb icing. I think Tim was
trying to get more air into the carbs but that really does not work. You
need a turbo for that. I did notice that I get more power without a carb
filter. So it is important to use a filter as open or less restrictive as
possible, just like your exhaust. The engine is just a big airpump and runs
most efficient without restrictions.
Jim Gerken had a great idea to add small aluminum brackets to the front of
the carbs to stop a lot of vibration and save the carb sockets, yes I have
had a carb come loose....
I use the in-flight adjustable IVO prop, very smooth, not as efficient as my
PowerFin, but the in-flight adjustment makes more than up for it.
There are 4 other BMW's out there that I know of ; Jim Gerken, Tim Warlick,
Robert Walden and Jason Omelchuck
The "Firestar" on the www.DaytonUlClub.org site is my Mark III Extra.
The BMW R100 is an excellent real alternative engine , it is cheap,
reliable, bulletproof, but not for everyone as it is not an out of the box
bolt it on engine, you must be mechanically inclined to do the conversion or
get help.
My total cost including the Rotax C gearbox ($1350.-) was about $3,000.-
plus my labor.....
One of my neighbors has an Aircam with twin 912's and I think they are great
engines and I love to go flying with him.
Have not had much time to update my website, nothing fancy but try it for
more info., pictures and links.
www.home.bellsouth.net/personalpages/PWP-BMWflyer
and article in Experimenter, February 2004
My apologies for this longwinded update....
Hans van Alphen
Jupiter, Florida
N100MX
BMW_flyer(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)pegasusbb.com> |
the two persons who was wanting a copy of ultrastar plans and manual no longer
need them, if anyone wants them, email me at rwehba(at)pegasusbb.com or rwehba(at)cebridge.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Len du Preez" <Len(at)i5t.co.za> |
Hi
I just joined the list, I am currently thinking of buying either the Kolbra
or Firestar kits. I live in South Africa and do not have any physical
reference or example to base my decision on. Can you guys help with giving
your views on the two planes? The pros the cons and your building
experiences.photos directly to me are welcome.send to len(at)i5t.co.za
Kind regards
Len du Preez
083 453 7806
len(at)I5T.co.za
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BMW R100 - Update |
Hans,
No apologies necessary!!!
Thanks much for sharing your BMW experience and info.
You have done a GREAT job on that Mark III Extra and R-100!!!
You should be proud of the Web site too.
One question,,,,,,,, Did you make your own adaptor for the E box or
is one available commercially?
Again, Thanks for sharing your experience with the BMW.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 11:19 PM, Hans van Alphen wrote:
> Have not had much time to update my website, nothing fancy but try
> it for
> more info., pictures and links.
> www.home.bellsouth.net/personalpages/PWP-BMWflyer
> and article in Experimenter, February 2004
> My apologies for this longwinded update....
>
> Hans van Alphen
> Jupiter, Florida
> N100MX
> BMW_flyer(at)bellsouth.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having 80lbs less
usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm less
than excited about this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Spence" <sspence801(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
David:
I have a heavy Xtra as well, and glad I do. The early versions of the
Xtra do weigh more due to additional chrome molly in the cage. The dual
controls came standard as did flaps. I believe that the early (#s1-23) are
stronger and better. Be happy with your good fortune to get an early one.
Steve Spence
Mk3Xtra 912-S
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
> Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having 80lbs
> less
> usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm less
> than excited about this.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
I have serial number 1.
Do you have pics of yours?
Thanks,
David
>From: "Steve Spence" <sspence801(at)sbcglobal.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:18:45 -0500
>
>
>David:
>
> I have a heavy Xtra as well, and glad I do. The early versions of the
>Xtra do weigh more due to additional chrome molly in the cage. The dual
>controls came standard as did flaps. I believe that the early (#s1-23) are
>stronger and better. Be happy with your good fortune to get an early one.
>
>Steve Spence
>Mk3Xtra 912-S
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:11 PM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
>
> >
> > Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having 80lbs
> > less
> > usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm
>less
> > than excited about this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
So where did you stick the VGs on the wings?
>
>Group,
>
>This afternoon, I just took my first flight with 102 LandShorter
>VG's on my Firestar II. It sure is different! It used to stall with
>a somewhat clean break at 38 to 40 mph. I had it down to 30 mph with
>no actual break. It was sinking at 500 ft/min at 30 mph and it sort
>of rocked from side to side, but the nose never dropped. It was a
>thermally afternoon, so I will get better information on future
>flights. The one landing was a little surprising. I sort of expected
>it to float down the runway, but it settled gently at 38 mph.
>
>--------
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21607#21607
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
| From: | Robert Mason <masonclan(at)sbcglobal.net> |
>
> Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having 80lbs less
> usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm less
> than excited about this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David,
I just did my WB last week, came in at 570lbs, was a little surprised, what
was your empty weight?
Robert Mason
M3X 582
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Possum wrote:
> So where did you stick the VGs on the wings?
I placed them 2.75 inches apart and 8 inches back from the leading edge.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21837#21837
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Robert, I'm not there yet, I'm at the part where I try to figure out what
I'm going to do with 80 extra pounds that do nothing except decrease climb
rate and decrease useful load and increase take off roll and increase
landing roll. Maybe someone with a light xtra can throw in an 80lb sand bag,
wait they don't make sand bags that heavy, well grab a couple and tell me
what performance I can expect. Instead of flying like I'm 180 it will fly
like I weigh 260. Im one of those guys that doesnt like the BRSs because
I dont want to give up the 20lbs every time I fly, shoot at least that
20lbs might save my life this 80lbs does nothing for me and I'll have it
EVERY TIME I FLY!
A month or so ago, I ask the list if there were different versions because I
had heard there might be. I got answers that the stabs were different; no
one mentioned the 80lb difference. I found out today that I should of ask
the Kolb company, my bad.
Im done venting. Ive ask the Kolb company for the numbers to the plane
Ive bought. This is probably one of those times where I should keep my
mouth shut.
From: Robert Mason <masonclan(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:59:59 -0800
>
> >
> > Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having 80lbs
>less
> > usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm
>less
> > than excited about this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David,
>
>I just did my WB last week, came in at 570lbs, was a little surprised, what
>was your empty weight?
>
>Robert Mason
>M3X 582
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:04 PM, David Key wrote:
> Robert, I'm not there yet, I'm at the part where I try to figure
> out what
> I'm going to do with 80 extra pounds that do nothing except
> decrease climb
> rate and decrease useful load and increase take off roll and increase
> landing roll.
David,
If you have flaps instead of the flaprons, you also have more total
wing area.
You will NOT have an increased take off roll or landing roll but
shorter.
As you said, ,,,,,,,, You are not there yet!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
I have flaperons. Tell me where I lost you? Do you agree that more weight is
more take off roll? Do you agree that more weight is more landing roll? Do
you agree that more weight is less climb? Do you agree that more weight is
less useful load? If you said yes to all four we are in agreement and we are
both not there yet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
dhkey(at)msn.com wrote:
>
>
> Im one of those guys that doesnt like the BRSs because
> I dont want to give up the 20lbs every time I fly, shoot at least that
> 20lbs might save my life this 80lbs does nothing for me and I'll have it
> EVERY TIME I FLY!
>
>
Your reasoning on the 20 pounds is just plain wrong. A BRS is much more likely
to save your life than to cause any type of problem... From the sound of your
post, it seems that you are obsessing about weight to the point of ignoring
all else. Obsessing on one item is always bad, everything is a trade off. Having
a plane that is stronger might be worth the extra weight.
The most likely accident scenario is that your engine will quit, at which point
you will be comming down weather your plane is heavy or light. At that point
the more heavily built cage might be a good thing. The MK-III is a pretty big
plane with lots of power, 80 pounds is about 13% extra and wont kill the performance.
More important than the weight is how well it is built, covered, etc...
If its a nice plane with quality workmanship, dont sweat the weight issue
to much.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21870#21870
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:39 PM, David Key wrote:
> I have flaperons. Tell me where I lost you?
Oh Sorry, I assumed that with those 80 extra pounds you also had the
standard flaps.
Where does your plane have those "extra" pounds ?
Seems like 80 lb. would be an awfully lot of weight to loose just
off the chrome-molly cage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
My Mk-3 came in at 470# which is exceptionally light but most 582 powered birds
I hear about are closer to 530 to 560.
Seems the Extra is a heavier bird with the wider cockpit, tail and instrument pod,
steel gear legs, etc, if yours is 570 lb? I don't think its that much heavier
than normal.
Denny Rowe,
Mk-3, 690L-70
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
I called Kolb and they said the old ones were 80lbs heavier than the new
ones.
It's kinda like buying a 2005 Toyota Camary knowing that it gets 30 miles to
the gallon and finding out when you got home that the one you bought gets
15% less gas mileage than all the other 2005 Toyota Camarys because you
bought the wrong serial number. It's a surprise and not a good one.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 3/15/2006 8:45:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rowedl(at)highstream.net writes:
Seems the Extra is a heavier bird with the wider cockpit, tail and
instrument pod, steel gear legs, etc, if yours is 570 lb? I don't think its that
much
heavier than normal.
Denny Rowe,
Mk-3, 690L-70
To all
I talked to Bryan today, He seems to remember that the factory xtra came out
at 580#. That was with heavy gear legs, all the bells and extra heavy thick
glossy paint. also a 912S.
Steve B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
David,
I don't understand what your talking about. All auto makers make changes to
their models all the time every time. When did you buy your Xtra, did you buy
a pre owned Xtra? Your heavy, early Xtra should be faster.
As I recall, TNK hired an airplane designer, he made many flight tests on
the classic to design it with rounded edges so as to reduce wind drag and
thereby increase fuel efficiency. I remember seeing pictures in magazines with
streamers taped all over the classic's wings, fuselage and tail. After the
redesign of the classic the Xtra was born, there was more steel added to the
fuselage to make it more aerodynamic and a bigger horizontal stabilizer was
added. After building a few it was determined that the Xtra would not make the
ultralight trainer weight so all the extra steel was no longer added, the
bigger horizontal stabilizer was changed back to the classic and I believe the
flaps were also changed. This is from memory so don't quote me on this.
Regards,
Guillermo Uribe
FireStar II N4GU
El Paso, TX
In a message dated 3/15/2006 7:07:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dhkey(at)msn.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key"
I called Kolb and they said the old ones were 80lbs heavier than the new
ones.
It's kinda like buying a 2005 Toyota Camary knowing that it gets 30 miles to
the gallon and finding out when you got home that the one you bought gets
15% less gas mileage than all the other 2005 Toyota Camarys because you
bought the wrong serial number. It's a surprise and not a good one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Do you want to sell it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
> I called Kolb and they said the old ones were 80lbs heavier than the new
> ones.
>
> It's kinda like buying a 2005 Toyota Camary knowing that it gets 30 miles
> to
> the gallon and finding out when you got home that the one you bought gets
> 15% less gas mileage than all the other 2005 Toyota Camarys because you
> bought the wrong serial number. It's a surprise and not a good one.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
Nevermind I'm over it. I won't know how much it weighs till I'm done
building it and that hasn't happened, yet. I'm going to enjoy it anyway so
it doesn't matter. I'll do the math myself when I'm done and that's going to
be it. I'd like to be able to carry 15 gallons of gas and someone who is
220. If I can great if I can't too bad for my friends over 220 not my
problem. I'm over it.
>From: WillUribe(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:23:30 EST
>
>
>David,
>I don't understand what your talking about. All auto makers make changes
>to
>their models all the time every time. When did you buy your Xtra, did you
>buy
>a pre owned Xtra? Your heavy, early Xtra should be faster.
>
>As I recall, TNK hired an airplane designer, he made many flight tests on
>the classic to design it with rounded edges so as to reduce wind drag and
>thereby increase fuel efficiency. I remember seeing pictures in magazines
>with
>streamers taped all over the classic's wings, fuselage and tail. After
>the
>redesign of the classic the Xtra was born, there was more steel added to
>the
>fuselage to make it more aerodynamic and a bigger horizontal stabilizer
>was
>added. After building a few it was determined that the Xtra would not
>make the
>ultralight trainer weight so all the extra steel was no longer added, the
>bigger horizontal stabilizer was changed back to the classic and I believe
>the
>flaps were also changed. This is from memory so don't quote me on this.
>
>Regards,
>Guillermo Uribe
>FireStar II N4GU
>El Paso, TX
>
>
>In a message dated 3/15/2006 7:07:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>dhkey(at)msn.com writes:
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key"
>
>I called Kolb and they said the old ones were 80lbs heavier than the new
>ones.
>
>It's kinda like buying a 2005 Toyota Camary knowing that it gets 30 miles
>to
>the gallon and finding out when you got home that the one you bought gets
>15% less gas mileage than all the other 2005 Toyota Camarys because you
>bought the wrong serial number. It's a surprise and not a good one.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Would you consider selling? You can contact me off line if you'd like.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
> I called Kolb and they said the old ones were 80lbs heavier than the new
> ones.
>
> It's kinda like buying a 2005 Toyota Camary knowing that it gets 30 miles
> to
> the gallon and finding out when you got home that the one you bought gets
> 15% less gas mileage than all the other 2005 Toyota Camarys because you
> bought the wrong serial number. It's a surprise and not a good one.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Wow,
I, like someone else mentioned am having a hard time figuring where an extra
eighty pounds could come from between an early model to a later of the same
Kolb.
There is no way I can imagine the thin wall tubing adding up to that kind of
weight. Heck, eighteen pounds maybe, but Eighty?
Any how, good luck with the building and keep us posted on the finished
weight, all those out there with finished Xtras, let us know where your
weights came in.
Thoughts everybody?
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-| |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
What Wiil said is what I recall, too. I have always liked the Extra and the original
one would be my choice. I have watched John Hauck land his Mark III often
enought to appreciate flaps. And most people would opt for dual controls anyway.
Why not have the plane as originally designed rather then the redesign for
an obsolete rule?
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21962#21962
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
My X-tra came in at 542 lbs with a 582, 3 blade warp, radio, X-ponder,
electric start, strobes, intercom, tundra tires, hyd brakes and full dual controls
& 10 gal tanks. I can still haul a 200 pounder with full tanks. Currently
hauling 150 lbs of sand for company.
Larry Tasker
MKlll x 582
N615RT
PS Also just picked up repairman's cert.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
David,
Is it painted with Polytone or enamel?.
Mike
Xtra/Jab 2200
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
> Robert, I'm not there yet, I'm at the part where I try to figure out what
> I'm going to do with 80 extra pounds that do nothing except decrease climb
> rate and decrease useful load and increase take off roll and increase
> landing roll. Maybe someone with a light xtra can throw in an 80lb sand
> bag,
> wait they don't make sand bags that heavy, well grab a couple and tell me
> what performance I can expect. Instead of flying like I'm 180 it will fly
> like I weigh 260. Im one of those guys that doesnt like the BRSs because
> I dont want to give up the 20lbs every time I fly, shoot at least that
> 20lbs might save my life this 80lbs does nothing for me and I'll have it
> EVERY TIME I FLY!
>
> A month or so ago, I ask the list if there were different versions because
> I
> had heard there might be. I got answers that the stabs were different; no
> one mentioned the 80lb difference. I found out today that I should of ask
> the Kolb company, my bad.
>
> Im done venting. Ive ask the Kolb company for the numbers to the plane
> Ive bought. This is probably one of those times where I should keep my
> mouth shut.
>
>
> From: Robert Mason <masonclan(at)sbcglobal.net>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> To: Kolb List
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:59:59 -0800
>>
>> >
>> > Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having 80lbs
>>less
>> > usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm
>>less
>> > than excited about this.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > David,
>>
>>I just did my WB last week, came in at 570lbs, was a little surprised,
>>what
>>was your empty weight?
>>
>>Robert Mason
>>M3X 582
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Denny,
My Xtra/Jab = 534.6 lb.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
> Wow,
> I, like someone else mentioned am having a hard time figuring where an
> extra
> eighty pounds could come from between an early model to a later of the
> same
> Kolb.
> There is no way I can imagine the thin wall tubing adding up to that kind
> of
> weight. Heck, eighteen pounds maybe, but Eighty?
> Any how, good luck with the building and keep us posted on the finished
> weight, all those out there with finished Xtras, let us know where your
> weights came in.
>
> Thoughts everybody?
>
> Denny
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Fellow Kolbers,
Who all will be at sun-n-fun this year? I will be there friday afternoon untill
sunday morning. 7th-9th. Would like to meet some of you people. Also will be
camping. Iwill arrive via Delta airlines to MCO then rental car it to Lakeland.
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21995#21995
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
I am painting next it will be PolyTone
>From: "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:55:50 -0000
>
>
>
>David,
>Is it painted with Polytone or enamel?.
>
>Mike
>Xtra/Jab 2200
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:04 AM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
>
>
> >
> > Robert, I'm not there yet, I'm at the part where I try to figure out
>what
> > I'm going to do with 80 extra pounds that do nothing except decrease
>climb
> > rate and decrease useful load and increase take off roll and increase
> > landing roll. Maybe someone with a light xtra can throw in an 80lb sand
> > bag,
> > wait they don't make sand bags that heavy, well grab a couple and tell
>me
> > what performance I can expect. Instead of flying like I'm 180 it will
>fly
> > like I weigh 260. Im one of those guys that doesnt like the BRSs because
> > I dont want to give up the 20lbs every time I fly, shoot at least that
> > 20lbs might save my life this 80lbs does nothing for me and I'll have it
> > EVERY TIME I FLY!
> >
> > A month or so ago, I ask the list if there were different versions
>because
> > I
> > had heard there might be. I got answers that the stabs were different;
>no
> > one mentioned the 80lb difference. I found out today that I should of
>ask
> > the Kolb company, my bad.
> >
> > Im done venting. Ive ask the Kolb company for the numbers to the plane
> > Ive bought. This is probably one of those times where I should keep my
> > mouth shut.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Robert Mason <masonclan(at)sbcglobal.net>
> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > To: Kolb List
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
> > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:59:59 -0800
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Wow, I just found out that I have a heavy xtra... besides having
>80lbs
> >>less
> >> > usefull load!! can some one tell me the benifits of a heavy xtra? I'm
> >>less
> >> > than excited about this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > David,
> >>
> >>I just did my WB last week, came in at 570lbs, was a little surprised,
> >>what
> >>was your empty weight?
> >>
> >>Robert Mason
> >>M3X 582
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
Kolb weightwatchers,
It is my recollection that the TOK Mark-III demonstrator weighed 530 lbs.,
equipped with 912, BRS, Matco hyd brakes, alum gear legs, battery, EIS and
other instruments, 3-blade warp, intercom, dual controls.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cat36Fly(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Xtra :-(
My X-tra came in at 542 lbs with a 582, 3 blade warp, radio, X-ponder,
electric start, strobes, intercom, tundra tires, hyd brakes and full dual
controls
& 10 gal tanks. I can still haul a 200 pounder with full tanks. Currently
hauling 150 lbs of sand for company.
Larry Tasker
MKlll x 582
N615RT
PS Also just picked up repairman's cert.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
| My Xtra/Jab = 534.6 lb.
|
| Mike
Mike:
The MKIII Xtra extra weight is the 912ULS. That's where the other 50
lbs comes from. ;-)
Dennis Souder weighed my MKIII during one of my op stops at Homer
Kolb's. In 1994, Dennis said it weighed, correct me if I am wrong,
Dennis, 630 lbs. Now that was nearly 12 years ago and it was being
pushed along with a little 912UL. I haven't weighed it in a long
time, but I know I have added heavier wheels, brakes, axles, tires,
heavier gut (mine), since Dennis did the weigh-in at Homer's while I
slept and unbeknownst to me at the time.
As the builder of my MKIII I placarded the max gross weight at 1,200
lbs. This was done primarily to cover me if I totaled the airplane
and the insurance company discovered it was over 1,000 lbs gross
weight as recommended by the Old Kolb Company. As the builder I added
enough "stuff" here and there to insure the MKIII was more than
capable of handling the 1,200 lb gross weight I designated for my
airplane. It had been thoroughly flight tested over the years and has
proven to be a great little airplane. Normal takeoff weight on
serious cross country flights with 150 lbs of fuel, me and my gear, is
approximately 1,200 lbs. It flies well at that weight, and as I fly,
it loses weight and I gain it.
Take care,
john h
PS: My old MKIII SN: M3-011 has a lot of dope and paint on it. It
was built to fly and show at the time I built it. A lot of paint is a
lot of weight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
Couldn't open Hoover video, on a Mac. Did see him at OSH in the
yellow P-51, long ago. Impressive!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
At 07:54 PM 3/13/2006, you wrote:
>
>Group,
>
>This afternoon, I just took my first flight with 102 LandShorter
>VG's on my Firestar II. It sure is different! It used to stall with
>a somewhat clean break at 38 to 40 mph. I had it down to 30 mph with
>no actual break.
Try easing the stick back at full throttle and see if it feels like
your pointing up at almost a 40 degree angle before it stalls or
"mushes". Then try a "high bank" circle at 30 or 32 mph. That's what
impressed me the most about the addition of the VGs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
There is a little longer snippet of that documentary available online
that is in .avi format...
Try here...
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-11_bob_hoover.av
i
Jeremy Casey
Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
www.kilocharlie.us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hoover video... |
My Mac can't open this one either!
On Mar 16, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
> There is a little longer snippet of that documentary available online
> that is in .avi format...
>
> Try here...
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/
> 2006-3-11_bob_hoover.av
> i
>
>
> Jeremy Casey
> Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
> www.kilocharlie.us
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
> Any Kolbers in the San Fran area? Please contact me. Thanx.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hoover video... |
This one won't open either!
On Mar 16, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
> There is a little longer snippet of that documentary available online
> that is in .avi format...
>
> Try here...
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/
> 2006-3-11_bob_hoover.av
> i
>
>
> Jeremy Casey
> Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
> www.kilocharlie.us
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Did the make the Horizontal Stab smaller on recent MK-III Xtras ? If so I want
the bigger stab, I wish they had told me about that :( !!!!
As far as the weight, I would rather have the heavier model. The problem with
trying to take to much weight off a structure is that it starts to get weak, fatigue,
and is not as durable.
30 pounds of airframe weight is 3% at my flying weight, that is not enough to make
any noticable difference in performance... And I could care less about the
ultralight trainer weight regulations. Most of us are flying them as experimental.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22137#22137
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
On Mar 16, 2006, at 9:04 AM, Russ Kinne wrote:
> Couldn't open Hoover video, on a Mac.
Opened fine on my Mac.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Mike,
Not smaller, the tail is the same as the MK-III classic. If you want it
bigger then you can build it bigger, after all your the builder. But I suspect
the bigger Horizontal Stabilizer was add to keep the airplane balanced after
all that weight was added up front. Once the fuselage's extra weight was
removed there was no need for the bigger tail. I also suspect the extra welding
and materials on the early model Xtra was more added cost then what they
wanted to add to the price of the kit.
Regards,
Guillermo Uribe
FireStar II N4GU
El Paso, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Heavy Xtra :-(
Did the make the Horizontal Stab smaller on recent MK-III Xtras ? If so I
want the bigger stab, I wish they had told me about that :( !!!!
As far as the weight, I would rather have the heavier model. The problem
with trying to take to much weight off a structure is that it starts to get
weak, fatigue, and is not as durable.
30 pounds of airframe weight is 3% at my flying weight, that is not enough
to make any noticable difference in performance... And I could care less
about the ultralight trainer weight regulations. Most of us are flying them
as
experimental.
Michael A. Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
Try this link. I corrected it.
>> Try here...
>>
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-11_bob_hoover.avi
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeremy Casey
>> Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
>> www.kilocharlie.us
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-( |
Michael,
There is no problem with structure weakening or fatigue. Had you seen the
early Xtra and the new model you would have seen the difference. Most of what
was removed, as I recall, was the chrome-molly steel that made up the cosmetic
rounded edges on the fuselage. As I posted before this was originally done
for aerodynamic reasons, it had nothing to do with structural.
Now, I don't own a MK-III Classic or a MK-III Xtra but I do my homework
before I purchase. After I decided on the Kolb product I couldn't make up my mind
about which model to get. I don't remember how many times I called Dennis
asking him about the Kolb models. It was until Dennis mentioned that he
preferred flying the FireStar and as we say the rest is history.
Hope this helps,
Guillermo Uribe
FireStar II N4GU
El Paso, TX
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot"
As far as the weight, I would rather have the heavier model. The problem
with trying to take to much weight off a structure is that it starts to get
weak, fatigue, and is not as durable.
30 pounds of airframe weight is 3% at my flying weight, that is not enough
to make any noticable difference in performance... And I could care less
about the ultralight trainer weight regulations. Most of us are flying them as
experimental.
Michael A. Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Xtra :-) |
I've decided that a man needs both a single seater and a two seater and a
2-stroke and a 4-stroke.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
opened fine on my mac
regards,
Bob N.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hoover video... |
Great Video! My Mac runs the video without a hitch. I'm guessing the
line break in the url is the error.
BTW, you guys with Gatesware, must think that ALL computers have to be
rebooted every day to keep from or hanging up regularly or crashing.
I've had my Mac for about 17 months. I've only had to reboot after
installing new software, never hung up once, and runs 95% of the
applications worth having.
Not trying to start a war but the "get a real computer" comment needed
addressing. I have both types of computer, but only because my old
MicroCrap still works, between crashes and hangups. Its replacement
with be a Mac notebook.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Kolb Mark lll for sale, |
CC: DC8man2(at)aol.com, RaGeX44(at)aol.com
I have to part with a great little Kolb Mk lll with a Rotax 912 engine. 242
hours TT. This plane was built in 2000 and has always been kept indoors. I
have a enclosed trailer for it that acts as it's hangar. This trailer has saved
me almost the price of the plane over the years I have owned it. The plane
fly's great, looks great too. If any one wants more details and pictures
Please E-mail me off list at _DC8man2(at)aol.com_ (mailto:DC8man2(at)aol.com) . The price
is negotiable but am only looking for about $23,900 Thanks. Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
This morning, I got a chance to fly in calm air, and really test the LandShorter
VG's on my Firestar II. Wow! Call me a believer. This was the most sigificant
change that I have made to my Firestar by a long shot. I was one that found
the VG reports by others a little hard to believe. I thought that they had to
be exagerating some. No more.
My Firestar II now has a 10 mph lower stall speed. That's 40 mph indicateed down
to 30 mph indicated. But that is only for starters: The stall, before, was sharp
enough to bend the aluminum gear by flairing too soon and stalling just 10
feet over the runway. Now the stall is almost none existant. The break can be
felt, it's eazy to notice, but the nose hardly drops and the wing starts flying
again with no input from me. I did full power stalls, cruise power stalls,
and power at idle stalls. All were at 30 mph and with similar results.
Possum said to take steep turns at 30 mph. I'm not ready to try that, but I did
try steep turns at 40 mph. Amazing! My Firestar did a good imitation of a glider.
It held altitude in a steep turn with only about 100 rpm more than it took
to hold altitude on the level.
And that brings up the next change: I needed about 400 rpm less to hold altitude
then before. Used to be 4,900, now 4,500. I know that density altitude can change
this so the results are not final. They are promising.
So, you ask "What is lost to gain these things? It can't be all good, can it?"
I did a top speed run to see if it is still in the ball park. Best guess from
today is a a 3 mph loss. As far as rpms to hold cruise speed, it appeared to be
too close to call. I am more concerned about how much gas I will burn per hour
at a given speed. If it goes up, that will be a loss that I care about, but
I will need a few trips to evaluate that.
Can I really land slower? I think only a little. In order to get the speed down
below 40, the tail must be lower. If I try to do that over the runway, the tail
just touches and the mains come down. I do believe that it will be easier to
get into a small strip, because I will be able to fly the approach 10 mph slower.
Now that I have a new 10 mph range to fly, where is the wing most efficient? What
speed is the sink the least? I tried this at 4,500 rpms and idle. The results
were the same. No change from 40 to 30. I could hold altitude at 4,500 rpms
at any speed between 30 and 40, no climb and no sink. If I went faster than 40,
I needed more rpms. At idle, I had a 500 to 600 ft/min sink anywhere between
30 and 40 mph.
Here is my recomendation: If you haven't flown a Kolb yet, put VGs on before the
first flight. If you are already flying a Kolb without VG's, try them, you will
like them.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22400#22400
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
Hi John J/All:
"But that is only for starters: The stall, before, was sharp enough to
bend the aluminum gear by flairing too soon and stalling just 10 feet
over the runway."
I might be reading this wrong, but you can straighten me out if I am.
I don't know of any Kolb that won't spread the gear as the result of a
10 ft drop.
"Now the stall is almost none existant. The break can be felt, it's
eazy to notice, but the nose hardly drops and the wing starts flying
again with no input from me. I did full power stalls, cruise power
stalls, and power at idle stalls. All were at 30 mph and with similar
results."
How did the above change your landing technique?
Interesting to note, FSII stalled at 30 mph full power, cruise power,
and power off.
| Possum said to take steep turns at 30 mph. I'm not ready to try
that, but I did try steep turns at 40 mph. Amazing! My Firestar did a
good imitation of a glider. It held altitude in a steep turn with only
about 100 rpm more than it took to hold altitude on the level.
Correct me if I am wrong. If you stall at 30 mph straight and level,
your stall speed will increase quite a bit in a tight turn, or do the
VG's take care of that little problem?
| --------
| John Jung
JJ, glad you are happy with the VG's. Keep us informed as you gain
more experience with them. Still contemplating sticking those little
things all over my wings. First, I have to get back in the MKIII and
get some flying done to get my flying skills up a bit. For the most
part, most Kolbs I have flown without VG's perform as described by
those of you that are now flying them, with the major exception of
shaving 10 mph off the indicated stall speed.
Lot's to be learned about these little critters, VG's and Kolbs.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> Hi John J/All:
>
> For the most
> part, most Kolbs I have flown without VG's perform as described by
> those of you that are now flying them, with the major exception of
> shaving 10 mph off the indicated stall speed.
>
> Lot's to be learned about these little critters, VG's and Kolbs.
>
> john h
> MKIII
John H and Group,
That is what I thought, too. It is hard to imagine that such great planes could
be this much better. It is somewhat like the upgrade to the DRE 6000. It is one
thing to read a description the difference and quite another to experience
it.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22460#22460
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
Anybody know the evolution of the EIS units you all love so much ...am interested
in the different models as the years went by ...pros and cons ...etc
Thinking about a purchase but need an education ....and I know the answers are
here...
Has this come up before ....archive ?
Steam Gauge Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
At 03:18 PM 3/17/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Possum said to take steep turns at 30 mph. I'm not ready to try
>that, but I did try steep turns at 40 mph. Amazing! My Firestar did
>a good imitation of a glider.
I don't think anything bad will happen.
Even when I stall the plane in one of these turns - the high wing
stalls first and it just drops back to level.
I know that is not what supposed to happen.
It might have done that even before the VGs.
But........ it is certainly easier to heard geese and follow buzzards
when you don't have to run over them or do S-turns.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
John,
I made my own VGs for the early Firestar I once had but put them back about 11"
from the leading edge. I think you said yours are at about 8" back. My stall
speed was definitely reduced buy not quite as much as yours, which makes sense
since the high AOA at stall apparently puts your VGs prettly close to the "burble"
point whereas mine were a bit aft of that point and thus less effective.
Mine however had different effects to the stall characteristics. Without VGs the
Firestar's stall was very gentle with mild break. With the VGs the break was
quick and quite abrupt. My cruise power speeds were unaffected by the VGs, probably
because at cruise AOA the VGs were aft of the highest point of the airfoil,
whereas yours are at a relatively high pressure point forward of the airfoil
peak.
As you noted, the landing speed is unaffected because of the three point stance
has an AOA well below the stall AOA. This lack of slowing the touchdown speed
(landings not shorter) and the sharper break were the determinining factors for
me deciding to remove them. I knew beforehand that a slower stall speed would
not reduce the landing speed in any Kolb with short main gear legs but just
wanted to experiment with them and am glad I did. It was fun and proved that
VGs do indeed reduce stall speed.
MY persoanal conclusions:
1. VGs will reduce the stall speed of a Kolb.
2. VGs may of may not changed the stall characteristics, depending upon where they
are installed.
3. VGs may or may not change power required for a given cruise speed, depending
upon where they are installed.
4. Kolbs with long gear legs might actually get a slower touchdown speed and thus
shorter landing roll with properly installed VGs.
5. Wether you make your own or buy store bought ones, makes little difference,
since all they do is twirl the air to where turbulence begins at high AOA without
VGs.
Question about your lower approach speed:
Normal approach speed on final is (according to most authorities) 1.3 x Vs. If
you were stalling at 40 IAS was your final speed about 52 IAS before and now 39
mph (1.3x30)? If so then to land three point I guess you have to speed up 1
mph to land :-).
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22477#22477
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| 4. Kolbs with long gear legs might actually get a slower touchdown
speed and thus shorter landing roll with properly installed VGs.
|
| Thom in Buffalo
Thom/Gang:
I have never flown with VG's on a Kolb or any other aircraft, that I
know of. So.....I can only speak from experience without them.
However, many of the attributes claimed after addition of VG's were
there, in our Kolbs, prior to VG installation.
1. Most every Kolb will climb at full power with the stick pulled all
the way back to the stop. Angle of attack is extremely high.
2. Extremely tight turns at extremely high bank angles, left and
right.
3. Very gentle stall characteristics.
4. Fully controllable mush/stall. Permits altitude lose quickly,
while maintaining reduced airspeeds.
5. Equipped with sufficiently tall main landing gear legs, all Kolb
models perform excellent 3 point landings naturally, with or without
full flaps. Touch down speeds, at the break, in ground effect, are
somewhat lower than Kolbs with standard gear legs.
All of the above, with the exception of paragraph 5, can be performed
with any standard Kolb model. The mere thought of the additional
capability of my airplane with a good set of VG's, properly installed,
is frightening............ ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
>
>4. Kolbs with long gear legs might actually get a slower touchdown speed
and thus shorter landing roll with properly installed VGs.
>
Thom,
The same is true for standard leg Kolbs. VG's increase wing lift for any
speed above stall. Because of this, any Kolb with VGs can fly a little
slower and generate the same lift as it did at a higher speed before the
addition of VGs.
For a FireFly, it is not necessary to increase leg length to enable slower
touch down speeds. All one has to do is droop the flaperons a few degrees
and it will three point nicely.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
Jack,
If the aircraft has flaps or flaperons (my old Firestar had neither) then the nose
down pitch resulting from their use certainly would allow slower landing speeds
at the same angle of attack as without the VGs. This assumes that the VGs
do actually increase lift at this AOA, not merely increase the critical AOA.
In my mental analysis of the situation, I can see this happening only if the
point on the airfoil where the turbulence starts is changed (moved aft) at this
AOA by the VGs presence, thus subjecting more of the upper camber to smooth,
non-turbulent flow which could then produce more effective lift at the same AOA.
I would guess that the only easy/simple way to determine if this is the case for
a particular installation, is to carefully document airspeeds, power (rpm) settings,
and airspeeds in smooth air. A change in any of these (outside known
measurement accuracy) would indicate a change in lift per the equation: Lift =
1/2 rho x V
2 x S(wing area).
The AOA at low speeds (approaching stall) varies quite rapidly with speed changes
but at cruise speeds the AOA changes very little with changes in speed. Therefore
the most likely speed range to detect this change in lift due to VGs would
be at very slow speeds. Perhaps you or others have done this to confirm a
change in lift due to VGs holding all else fixed. I did not bother to do this
sort of documentation because the only location I tried the VGs on resulted in
a rather unsavory abrupt break at stall. Apparently locating them somewhat more
forward would have made a difference in this regard but it would also have
increased drag at cruise and that was not a result I wanted.
Thinking back now, I believe I noticed (didn't document) a slightly lower liftoff
speed in three point with the VGs than without. That sounds like confirmation
of increased lift right there because of necessity, the angle of attack is
fixed.
Sorry for the "thinking out loud" long winded discussion but I think I am now convinced
that they do increase lift at standard Kolb 3-point AOA.
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22540#22540
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> I have never flown with VG's on a Kolb or any other aircraft, that I
> know of. So.....I can only speak from experience without them.
Any volunteers out there to sneak out to Hauck's Holler some night and
stick a set of VG's on Mr. Hauck's Kolb so that he can enhance his
experience. :-) ~ Earl
P.S. He still might not believe so just put them on the left wing only! :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Miles <ultrastarrick(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
nice artical on vgs
http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182564-1.html
Earl & Mim Zimmerman wrote:
John Hauck wrote:
>
> I have never flown with VG's on a Kolb or any other aircraft, that I
> know of. So.....I can only speak from experience without them.
Any volunteers out there to sneak out to Hauck's Holler some night and
stick a set of VG's on Mr. Hauck's Kolb so that he can enhance his
experience. :-) ~ Earl
P.S. He still might not believe so just put them on the left wing only! :-)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Upgrades to my Mark III |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Everyone,
These are some upgrades that I have done to my Mark III that I thought were worth
while and mentioning.
My Mark III was built in 2000 with a Rotax 912S. It now has 700 hrs.
1. Got rid of the tapered 1 3/8" to 3/4 "diameter 7075 aluminum gear
legs. I installed 7075 aluminum, but used 1 3/8" all the way down. I
also added 4" to each leg. Works out very well and makes for nice
landings. Mains first.
2. Got rid of the standard electric start and put on a heavy duty high
torque starter. I also got rid of my 18 ah battery and went to a 28 ah
battery. Now even when it is 32 degrees out mt Kolb starts just like my
truck. Touch the key and your running. It never cranks. Just instant
starting.
3. Installed TNK's adjustable horizontal stabilizer brackets. These are alot
stronger than the original stainless steel "L" brackets. If you remember
I'm the one that had one of the original "L" brackets break in flight.
You can also adjust each side of the horizontal stabilizer if need be for
little trim issues. There are three holes for adjustment.
4. Just installed a 9 gal. reserve bladder tank from IMTRA. This was
another good addition. I did not want to tear apart the back end of my
Kolb and manufacture a tank and then rebuild the back end. The
bladder tank fits in a couple of different locations. It is more or less a
permanent mount, easy access for fueling and can be removed easly.
5. I also have my Warp drive prop set to max out at 5550 rpm. I have
found that if you make the engine work some it does get better fuel
economy. I cruise at approximately 4800 rpm (give or take a few rpm)
at 80 mph. I get right at 4 to 4.2 gal per hr. I have checked this for a
few hundred hours and it really doesn't change.
6. I installed a Navman 2100 fuel flow meter. This also works very well
and helps me check on fuel burn and keeps track of all of my fuel
usages and it has low fuel alarms.
I have learned alot from the people on this site and I hope this information may
help someone else.
Thanks to all,
Roger Lee :D
Tucson, Az.
p.s.
I just got back from a 620 mile round trip from Tucson to Bullhead City / Laughlin,
NV. What a great trip up the Colorado River. Hope to see everyone in M.V.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22560#22560
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Thom Riddle wrote:
> John,
>
> Question about your lower approach speed:
> Normal approach speed on final is (according to most authorities) 1.3 x Vs. If
you were stalling at 40 IAS was your final speed about 52 IAS before and now
39 mph (1.3x30)? If so then to land three point I guess you have to speed up
1 mph to land :-).
>
> Thom in Buffalo
Thom,
I used to approach at 50. How the plane acts just over the runway at speeds below
40 is something I'll have to learn. I'm sure that the tail will touch first
(it did before). Will the mains hit hard if I get too sow. I doubt it but I don't
know yet. If my first three landing are an indication, I going to like it.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22571#22571
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
The State of Hawaii Legislature (in their infinte wisdom/ignorance) has passed
a law that mandates all automotive gas sold in the state after April 1st will
consist of 10% ethanol. This sounds like a nice green thing to do, but from a
technical standpoint is bogus. First thing is that it takes more energy to produce
a gallon of ethanol than the gallon of ethanol will produce. Add to that
the fact that a gallon of ethanol has only 75% of the engergy of a gallon of
gas, and also has a fuel system damaging affinity for absorbing water. The
whole thing is a feel good tax payer subsidy of the local sugar industry. End
of rant!
Now, the reason for this post is tap some of the great amount of experience on
this list. What kind of experience have you had running a gas/ethanol blend in
two stroke engines? Is the power loss noticible? Is re-jetting needed? Have
you had problems with water laden fuel gumming up the carbs?
Maybe "Sea Foam" will solve the whole problem. :P
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22593#22593
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
Hi Dave,
I work in the recreational boating industry and have seen first hand what
alcohol and water can do to fuel systems.
Gasohol is not a good thing. The alcohol in gasoline can damage rubber
components in your fuel system, i.e the diaphragm in the fuel pump for one
example.
It might cost a bit more but, you may have to use 100LL av-gas to stay away
from the alcohol. This my require a re-jetting of the carb, slightly leaner
I believe.
If you must use gasohol then I suggest you check your fuel system components
very frequently to make sure the rubber parts of your plane are in good
condition. The gasohol will attack the rubber parts and cause little bits of
rubber to break off and clog your fuel system.
I imagine you have to fly over water alot because of your island location.
Avgas may be your only practical solution to keep your peace of mind over
water.
Good luck
Carlos G.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 9:27 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture
>
> The State of Hawaii Legislature (in their infinte wisdom/ignorance) has
> passed a law that mandates all automotive gas sold in the state after
> April 1st will consist of 10% ethanol. This sounds like a nice green
> thing to do, but from a technical standpoint is bogus. First thing is
> that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the gallon
> of ethanol will produce. Add to that the fact that a gallon of ethanol
> has only 75% of the engergy of a gallon of gas, and also has a fuel system
> damaging affinity for absorbing water. The whole thing is a feel good tax
> payer subsidy of the local sugar industry. End of rant!
>
> Now, the reason for this post is tap some of the great amount of
> experience on this list. What kind of experience have you had running a
> gas/ethanol blend in two stroke engines? Is the power loss noticible? Is
> re-jetting needed? Have you had problems with water laden fuel gumming up
> the carbs?
>
> Maybe "Sea Foam" will solve the whole problem. :P
>
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
> Kamuela, Hawaii
> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22593#22593
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Miles <ultrastarrick(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
Hi I work on 2 stroke race motors and have discover that the ethanol cleans the
oil from the bearings a little to good and most of the time causes abnormal wear.
Dave Bigelow wrote:
The State of Hawaii Legislature (in their infinte wisdom/ignorance) has passed
a law that mandates all automotive gas sold in the state after April 1st will
consist of 10% ethanol. This sounds like a nice green thing to do, but from a
technical standpoint is bogus. First thing is that it takes more energy to produce
a gallon of ethanol than the gallon of ethanol will produce. Add to that
the fact that a gallon of ethanol has only 75% of the engergy of a gallon of gas,
and also has a fuel system damaging affinity for absorbing water. The whole
thing is a feel good tax payer subsidy of the local sugar industry. End of rant!
Now, the reason for this post is tap some of the great amount of experience on
this list. What kind of experience have you had running a gas/ethanol blend in
two stroke engines? Is the power loss noticible? Is re-jetting needed? Have you
had problems with water laden fuel gumming up the carbs?
Maybe "Sea Foam" will solve the whole problem. :P
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22593#22593
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Upgrades to my Mark III |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Sorry for some of the confusion. I have the standard 10 gal. of fuel on my Mark
III. I added the 9 gal. bladder tank for a total of 19 gal. The bladder tank
is made by Nauta. They have 6, 9 or 18 gal tanks. It has all the fittings and
is ready to go. Here is the web site.
www.imtra.com/downloadtypes/nauta_brochure.pdf
I bought mine from a company called Defender Industries. Seems to be the best price
I found for $299.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22643#22643
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
In Arizona we have had that fuel for many years now and it is used during the winter
months. They are now going to get rid of it from what I hear. I have used
this for many years and you should not notice any difference. When I had my
Rotorway 162F helicopter they recomended that we not use it because Rotorway thought
it was hard on some of their seals and rubber parts. Didn't seem to make
a difference. I use it now in my 912S. In Arizona they switch back to the regular
fuel during the warmer months.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22645#22645
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrades to my Mark III |
That gas bladder is neat! I would much rather the Kolb stored it's gas in
the wings like RANS does instead of in the cockpit. I want to explore this.
It could limit the folding ability... I have to think about this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrades to my Mark III |
Where did you put the bladder tank? Pictures?
-- Robert
On 3/19/06, Roger Lee wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for some of the confusion. I have the standard 10 gal. of fuel on my
> Mark III. I added the 9 gal. bladder tank for a total of 19 gal. The bladder
> tank is made by Nauta. They have 6, 9 or 18 gal tanks. It has all the
> fittings and is ready to go. Here is the web site.
>
> www.imtra.com/downloadtypes/nauta_brochure.pdf
>
> I bought mine from a company called Defender Industries. Seems to be the
> best price I found for $299.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Ethanol / gasoline mixture |
All,
I don't believe it should cause a big problem for the people with engines
that can adapt the oil injection to their particular engines like all the Rotex
models . I was told the oil does not mix well with the alcohol and a lubrication
problem can result.....In my case I am running 2 Cuyuna's (Ul202) on my
Kolb and CGS Hawk that I don't believe can be adapted to oil injection. I do
know 2SI was in the process of supplying 28 HP 2 cycle engines of the same configuration
to the military that run on jet fuel...I think they are using an
injector system on it ...anybody know ? Of course they no longer support the ultralight
community because of past litigation so don't plan on pulling up to
the jet fuel pumps any time soon ...
Unless I buy one of those pulse jet engines on E-bay ...then I could install
a bottle jack between the front wing attach points and sweep the wings in
flight on the Ultrastar.....NAAAAWW !........ then I'd have to put 7 ribs in
the wings !
Mach .1 ED in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Upgrades to my Mark III |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
I mounted mine just behind the main tanks on top of the fusalage material. I had
a Codura bag (can be any color) made and the bladder tank fits inside. Doesn't
have to be in a bag just the way I set it up. I had some 1" strap added to
the seams on the bottom of the bag that is attached to my frame. It just sits
there. It rises when full and flattens out when empty. The filler tube on the
bladder is long and swivels so it's easy to fill. You can set up the fuel feed
any way you want. I have mine set up on a valve in the cockpit and an auxillary
fuel pump I already owned. I pump it into the main tanks and that lets me see
the amount on my EIS for the amount in the main tanks. My Navman also lets
me watch my fuel usage for a particular trip. I'm sure this can be set up a dozen
different ways. This way was easy and it seems to work. It would take just
a few minutes also to remove the system if for some reason you wanted it out
of the way.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22667#22667
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm finding more and more on the subject of blended ethanol/gas as I go - most
of it not good. Here's a very good research paper done by Onan Engines in Australia
that Jim Baker recommended:
http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/review-non-automotive/pubs/review.pdf
Here's what Rotax has to say:
*OXYGENATES (ALCOHOL ADDITIVES) ARE TO BE AVOIDED, ANY VOLUMES OVER 5% CANNOT BE
USED. TESTING FOR ALCOHOL IS THE ONLY SAFE WAY TO BE SURE YOUR FUEL IS O.K.
FOR USE IN YOUR ROTAX. A SIMPLE TEST KIT FOR DOING THIS IS AVAILABLE THROUGH AUTHORIZED
DISTRIBUTORS OF MOGAS FOR AIRCRAFT. CONTACT YOUR LOCAL EAA FOR YOUR
NEAREST MOGAS DISTRIBUTOR. THE ILL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL IN YOUR ENGINE ARE AS FOLLOWS;
THE ALCOHOL WILL ATTRACT WATER, THIS CAN CAUSE YOUR SEDIMENT TRAPS TO FLOOD,
PLUG FILTERS AND RESTRICT FUEL FLOW. ALSO, AND VERY IMPORTANT, THE ALCOHOL
COMPETES DIRECTLY WITH THE LUBRICATION, AND DEPENDING ON YOUR OILS ABILITY
TO COMBAT SUCH, COULD CAUSE ENGINE DAMAGE IMPORTANT ALSO IS THE ALCOHOL CARRIES
WATER WHICH ON ENGINE SHUT DOWN AND STORAGE CAN CREATE CORROSION ON VITAL ENGINE
PARTS SUCH AS CRANK MAIN AND ROD BEARINGS AS WELL AS PINS. ONCE CORROSION
PITS HAVE STARTED, THE BEARINGS WIU FAIL SHORTLY AFTER. *SEASONAL BLEND CROSSOVERS
CAN EFFECT YOUR FUELS VOLATILITY IF YOU USE A WINTER BLEND FUEL DURING A
HOT SUMMER DAY. THIS IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE WITH PEOPLE WHO BUY A FUEL BLEND
IN COLDER CLIMATES IN MARCH, BUT DON'T USE IT IN THEIR ROTAX UNTIL JUNE. EVAPORATION
TEMPERATURES OF YOUR FUEL MUST BE LOW ENOUGH TO MINIMIZE CRANKCASE AND
COMBUSTION CHAMBER DEPOSITS AS WELL AS SPARK PLUG FOULING WITHOUT FEAR OF VAPOUR
LOCKING OR BOILING. ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU BUY YOUR FUEL FROM A HIGH VOLUME USER,
AND AVOID FUELWHICH HAS BEEN IN STORAGE FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, ESPECIALLY
BETWEEN SEASONS. LOSS OF OCTANE RATING IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON FUEL STORED
INCORRECTLY, WHICH COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO ENGINE STOPPAGE.
Guess my only choice here in Hawaii will be to use avgas - any tips regarding the
use of avgas in 2 stroke engines?
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22676#22676
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrades to my Mark III |
Not me!... I have friends with wing tanks and lifting up a 5 gallon gas can
is a pain...if it leaks, then the fuel comes down your arm. But mainly, it
would mean disconnecting fuel lines when you fold the wings and I fold mine
every time I fly. I like it the way it is, thank you.
AzDave
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Upgrades to my Mark III
>
> That gas bladder is neat! I would much rather the Kolb stored it's gas in
> the wings like RANS does instead of in the cockpit. I want to explore
> this.
> It could limit the folding ability... I have to think about this.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
My Landshorter VG's are at 7 inches from the leading edge measured along the chord
line of my Firestar 2 wing. The interval is from the Landshorter templates.
My wing has a smooth leading edge with no sag between ribs, so I could put
them at any interval.
Stall is at 30 mph, and is abrupt, much like that of a sailplane laminar wing.
Handling is rock solid right up to the stall, and then it quits with a pronounced
drop of the nose. I find that the aircraft flys better in ground effect
during the landing flare, and doesn't quit flying as suddenly as it did before
VG's. I do notice that it takes a little more power to hold cruise speed. Overall,
I think they are a great positive.
John's flight tests seem to indicate that the stall charactoristics are more mellow
with the VG's at 8 inches. If I were starting from scratch, I'd use 8 inches
from the LE.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22679#22679
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| Stall is at 30 mph, and is abrupt, much like that of a sailplane
laminar wing. Handling is rock solid right up to the stall, and then
it quits with a pronounced drop of the nose. I find that the aircraft
flys better in ground effect during the landing flare, and doesn't
quit flying as suddenly as it did before VG's. | --------
| Dave Bigelow
The para above, to me, is contradictory. You say the stall is at 30
mph and abrupt. However, during landing, "doesn't quit flying as
suddenly as it did before VG's."
I'm probably reading it wrong. If so, you can straighten me out,
please.
Glad it flies better in ground effect. Mine does too.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
There's an article on page A15 in todays Desert Sun about "Older Pilots are Crashing in Disproportionate Numbers." It's an AP feed by Ryan Pearson, and, in my opinion, is badly biased and very slanted. Makes me want badly to bloody his nose. Take a look in your own local newspapers, or look at www.thedesertsun.com and scroll way down to the "California" section, the 2nd bullet.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Dave Bigelow wrote:
> My Landshorter VG's are at 7 inches from the leading edge measured along the
chord line of my Firestar 2 wing. The interval is from the Landshorter templates.
My wing has a smooth leading edge with no sag between ribs, so I could put
them at any interval.
Dave and Group,
This is interesting because I have a smooth wing too. What interval did you choose?
Could the 1 inch change in placement cause that much difference? Or are
we describing the same thing differently? The VG's do give my stall a sharper
feel but much less nose drop and much less time before the stall stops. At least
that is the impression that I got. At 4,500 rpm, I could do a stall every 5
to 10 seconds, always between 29.5 and 30 mph, and I did not notice a change
in my vertical air speed on the EIS, or an altitude loss. Maybe, I not pulling
into the stall fast enough, but I think that I was simulating a landing stall.
Do we have any former test pilots to help with how stall testing should be done
or described?
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22696#22696
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firestar II Windshield |
I recently purchased a Firestar II with the full enclosure and I do NOT like
the center tube in front of my face. I need the full enclosure due to
health reasons. Any suggestions on SAFE methods to remove the obstruction and
still maintain the stability of the windshield?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Tom.
Mesure the thickness of your windscreen. If it is .090", just remove the bar. If
it is less than .090, make a new on out of .090 Laxan and then remove the bar.
I didn't like the bar either. Mine has been gone for 7 years.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22747#22747
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Let's think about this - cost of flying today lends itself to older
and often better financially positioned individuals. Getting started
today is very expensive. Once the major life responsibilities are
past like paying for the house, expenses of raising ones kids and
their education, it isn't until one is older that they have the time
and financial ability where they can get back involved with
aviation. By this alone the majority of the pilot population will
age. Attend any meeting of an EAA Chapter that has been around for a
while, you'll see a lot of gray and white hair. I just recently
attended some activity and noticed there was a lot of gray and white
hair in the room, just can't recall what or where it was. What was
it we were discussing.....
jerb
At 05:00 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>
>There's an article on page A15 in todays Desert Sun about "Older
>Pilots are Crashing in Disproportionate Numbers." It's an AP feed
>by Ryan Pearson, and, in my opinion, is badly biased and very
>slanted. Makes me want badly to bloody his nose. Take a look in
>your own local newspapers, or look at www.thedesertsun.com and
>scroll way down to the "California" section, the 2nd bullet.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, CA
>Building Kolb Mk III
>N78LB Vamoose
>www.gogittum.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Dave,
I have the same choice and I have tried both. LL100 costs over a dollar more than
auto gas, and it fouls the plugs in 20 hours. Currently, I am using auto gas
with 10% ethonal. At least I have oil injection. That might help some.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22754#22754
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VIDEO OF KOLB ON SKIS |
At 10:28 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>
>Hi Gang
>This is a Firestar II on skis.
>I recorded this video in 1998 of my friend Aaron Gustafson taking
>off and landing on his snow covered runway. We do a lot of ski
>flying in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
And how do the brakes work on that bad boy ... or do you have an anchor?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Well, I just wrote a letter to the editor of that rag, and this is what I
said:
"Ryan Pearson's article about older pilots crashing in disproportionate
numbers is balderdash. Younger pilots don't fly as many hours as older
pilots, because it usually more affordable for older and more affluent
pilots to fly more often. So the comparison should be comparing number of
hours flown. I think you'd see proportionate numbers. This is strictly
yellow journalism, making something out of nothing just to sensationalize,
with the result of making the insurance companies worry... for no good
reason. Who suffers? Older pilots, in disproportionate numbers."
On 3/19/06, Larry Bourne wrote:
>
>
> There's an article on page A15 in todays Desert Sun about "Older Pilots
> are Crashing in Disproportionate Numbers." It's an AP feed by Ryan Pearson,
> and, in my opinion, is badly biased and very slanted. Makes me want badly
> to bloody his nose. Take a look in your own local newspapers, or look at
> www.thedesertsun.com and scroll way down to the "California" section, the
> 2nd bullet.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Building Kolb Mk III
> N78LB Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
John Jung,
The interval between the two VG's in a pair is 2.75 inches, and between pairs is
3.00 inches. I think the one inch distance from the LE may make a pretty big
difference in the stall. Power off or on with from a pitch attitude of level
flight (bleeding airspeed attempting to hold a constant altitude to the break),
the nose drops at least 20 degrees. If you have any rudder or a bank at the
stall, the wing will drop in the direction of bank or rudder input. I get
the feeling you could spin it, but so far have not been tempted to test that aspect
of Firestar flight.
John H,
The Firestar gear limits the angle of attack of the wing in a three point landing.
Most landings seem to touch down near 35, although I have made a few tailwheel
first landings a bit slower. I think ground effect may temper the stall
a bit close to the ground. I find that I'm doing a lot less stick stirring doing
landing, as the response is quicker and less mushy. I'm sure you could get
in trouble with a flare six feet (or more) in the air. Instead mushing into
the ground in a level attitude, I think the nose would drop. My opinion is
that an experienced pilot would have no trouble with the VG's, but a pilot new
to Kolbs should probably get some time with the standard wing before adding VG's.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22775#22775
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
I have a friend who is telling me the same thing, but he has no Kolb
experience to base his suggestion on.
I have a 503DCDI and sometimes get close to 80MPH for short periods. Do you
fly that fast?
Your input makes me feel better about removing the bar, but I'd appreciate
your speed info.
Thanks,
Tom Yowell
Florida Flying Gators
Clermont, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Murr" <jdm(at)wideworld.net> |
Mine bounced too.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Larry
Still can't find this DESERT SUN post! -- saw 20 items from their
archives. Don't see "California" or any bullets --
Dunce me.
On Mar 19, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> There's an article on page A15 in todays Desert Sun about "Older
> Pilots are Crashing in Disproportionate Numbers." It's an AP feed
> by Ryan Pearson, and, in my opinion, is badly biased and very
> slanted. Makes me want badly to bloody his nose. Take a look in
> your own local newspapers, or look at www.thedesertsun.com and
> scroll way down to the "California" section, the 2nd bullet.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Building Kolb Mk III
> N78LB Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <Lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
I assume that you are talking about the factory enclosure. If so it will not buckle.
To check it close the windshield, put your hand in the middle at the furtherest
point from any support and push. If it feels squishey, don't do it. While
I took out the center post, I did retain the screw that held it at the top
of the pod. Remember the wind is not hitting it at a 90 degree angle. I have
seen 90 on mine, but not on purpose. Or you could do it like this, it is a lot
more trouble.
Larry, Oregon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22883#22883
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_003_617.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <Lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Well I see I still don't have the hang of the attachment part of this BB. I don't
seem to be able to preview my post, and have to do it by trail and error. Seems
mostly like error. Here is the other picture. I decided that I wanted doors,
so I built this one. I of course had to order chromoly,hinges, and a sheet
of lexan. Weld the new doors and fit the lexan. I like it, but I wasn't able
to get the thickness of lexan that I would have prefered. (0 is too think and
the one that I have is a bit too thin, but is still usable.
Larry,Oregon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=22886#22886
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_001_101.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George E. Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
I didn't like it either, so used a tube on each side of the insturment
panel, back up to the steel framework behind my head. I then used the right
new tube for the hinge for the door. I no longer have the plane or I could
send you a picture.
Az Bald Eagle
----- Original Message -----
From: <Tom463(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Firestar II Windshield
>
> I recently purchased a Firestar II with the full enclosure and I do NOT
> like
> the center tube in front of my face. I need the full enclosure due to
> health reasons. Any suggestions on SAFE methods to remove the obstruction
> and
> still maintain the stability of the windshield?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | FLY YOUNG, STAY PRETTY |
I have been following the "old pilots" thread and thought it had a familiar
ring to it. Sure enough, I found an article in my April issue of IFR that is
similar. It is however; relating to weather related accidents, age of pilots
and age at which they learned to fly. I am on the East coast and wonder if
these two articles are related(?).
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
N615RT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Improving Roll Control on the FireFly |
FireFlyers,
I made some new aileron yoke control arms to improve roll response. How it
was done can be seen at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly122.html
I recognized there was a little play in the system at the "Tee" bar, but I
did not believe it caused enough of a problem to be worth the effort to
change it. But, after moving to I22 with a different runway orientation, I
discovered that most of my flights start and stop with a cross wind. Also,
the average wind speed seems to be greater here than what I experienced in
Missouri at K02.
With a little bit of play in the stick, you lose the hand pressure sensation
as the ailerons rock from one side to the other. While this is happening,
the FireFly tends to get a little ahead of you because you have to move
through the control dead space to keep the FireFly side slipping down the
runway center line. As result you keep hunting and wobbling from side to
side of the center line. Removal of the play removes all stick displacement
and all one has to do is add or reduce pressure to keep the FireFly side
slipping right on down the center line.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
| From: | "N111KX (Kip)" <n111kx(at)mindspring.com> |
I used 1/8 inch thick Lexan to make a custom windshield. It's very rigid but takes
3 people to bend it while installing on the plane.
Here is a view...
http://www.springeraviation.net/
Kip
--------
Kip
Firestar II (born September 2000)
Atlanta, GA
N111KX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23017#23017
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II Windshield |
Kip,Thanks for the great pictures , they really took me back, We all know
Homer designed great airplanes but what a wonderful sightseeing aircraft and
its a photographers dream, slow, steady and and if your lexan is clear and
you have a camera a great place to take a 1000 pics so you can share the
love of flight we all have. Thanks again, Chris Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
John J,
My CG is pretty close to the aft limit.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23038#23038
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
Interesting idea, Boyd.
I wonder if the water grabs all the alcohol, or leaves some behind. I remember
reading about this test 15 or 20 years ago in Untralight Flying magazine when
"gasohol" was the rage. Actually, the idea of using a 50 gallon drum to separate
out a supply of real gas might just work.
So, the question remains about what to do with the ethanol/water mixture left over?
Could you drink it? Perhaps you could sell it to the "Sea Foam" company?
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23041#23041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Ethanol/Gasoline Mixture |
Interesting idea, Boyd.
I wonder if the water grabs all the alcohol, or leaves some behind. I
remember
reading about this test 15 or 20 years ago in Untralight Flying magazine
when
"gasohol" was the rage. Actually, the idea of using a 50 gallon drum to
separate
out a supply of real gas might just work.
So, the question remains about what to do with the ethanol/water mixture
left over?
Could you drink it? Perhaps you could sell it to the "Sea Foam" company?
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would be quite sure the ethanol would be de natured. So I would not drink
it. maybe you could sell it back to the gas station. however a contract
with the fine folks at SF would be good if the shipping cost did not run
more than the purchase price. maybe they could find a use for it.
Seriously,,, the amount of alcohol it would remove would depend on the
contact time and the level of mixing. If you could pick up the container
and give it a good shake I am sure it would separate faster/more completely.
I have thought that if you could find a half gallon of 10% ethanol gas and
pour into 16 gal of gas dropping the % of ethanol to less than 1%. That
way it would remove any condensation that may have accumulated in the fuel
system. And hopefully it would not affect the components in the carb.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
You could not give me the Jabiru engine. Just looking at it and it looks like
it has been machined and manufactured in someones garage. The technology used
in that engine is downright primitive compared to the Rotax 912-S. Reading
reports from owners, the Jabiru has a lot more problems than the Rotax 912-S.
There are lots of disadvantages to the Jabiru, and I cant find even one thing that
engine does better than the Rotax.
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23353#23353
________________________________________________________________________________
Only know of one Jabiru engine on a Mark 3. Actually the same engine on
two Mark 3's. Both of them crashed...........
Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:43 AM, JetPilot wrote:
> You could not give me the Jabiru engine. Just looking at it and it
> looks like it has been machined and manufactured in someones
> garage. The technology used in that engine is downright primitive
> compared to the Rotax 912-S. Reading reports from owners, the
> Jabiru has a lot more problems than the Rotax 912-S.
>
> There are lots of disadvantages to the Jabiru, and I cant find even
> one thing that engine does better than the Rotax.
Some sane people fly with Jabiru engines and like them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
> There are lots of disadvantages to the Jabiru, and I cant find even one thing
that engine does better than the Rotax.
>
Then you never experienced one idling on the ramp beside you!! One of
the locals has one on a Slingshot and it purrs like a kitten at idle.
NEVER seen a Rotax do that!? ~ Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Some sane people fly with Jabiru engines and like them.
|
I have a buddy that flew his Jabiru powered, direct drive Kolb Kolbra
in 48 States without a hitch. In fact, several of us on the Kolb List
landed with John Williamson at Oshkosh 2003 (?) as he tallied up State
Number 48. One of those Kolbs, escorting John W was a VW powered
MKIII with a redrive. Another aircraft was a Kit Fox with a 532 or a
582.
Most Kolb folks don't care what each other fly. It all boils down to
what we want to do and what we can afford to do.
I remember flying my MKIII with 582 initially. Was as happy as I
could be flying with a two stroke that had dual ignition, oil
injection, water cooled and 65 hp. In fact, was planning on making my
first flight to Alaska with that engine. Unfortunately, it broke, and
Homer Kolb recommended I fly to Alaska with a 912. Course when it
came down to paying for the new 912 it became my responsibility
entirely. I was so broke I could not pay attention. Finally, figured
out a way to get me a 912. Got a new credit card, charged the engine
on the new credit card and paid minimum payments until I could do
better. That was Fall 1993.
We ended up installing the first 912 on a MKIII and flying it the
first of April 1994. First week of June, two months later, and we
were winging our way to Alaska.
I think I appreciate what I have to work for the most, much more than
what is easy to obtain. It is still that way today.
________________________________________________________________________________
Ray,
What aircraft and model is it that makes 185 on that jabby? Is it a Sonex by chance?
--------
Don G
FireFly#098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23448#23448
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
You could not give me the Jabiru engine. Just looking at it and it
looks like it has been machined and manufactured in someones garage.
The technology used in that engine is downright primitive compared to
the Rotax 912-S. Reading reports from owners, the Jabiru has a lot
more problems than the Rotax 912-S.
There are lots of disadvantages to the Jabiru, and I cant find even one
thing that engine does better than the Rotax.
Hummmm... let me try to be polite...
Have you ever seen one? Of the several that I have seen and couple that
I flew with, I was MIGHTY impressed. For the right airframe they are
great engines...as Rick has already stated the high revs of the engine
kinda dictate the sleeker airframes to let the airspeeds get up where a
short prop is more efficient...
Now on the "machined in someone's garage" point...al I can say is "horse
crap" (and I mean that as polite and unoffensive as I can) The Jabiru
engine is so much a work of art from a machinist standpoint I almost
wouldn't know whether to run it or build a glass box to sit it in in my
living room. BEAUTIFUL machining...if you think that is garage work
then you don't know anything about machine work. Absolute CNC machined
perfection...friend of mine that's building a Sonex commented how little
work it would take to actually polish the case to a mirror shine...what
more you want from an engine?
As far as the technology is concerned...how many 80hp 4 stroke engines
out there that weight 123 pounds? Give me a break... CDI ignition, bone
simple...and now they have hydraulic valve lifters...yea I know Rotax
has had that for awhile, they are just balancing "technology" with
"simplicity" and "manufacturability".
And for the record...I don't own one, don't sell them either
Also as Rick stated, the Jabiru guys machine a gearbox for that engine,
Rotax will have there hands full...
The main reason you see 912's on so many production planes is due to the
gearbox slowing the prop and reducing the noise...most of Europe is so
strict on noise regs that nothing but a geared prop will pass.
Jeremy
________________________________________________________________________________
Ray,
Are there any pics or info on the net on that low wing bird?
--------
Don G
FireFly#098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23514#23514
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
CDI ignition, bone
| simple... |
|
| Also as Rick stated, the Jabiru guys machine a gearbox for that
engine,
| Rotax will have there hands full...
|
|
| Jeremy
Unless Jabiru has changed ignition systems, they have a moisture
problem. The twin distrubutor CDI is prone to shorting out if they
get wet. I had a friend experience this a few years ago at Wallace,
NC. Night was dew laden. Everything was soaking wet with dew the
next morning when we slithered out of our tents. Time to crank. All
Rotax's fired right up. Single Jabiru would not hit a lick. Had to
pull the distributor caps and dry out the distributors to get the Jab
to run.
Unless Jab has upgraded this problem, it would give me some concern
for flying into rain, or getting stuck on the ground because the
ignition got wet and had to be dried prior to starting.
Now..............I am knocking Jabiru. Simply stating what I think to
be an important piece of info (fact) on an older Jabiru. If your Jab
lives in a nice warm hanger, never has to worry about getting into
rain or moisture, then you have no problem. For me, it would present
a big problem because I do get caught in less than ideal situations in
my day to day flying hobby.
Also, if Jabiru has upgraded their ignition systems to improve
moisture protection and the possible failure of the system due to
moisture, GREAT! If not, they need to look into it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
|| Also as Rick stated, the Jabiru guys machine a gearbox for that
| engine,
|| Rotax will have there hands full...
||
| |
|| Jeremy
Forgot to comment on the above.
Why hasn't Jabiru taken advantage of a gearbox to allow slower turning
larger diameter props?
Must be some reason they have not come up with a good workable
solution. Seems there would be a large market for that type
equipment.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
Jet Pilot,
Take it you have not been in this game long then,
You say the Jab has more probs than a 912, Maybe in the USA you don't get
the Rotax SB's so I will apologize now, but as a Rotax and Jabiru service
centre and operator of both on our school A/C I can say with first hand
experience that there is bugger all between them in reliability, and the
Rotax has a SB almost every other month, they are both very good, serivce
intervals on the jab are now as good as the 912 as well as no G-Box maint.
Also with first hand exp I can confirm that Our Jab powered Xtra gets off
the ground quicker than a 912 powered Classic (tested on same day) for CAA.
I would be confident to stake my aircraft on that, the 912 will climb a bit
better from about 200 feet onwards though and Jab not quite as fast at full
power but I cruise at 80 mph at 2550rpm, 90mph at 2800, and 95 at 2950.
Maybe you forgot all the problems the 912 had in the first 5-8 yrs, theJab
is well sorted now.
Mike
Xtra/Jab
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:43 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Jabiru
>
> You could not give me the Jabiru engine. Just looking at it and it looks
> like it has been machined and manufactured in someones garage. The
> technology used in that engine is downright primitive compared to the
> Rotax 912-S. Reading reports from owners, the Jabiru has a lot more
> problems than the Rotax 912-S.
>
> There are lots of disadvantages to the Jabiru, and I cant find even one
> thing that engine does better than the Rotax.
>
> --------
> NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
> !!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23353#23353
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| John, Yep that is no prob now, I can vouch for that.
|
| Mike
What did Jabiru do to eliminate the moisture problem?
Do they still use the twin distributors? or did they go to a sealed
system similar to Rotax and other manufacturers? My Suzuki dirt bike
ign is sealed, solid state.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lamont Taylor <usmc_diver(at)yahoo.com> |
Link to the jabiru site
http://www.arionaircraft.com/
you can also check out the yahoo esqual group for the
full details on the 80hp speedster.
Lamont Taylor
--- Don G <donghe@one-eleven.net> wrote:
> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
> Ray,
> Are there any pics or info on the net on that low
> wing bird?
>
> --------
> Don G
> FireFly#098
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23514#23514
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Rotax has a SB almost every other month, they are both very good,
serivce
| intervals on the jab are now as good as the 912 as well as no G-Box
maint.
Rather have that little bit of gear box maintenance, what is it? check
every 600 or 800 hours?? than no gear box.
| Also with first hand exp I can confirm that Our Jab powered Xtra
gets off
| the ground quicker than a 912 powered Classic (tested on same day)
for CAA.
Musta been piss poor pilot technique on the part of the Classic
driver. My old Classic used to eat up John W's Jab powered Kolbra on
acceleration, take off distance, and climb. Course all that changed
dramatically when John W upgraded to a 912S.
| I would be confident to stake my aircraft on that, the 912 will
climb a bit
| better from about 200 feet onwards though and Jab not quite as fast
at full
| power but I cruise at 80 mph at 2550rpm, 90mph at 2800, and 95 at
2950.
Bring the Xtra on over. Would be happy to do a little one on one
competition with you.
| Maybe you forgot all the problems the 912 had in the first 5-8 yrs,
theJab
| is well sorted now.
I was flying my 912 back then. Mine was manufactured later part of
1993. I started flying it April 1994. I remember a few updates
during that time frame, but don't remember a lot of problems. I know
I was doing a lot of flying back then and the old 912 was still
humming when I swapped it for the 912ULS at 1,135.0 hours.
I remember having some mandatory updates to do on the 912ULS, and she
is still humping like a new one at 1,100.0 hours.
Both the Jabiru and Rotax 912 series engines are great engines. I
believe there is a place for them on Kolbs, but they are not going to
perform as well as a gear box engine.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> || Also as Rick stated, the Jabiru guys machine a gearbox for that
>| engine,
>|| Rotax will have there hands full...
>||
>| |
>|| Jeremy
>
>
>Forgot to comment on the above.
>
>Why hasn't Jabiru taken advantage of a gearbox to allow slower turning
>larger diameter props?
>
>Must be some reason they have not come up with a good workable
>solution. Seems there would be a large market for that type
>equipment.
>
>john h
>MKIII
>
I've never flown one; only seen them occasionally. But I can hazard a
guess on why they don't have a gearbox. Their chosen market seems to be
the light end of the experimental non-ultralite market; typically faster
planes being flown by pilots more accustomed to flying traditional a/c
engines. Note the overall original configuration: direct drive,
carburetors & dual mags, even though electronic injection/ignition would
probably have been cheaper & simpler to build.
Believe me, it's very difficult to find a licensed pilot (even one who
flies experimentals) who will trust a gearbox on an aircraft engine.
Most won't trust *any* alternative engine. Just mention the idea of
gearing & you'll get a 3rd hand account of how those Continentals on
Cessna 175's always failed & how much it costs to repair Twin Bonanza
engines.
FWIW...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrmf(at)comcast.net> |
Charlie
Making a gear reduction drive for a aircraft engine takes some work to make
it work well but Rotax does and the performance gains (power and thrust) are
well worth it. The redrive for my VW has plenty of room for improvement but
it is still worth it. Rotax makes the 912 series for the same light aircraft
you are referring to. I would venture a guess that in a apples to apples fly
off a 80HP rotax would blow the doors off a 85HP Jabiru in most any airplane
even the fast ones.
I'm a licensed pilot and my MKIIIc is a experimental...... Seems like there
are a few gear boxes in turbo prop airplanes...... Also there are gear boxes
in P51 Mustangs, Spitfires and allot of the big radial engines used in WWII
aircraft. These gearbox airplanes only seemed to fall out of the sky when
they got shot down. Just because Continental didn't make it work well
doesn't mean that it isn't ever going to work well and not be reliable. You
also might note that the airplanes I just referred to are a bit faster than
that 180MPH Jabiru someone was talking about. If gear box driven props
didn't work better at higher speeds the designers wouldn't have used them.
Again I think the Jabiru is a great engine it just needs a reduction drive
to compete with the rotax 912 series of engines.
As always my $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Jabiru
> I've never flown one; only seen them occasionally. But I can hazard a
> guess on why they don't have a gearbox. Their chosen market seems to be
> the light end of the experimental non-ultralite market; typically faster
> planes being flown by pilots more accustomed to flying traditional a/c
> engines. Note the overall original configuration: direct drive,
> carburetors & dual mags, even though electronic injection/ignition would
> probably have been cheaper & simpler to build.
>
> Believe me, it's very difficult to find a licensed pilot (even one who
> flies experimentals) who will trust a gearbox on an aircraft engine.
> Most won't trust *any* alternative engine. Just mention the idea of
> gearing & you'll get a 3rd hand account of how those Continentals on
> Cessna 175's always failed & how much it costs to repair Twin Bonanza
> engines.
>
> FWIW...
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 3/22/2006 9:03:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>Forgot to comment on the above.
>
>Why hasn't Jabiru taken advantage of a gearbox to allow slower turning
>larger diameter props?
>
>Must be some reason they have not come up with a good workable
>solution. Seems there would be a large market for that type
>equipment.
>
>john h
>MKIII
>
To John/All
Don't forget the issue of Prop size vs Ground clearance. Many of these tiny
little speedsters could not use a larger prop even if the engine could turn
them. Maybe the Jab is really good in that niche. My old Long Ez turned a 64x79
Sensch prop due to ground clearance. The 160 hp Lyc turned about 2500 on
takeoff and 2950 at 10,000ft. She would climb in excess of 3,000 fpm at low
altitudes and true out 205 mph at 10,000ft. I think that clean airframes can
tolerate shorter props that are pitched heavy BUT, just imagine what that plane
could have done with a longer prop at lower rpms.
Hope to see everyone at SnF 2006
Steve B
Firefly #007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III with a 912 for sale |
Check Trade-a-Plane 242 total time 23k with trailer as I read the ad.
________________________________________________________________________________
The majority of successful applications of the Jabiru are in tractor
configurations in aircraft with higher speeds than Kolbs. The slower
aircraft in pusher configuration that do well with the larger props may
run into cooling problems for the Jabiru even if it had a reduction unit.
My penny.........
Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JAMES BEARD" <JAMESBEARD305(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | FNG seeks like minds |
New member and Mark lll Xtra builder in north central Az area (Cottonwood/Clarkdale)
seeks others building same craft. Have not yet begun project, and have
a question or two.....Jim Beard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hi Rick,
Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that gearboxes are bad, just that
superstitious pilots who've listened to too many old wives' tales
(hangar flying) don't understand them & therefore, don't trust them.
Most don't trust electronics on an engine, either, even though they've
had to comply with several carb AD's & a couple of mag overhauls while
never touching anything under the hood of their cars. The problem with
the old C175 motors was that no one was willing to run them at design
rpm; they tried to operate them at rpms of the direct drive engines they
were accustomed to.
My (attempted) point was: Jabiru knows their market & the market drove
the design.
I think that for anything cruising under 200mph, a fixed pitch large
diameter prop & small displacement geared engine can make a lot of
sense. For under 100 mph & STOL operation with very light planes, it
makes just about the *only* sense.
Charlie
Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>
>Charlie
>
>Making a gear reduction drive for a aircraft engine takes some work to make
>it work well but Rotax does and the performance gains (power and thrust) are
>well worth it. The redrive for my VW has plenty of room for improvement but
>it is still worth it. Rotax makes the 912 series for the same light aircraft
>you are referring to. I would venture a guess that in a apples to apples fly
>off a 80HP rotax would blow the doors off a 85HP Jabiru in most any airplane
>even the fast ones.
>
>I'm a licensed pilot and my MKIIIc is a experimental...... Seems like there
>are a few gear boxes in turbo prop airplanes...... Also there are gear boxes
>in P51 Mustangs, Spitfires and allot of the big radial engines used in WWII
>aircraft. These gearbox airplanes only seemed to fall out of the sky when
>they got shot down. Just because Continental didn't make it work well
>doesn't mean that it isn't ever going to work well and not be reliable. You
>also might note that the airplanes I just referred to are a bit faster than
>that 180MPH Jabiru someone was talking about. If gear box driven props
>didn't work better at higher speeds the designers wouldn't have used them.
>
>Again I think the Jabiru is a great engine it just needs a reduction drive
>to compete with the rotax 912 series of engines.
>
>As always my $.02 worth
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Jabiru
>
>
>
>
>>I've never flown one; only seen them occasionally. But I can hazard a
>>guess on why they don't have a gearbox. Their chosen market seems to be
>>the light end of the experimental non-ultralite market; typically faster
>>planes being flown by pilots more accustomed to flying traditional a/c
>>engines. Note the overall original configuration: direct drive,
>>carburetors & dual mags, even though electronic injection/ignition would
>>probably have been cheaper & simpler to build.
>>
>>Believe me, it's very difficult to find a licensed pilot (even one who
>>flies experimentals) who will trust a gearbox on an aircraft engine.
>>Most won't trust *any* alternative engine. Just mention the idea of
>>gearing & you'll get a 3rd hand account of how those Continentals on
>>Cessna 175's always failed & how much it costs to repair Twin Bonanza
>>engines.
>>
>>FWIW...
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George E. Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net> |
Cc: "Dave Pelletier"
| Subject: | Re: FNG seeks like minds |
After you come back from Monument Valley fly in, come on over to the Paulden
airstrip for the Black Mesa Open house on June 3rd. Our president has a two
place Kolb that he has rebuilt and I have built two Firestare.
Az Bald Eagle
----- Original Message -----
From: "JAMES BEARD" <JAMESBEARD305(at)msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: FNG seeks like minds
>
> New member and Mark lll Xtra builder in north central Az area
> (Cottonwood/Clarkdale) seeks others building same craft. Have not yet
> begun project, and have a question or two.....Jim Beard.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
L.T.
Thanks for the link. I have just spent the last half hour or better studying that
Lighting site....WOW. A real good example of the sum of a process where you
take any particular engine and design an aircraft for it, instead of building
an airframe, and adapting engines to them. These folks obviously have a mind
for their market, and are developing just what it will take to compete in that
market.
Unlike so many of the import LSA and EXP competitors, it is available in a Kit.
I predict it will be a huge sucess. I still havent figgered out why so many other
LSA entries are ignoreing the production numbers of the likes of Vans and
Zenith and Sonex kits. The american market for aircraft already exists for kit
built aircraft and they are all trying to convince that market (or themselves
maybe) that a ready built airplane will gain market share when the buyers show
a preference for building themselves.
Reminds me of a boss I used to have.
(I'm still here, he isn't!!)
Thanks for the link...cant wait to see one a there babies in the flesh.
--------
Don G
FireFly#098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23770#23770
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
Yep John, I am that that crap Classic pilot, I flew them both that day. I am
quite new to flying only done just under 10,000 hrs in microlights, mainly
as an instructor and qualified test pilot, still I have only got approx 150
hrs in a Classic and 500 or so on Jab and 582 Xtra's
You keep referring to the old days of John W and Jab, those days the jab was
only approx 75 real hp and if I remember right John and all the other USA
Jab runners only turn a tiny 58" prop, Much more power now and I turn a
62.5" prop. My Xtra also has VG's, The Classic did not. Come see it ,
believe it.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Jabiru
>
>
> | Rotax has a SB almost every other month, they are both very good,
> serivce
> | intervals on the jab are now as good as the 912 as well as no G-Box
> maint.
>
> Rather have that little bit of gear box maintenance, what is it? check
> every 600 or 800 hours?? than no gear box.
>
> | Also with first hand exp I can confirm that Our Jab powered Xtra
> gets off
> | the ground quicker than a 912 powered Classic (tested on same day)
> for CAA.
>
> Musta been piss poor pilot technique on the part of the Classic
> driver. My old Classic used to eat up John W's Jab powered Kolbra on
> acceleration, take off distance, and climb. Course all that changed
> dramatically when John W upgraded to a 912S.
>
> | I would be confident to stake my aircraft on that, the 912 will
> climb a bit
> | better from about 200 feet onwards though and Jab not quite as fast
> at full
> | power but I cruise at 80 mph at 2550rpm, 90mph at 2800, and 95 at
> 2950.
>
> Bring the Xtra on over. Would be happy to do a little one on one
> competition with you.
>
> | Maybe you forgot all the problems the 912 had in the first 5-8 yrs,
> theJab
> | is well sorted now.
>
> I was flying my 912 back then. Mine was manufactured later part of
> 1993. I started flying it April 1994. I remember a few updates
> during that time frame, but don't remember a lot of problems. I know
> I was doing a lot of flying back then and the old 912 was still
> humming when I swapped it for the 912ULS at 1,135.0 hours.
>
> I remember having some mandatory updates to do on the 912ULS, and she
> is still humping like a new one at 1,100.0 hours.
>
> Both the Jabiru and Rotax 912 series engines are great engines. I
> believe there is a place for them on Kolbs, but they are not going to
> perform as well as a gear box engine.
>
> john h
> MKIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
All,
You very lucky Americans have a wonderful thing called EXPERIMENTAL, the
rest of the world is not quite so lucky. Without the lighter simpler Jab
many microlights around the world would not exist with 4 stroke engines,
others just choose not to have a 4 stroke engine cruising at 4500-5500 rpm.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrmf(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Jabiru
>
>
> Charlie
>
> Making a gear reduction drive for a aircraft engine takes some work to
> make
> it work well but Rotax does and the performance gains (power and thrust)
> are
> well worth it. The redrive for my VW has plenty of room for improvement
> but
> it is still worth it. Rotax makes the 912 series for the same light
> aircraft
> you are referring to. I would venture a guess that in a apples to apples
> fly
> off a 80HP rotax would blow the doors off a 85HP Jabiru in most any
> airplane
> even the fast ones.
>
> I'm a licensed pilot and my MKIIIc is a experimental...... Seems like
> there
> are a few gear boxes in turbo prop airplanes...... Also there are gear
> boxes
> in P51 Mustangs, Spitfires and allot of the big radial engines used in
> WWII
> aircraft. These gearbox airplanes only seemed to fall out of the sky when
> they got shot down. Just because Continental didn't make it work well
> doesn't mean that it isn't ever going to work well and not be reliable.
> You
> also might note that the airplanes I just referred to are a bit faster
> than
> that 180MPH Jabiru someone was talking about. If gear box driven props
> didn't work better at higher speeds the designers wouldn't have used them.
>
> Again I think the Jabiru is a great engine it just needs a reduction drive
> to compete with the rotax 912 series of engines.
>
> As always my $.02 worth
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Jabiru
>
>
>> I've never flown one; only seen them occasionally. But I can hazard a
>> guess on why they don't have a gearbox. Their chosen market seems to be
>> the light end of the experimental non-ultralite market; typically faster
>> planes being flown by pilots more accustomed to flying traditional a/c
>> engines. Note the overall original configuration: direct drive,
>> carburetors & dual mags, even though electronic injection/ignition would
>> probably have been cheaper & simpler to build.
>>
>> Believe me, it's very difficult to find a licensed pilot (even one who
>> flies experimentals) who will trust a gearbox on an aircraft engine.
>> Most won't trust *any* alternative engine. Just mention the idea of
>> gearing & you'll get a 3rd hand account of how those Continentals on
>> Cessna 175's always failed & how much it costs to repair Twin Bonanza
>> engines.
>>
>> FWIW...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Spring Maintenance/Stock Performance |
Hi Gang:
Got back into the air today a couple times. First flights since the
first of January. Long dry spell.
Tried to do a better fit on the STE exhaust system yesterday. Today I
got a test flight in for that. Then I got the old steam gauge
tachometer calibrated. This is a complicated job because the
instrument panel has to be dropped to get a jeweler's screw driven in
that tiny hole in the back to turn the pot and reset the needle. I
think the last time I did that was two years ago. Another hour to
change oil and filter, plus take the oil tank apart and wash
thoroughly with gasoline. Still had enough time for another test
flight.
With all this talk of VG's, I decided while I was up boring holes in
the sky to see what my old MKIII was doing in the way for flight
performance. This test was conducted with 15 gal (90 lbs of fuel), a
fat MKIII, me, and on a beautiful cool calm afternoon.
At 3,000 feet MSL, power at idle, she started mushing at 40 mph
indicated. No break.
At 3,000 feet MSL, power at idle, full flaps (40 deg), she started
mushing at 32 to 33 mph indicated.
Landing on grass, full flaps, she stalled onto the ground as the
needle was coming through 30 mph indicated.
Making a full stall 3 pt landing in ground effect my MKIII has a nice
sharp break with full flaps.
However, at 3000 feet, at idle power I can put her in a 40 to 50 mph
mush at 2000 fpm rate of decent with no tendancy to lose roll or pitch
control. Think it and it is flying again.
It climbs full power as slow as 22 mph indicated. Course it is
porpoising because of the high thrust line, but still climbing 1500
fpm. The airspeed fluctuates from 22 to 35 mph.
Now.........what is amazing about this is it is a standard MKIII with
no VG's.
The above performance figures are the primary reason I have not stuck
them on my MKIII. As far as slow flight, never flew any model Kolb
that did not fly well in slow flight, even the FF and the SS. Homer
designed his airplanes primarily to be slow fliers. They do that
well. Far better than being fast airplanes. Mine is comfortable at
85 mph cruise no matter what engine I have had on it from the 582, to
the 912UL to the 912ULS.
I have nothing against VG's. If they help you and your Kolb. Great!
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine questions |
| From: | "jadamson" <j-adamson(at)tamu.edu> |
Can anyone point me to a reference that can spell out what the recommended engine
weight-horsepower ranges are for the different Kolb models?
The TNK site wasn't much help - or maybe I just didn't see it. Seems like all
I could find were performance specs - but the engines used to get those specs
wasn't mentioned. Frustrating.
Thanks in advance and if I just missed it somewhere, my apologies. Seems like
a nifty little airplane.
John
TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23833#23833
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank pick-up |
Group,
Can anyone tell me from experience which will provide the most useable
fuel from the tank of a firefly. The pick up tube in the front, OR in the back
of the tank? Seems the front position would be best, but It seems inertia
would push the gas to the back. But, then again if you were getting low and
started down it would seem the gas would gravitate forward. Which is better
forward in the tank or the back?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
In a message dated 3/19/2006 10:44:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
Attend any meeting of an EAA Chapter that has been around for a
while, you'll see a lot of gray and white hair.
Be dammed lucky to see ANY HAIR at my EAA chapter.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank pick-up |
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, robert bean wrote:
> This year I may actually try out the second tank using the
> pull-through plumbing. Curious if it works.
It works. First tank stays full until the second is empty.
The only exception is with short hops and lots of starts and stops.
Each time you restart in must use a small amount from the first tank
to build up enough vacuum before it begins to draw from the second tank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Maintenance/Stock Performance |
| Very much `indicated`.
| No wonder you don`t want VG`s.
| Pat
I wasn't flying with GPS, unfortunately. Next time I fly, I will try
to remember to put it in the airplane. It will tell me what I am
moving across the ground, but not accurate speed at the angle I am
flying. Feels like the space shuttle. This, of course, is with the
stick in the full aft position, back to the stop.
Gathering flight data in a Kolb, especially touch down speeds, is a
very unexacting science.
The nice thing about Kolbs though, is it doesn't have to be exacting.
It can be fun.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
biglar wrote:
> There's an article on page A15 in todays Desert Sun about "Older Pilots are Crashing in Disproportionate Numbers." It's an AP feed by Ryan Pearson, and, in my opinion, is badly biased and very slanted. Makes me want badly to bloody his nose. Take a look in your own local newspapers, or look at www.thedesertsun.com and scroll way down to the "California" section, the 2nd bullet.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Building Kolb Mk III
> N78LB Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
It is a well known fact that pilots slow down and make more mistakes as we get
older. As people get older their minds slow down and they are not as quick to
react and cannot process information as quickly as when they were young, which
is critical to flying. This is somewhat offset by experience, but not enough
to balance the equation. It is no suprise that older pilots have a higher accident
rate. That is why airline pilots have a mandatory retirement age of
60.
The only dissapointing thing here is that we have someone responding with denial
and violence instead of recognizing a problem and comming up with ways to minimize
the effects of this.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23933#23933
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
John Jung wrote:
>
> Dave and I are both flying Firestar II's with similar wings, aft CG's, LandShorter
VGs and only on inch difference in placement, yet we have very different
descriptions of the change in flight/stall charactoristics. About the only thing
we agree on is that we like the plane better than without VGs. This problem
of inconsistancy of described results is one of the reasons that it took me
so many years to try VGs. I will continue to test them and do my best to report
the results.
>
>
I have a bag of LandShorter VG's and the same questions about the best place on
the wing to put them. I am sure that they will be an improvement even if I
dont get them in the perfect spot the first time.
Eventually we could find the optimum spot for the Kolb wing if we all do some testing,
and post exactly where we put the VG's and post our results.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23947#23947
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
I am sure that they will be an improvement even if I dont get them in
the perfect spot the first time.
|
| Eventually we could find the optimum spot for the Kolb wing if we
all do some testing, and post exactly where we put the VG's and post
our results.
|
| Michael A. Bigelow
If I were to decide to use VG's on my MKIII I would start
experimentation with the VG's placed as suggested by the VG
manufacturer. Tests would proceed from this base. When I was
satisfied I could not find a better place to install them permanently,
that I had them placed for optimum performance, then I'd stick'em.
Even then, I may stick'em semi-permanent in case I wanted to further
experimentation.
Will the placement of Joe Blow's VG's on his Kolb work exactly the
same way on my Kolb??? Have no idea. Think I mentioned in a previous
post, "Flight testing a Kolb is not an exacting science, especially
when the test pilots are from the "Kolb Gang". ;-)
While I am suggesting, might add: "Learn to fly the Kolb well,
especially prior to making aerodynamic changes." You may find out you
don't need them, or you may find out you do.
For what it is worth.
john h
MKIII 2,448.2 hrs
912ULS 1,102.3 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
On Mar 24, 2006, at 10:36 AM, JetPilot wrote:
> It is a well known fact that pilots slow down and make more
> mistakes as we get older. As people get older their minds slow
> down and they are not as quick to react and cannot process
> information as quickly as when they were young, which is critical
> to flying. This is somewhat offset by experience, but not enough
> to balance the equation. It is no suprise that older pilots have a
> higher accident rate.
Michael,
Your notions are easily countered by the facts as they present
themselves here on the Kolb list.
John Hauck made more mistakes and had more accidents before he was 60
years old than He did after he was 60.
What is true for him is true for most pilots who have over thirty
years experience flying Kolbs.
JetPilots could be an exception though.
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Michael,
Statistics can be used to explain both sides of an argument. I
don't recall a single accident review (in 30 years of reading them) where
the pilot's age was a primary or contributory factor. Health and poor
judgement, yes. But those factors show up in all age groups. Attitude and
experience trump age IMO.
You and I both fly a lot in our careers. When was the last time you
had to have lightning-fast reflexes and process info quicker than an IBM to
save the day? The data shows that the guy who jumps when something happens
is much more likely to make the wrong move. The crusty old Captain on his
last checkride before retirement still passes quite easily. He's been doing
it his entire career, reviewed twice a year, and can nearly do so in his
sleep. The last thing I need is someone who makes a hair-trigger movement
or judgement during a critical phase of flight. Your statement "This is
somewhat offset by experience, but not enough to balance the equation." is
ludicrous and not supported by any factual data. If it were, the age-60
rule would not have the proposed increase to 65 as it recently has. Just
curious, how old are you?
As far as non-commercial, sport, ultralight, rec. pilot ops, there's
been no noted demarcation as to age and performance. Same as the general
populace, some are sharp in their older years, most are average, some become
slow and get dangerous. We had a local pilot examiner (ex-Western Airlines
Captain) who stopped recently at age 80. Still didn't wear glasses. I have
an 83-year-old client who still flies his Cessna 340 single-pilot. Most of
the older pilots I know become more cautious with age. Part of the maturing
process, with a bunch of self-preservation mixed in.
Don't knock the wisdom-with-age thing 'til you've tried it.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Older Pilots
>
> It is a well known fact that pilots slow down and make more mistakes as we
> get older. As people get older their minds slow down and they are not as
> quick to react and cannot process information as quickly as when they were
> young, which is critical to flying. This is somewhat offset by
> experience, but not enough to balance the equation. It is no suprise that
> older pilots have a higher accident rate. That is why airline pilots
> have a mandatory retirement age of 60.
>
(Snip)
> Michael A. Bigelow
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23933#23933
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Ed Chmielewski wrote:
> Don't knock the wisdom-with-age thing 'til you've tried it.
S-mile wide truth there, Ed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
| Unfortunately there is no data for pilots older than 63, who a lot
of us
| consider to be mature.
|
| Jack B. Hart FF004
I get a BFR every two years to see if I can still fly and understand
the rules. Other than that, it will be up to me to decide when to
quit. That will probably be when it ceases to be fun or it becomes
uncomfortable.
If I can still be puttering around the airstrip with my little Kolb at
Ray Anderson's age, I would be extremely grateful. Hopefully, there
won't be a bunch of bureaucrats hanging around grading my performance,
trying to ground me for having so much fun.
Come April 8, I'll be 67 years old. Feel very grateful that I am
still fortunate to be able to fly my own airplane off my little green
airstrip. Back in the early days of Sun and Fun, used to hate to fly
down there because of all the rules and supervision. Was a drastic
change from aviation life back home on the farm.
About the only serious plans I have for the future are to fly back to
Barrow, Alaska, summer of 2009, at the ripe old age of 70. I did
alright at 65. Flew shorter days, took time to smell the fireweed and
arctic cotton, ate a lot of halibut, and visited folks and places a
lot more. At 70 I should be able to do the same thing even slower and
more enjoyable.
When I first got into ultralight aviation there was a 70 year old
gentleman that flew a Pioneer Flightstar across the US, solo and no
ground support. Never figured I would see the day that I could do
that. Maybe I will be able to also.
Take care,
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank pick-up |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Which is better forward in the tank or the back?
> Ed
Ed,
I say the front of the tank because in normal flight the tail is high with the
boom tube slanting toward the front.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24010#24010
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wheel to wheel dimension - Mark IIIC |
| From: | "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hello List,
I have been working on some new gear legs for my Mark IIIC. I've welded them up
and fitted them.
Before I drill the holes for the axles I wanted to see if I was close to the right
dimension for the distance from the outside to outside of the wheel. Problem
is my old gear legs are bent so bad it is hard to be sure.
I searched the archives and found I response to Larry B from Richard Pike. Richard
had a distance of 76" from outside of wheel to outside of wheel.
If any of you walk by your plane and could measure the wheel to wheel distance
I would appreciate it. I'm kinda doing this in the "true experimental" spirit
as far as a my experience level goes. Just checking. I am a bit interested
in what the variations are in this distance, if there is any, among all the MarkIIIC's.
Maybe everyone is right at 76".
I'm close to 78" with the axle flush against the sleeve. You will notice that
there is ~7 degree camber in the wheels. I'm not sure if it is positive or negative.
Not an expert. That is what Jim Hauck recommended. I've read a few complaints
about the factory gear sitting ugly with weight and a few firm landings.
Mine should be close to straight once I've done my little drop ins. Gives
me room to work! Kinda like the look better.
Thanks in advance.
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C
Using my Repairman Certificate
St. Francisville, LA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24053#24053
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/axle_extended_761.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/axle_flush_119.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/gear_legs_007_264.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel to wheel dimension - Mark IIIC |
| Before I drill the holes for the axles I wanted to see if I was
close to the right dimension for the distance from the outside to
outside of the wheel. Kinda like the look better.
|
|
| John Bickham
Looks great to me. I like a lot of positive camber.
As far as track is concerned??? I don't think it makes a lot of
difference. My gear is probably a foot wider than standark MKIIIc.
Helps me keep the wings level when I ground loop. ;-)
Recommend using two 1/4" bolts in each axle socket. When I put on my
upgraded brakes, I was using the stand two 3/16" bolts. First time I
taxied down to the end of the strip, used the brake to pivot, I wrung
off the two bolts. That is when I decided to upgrade to 1/4.
Gonna be a good looking, good flying MKIIIc. Already been initiated,
so don't have to do that anymore.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Good Lord ! ! !
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Older Pilots
>
>
> biglar wrote:
>> There's an article on page A15 in todays Desert Sun about "Older Pilots
>> are Crashing in Disproportionate Numbers." It's an AP feed by Ryan
>> Pearson, and, in my opinion, is badly biased and very slanted. Makes me
>> want badly to bloody his nose. Take a look in your own local newspapers,
>> or look at www.thedesertsun.com and scroll way down to the "California"
>> section, the 2nd bullet.
>>
>> Larry Bourne
>> Palm Springs, CA
>> Building Kolb Mk III
>> N78LB Vamoose
>> www.gogittum.com
>
>
> It is a well known fact that pilots slow down and make more mistakes as we
> get older. As people get older their minds slow down and they are not as
> quick to react and cannot process information as quickly as when they were
> young, which is critical to flying. This is somewhat offset by
> experience, but not enough to balance the equation. It is no suprise that
> older pilots have a higher accident rate. That is why airline pilots
> have a mandatory retirement age of 60.
>
> The only dissapointing thing here is that we have someone responding with
> denial and violence instead of recognizing a problem and comming up with
> ways to minimize the effects of this.
>
> Michael A. Bigelow
>
> --------
> NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
> !!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=23933#23933
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank pick-up |
On Mar 24, 2006, at 5:21 PM, planecrazzzy wrote:
> FUEL "PICK-UP"..........Mine are FRONT and REAR - "LEFT Side"
>
> Because most "patterns" are LEFT
Are you serious?
Fly coordinated and it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference if you bank
left or right .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
There's a new engine being developed in Belgium that, I think, will challenge the
Jabiru, Rotax's etc, for market share once in production.
Ground runing is virtually finished and test flying is in progess now. (Wish it
had a PSRU though)
Info is here if interested:
David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24096#24096
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank pick-up |
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:35 AM, planecrazzzy wrote:
Hello, thank you for your email.
Due to the amount of spams I used to receive in my mailbox, I am
using End2Spam anti-spam service to protect my email inbox. If you
want your messages to reach me you will need to click on the link below.
http://www.end2spam.com/public/thanks.php?
VkZaU1JrMUZNVFpUVkVreVRqQXhWRTVJY0U1U1IwNHo
Thanks and regards
yasir sabri
If this link appears broken in your email client, please copy and
paste the entire link in one line in your web browser.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JeffFowler(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Hello,
I'd like to point out that the figures are slightly skued to appear that
way simply by economics.How many people in their 20's have the money to own
their own airplane compared to the numbers , say, in their 40's. I know they
are out there, but look at the pilots that are owners where you have your
plane at or at the county airport and guess their age groups. I think the largest
group will be in their late 30's to mid 40's so this will make all private p
ilots that are out there look old to those who simply read statistics. Age
probably does play a roll in slowing down a pilot's skills and I support the 60
rule. If you are over 60 you shouldn't be allowed to fly an aircraft like an
SR-71 or an F-18. But everything else should be fine. Okay, I'll go back to
lurk mode now.....
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke adventure |
Man did an excellent job of saving his buns. He had everything
working against him long before the engine quit. After it quit, power
transmission wires, lots of trees, another power line, and then a
borrow pit that had more cast iron than a junk yard. Don't worry
about the airplane until you get yourself on the ground.
Great job.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
| (older pilot ingesting my daily dose of Seafoam :)
Ralph:
Was that orally or rectally???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank pick-up |
On Mar 25, 2006, at 12:17 PM, planecrazzzy wrote:
> I'll probly try the system where the vent is in the second
> tank.....The only thing that I don't like about that is drilling a
> hole in the bottom of the first tank....
One thing I like about that system is that it requires no holes in
the bottom of the tanks.
A drain cock in the bottom of the tanks may be a good idea if a
fitting can be installed that actually drains the very bottom. All
the fittings I've seen used on these poly tanks stand up inside the
tank preventing the very bottom from draining.
What I like about a tank without a bottom hole is that it can easily
be removed periodically for complete clean-out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel to wheel dimension - Mark IIIC |
John,
Mine is 76" also.
Steven Green
>
> Hello List,
>
> I have been working on some new gear legs for my Mark IIIC. I've welded
them up and fitted them.
>
> Before I drill the holes for the axles I wanted to see if I was close to
the right dimension for the distance from the outside to outside of the
wheel. Problem is my old gear legs are bent so bad it is hard to be sure.
>
> I searched the archives and found I response to Larry B from Richard Pike.
Richard had a distance of 76" from outside of wheel to outside of wheel.
>
> If any of you walk by your plane and could measure the wheel to wheel
distance I would appreciate it. I'm kinda doing this in the "true
experimental" spirit as far as a my experience level goes. Just checking.
I am a bit interested in what the variations are in this distance, if there
is any, among all the MarkIIIC's. Maybe everyone is right at 76".
>
> I'm close to 78" with the axle flush against the sleeve. You will notice
that there is ~7 degree camber in the wheels. I'm not sure if it is positive
or negative. Not an expert. That is what Jim Hauck recommended. I've read
a few complaints about the factory gear sitting ugly with weight and a few
firm landings. Mine should be close to straight once I've done my little
drop ins. Gives me room to work! Kinda like the look better.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --------
> Thanks too much,
>
> John Bickham
> Mark III-C
> Using my Repairman Certificate
> St. Francisville, LA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24053#24053
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/axle_extended_761.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/axle_flush_119.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/gear_legs_007_264.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cory Emberson <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Feedback Requested (Alternative Engines) Kitplanes Magazine |
Hello all,
I would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has successfully
installed and flown an alternative engine in your plane. I'm compiling a
builder's roundup for Kitplanes magazine, and am looking for an
installation that's flown for a minimum of 300 hours, and is currently
flying. Also, we will not address any rotary engines, since a separate
article will cover those engines.
For the builders that we profile, the magazine will also be able to pay
you $100 for the write-up. I'll be at Sun 'n Fun until late morning on
Friday (April 7), so if you fly in, I'd be happy to take the photos
there. If not, we would also need at least 2-3 good photos, including a
close-up of the engine and an overall shot of the aircraft. Additional
photos would be great, and all photos will be returned. If you have
digital photos, it is very important that they be high-resolution, at
least 300 dpi. I have a list of specific areas to address if you'd like
to participate, but we can handle that off-line. Please feel free to
contact me off-line at: bootless (at) earthlink (dot) net (my despammed
email address).
Thank you so much!
best,
Cory Emberson
Contributing Editor
Kitplanes Magazine
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke adventure |
At 05:12 PM 3/25/2006, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob/All,
>
> For us poor souls on dial-up, what does the movie show and how big a
>file is it? Thanks!
I shows you how far a dead engine will take you .... all the way to the scene
of the crash ....bet you'll get there 30 minutes before the EMT guys. etc.
Really - it is a "streaming video" so it's hard to tell how big it is.
Must be pretty large on the server.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke adventure |
| For us poor souls on dial-up, what does the movie show and
how big a
| file is it? Thanks!
|
| Ed in JXN
Ed:
It is a 13.4mb Quicktime.
Shows an UL flight that terminated with an engine out. Good
educational clip.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
She had around 58,000 hours when she
| quit instructing. Evelyn Johnson is her name.
|
| Steven Green
I'll place Miss Evelyn right up there along side my friend Ed Long.
Ed died in his early 80's. However, when Ed died, he has more flying
hours than any other person on earth, 63,000 I believe. Will have to
go look it up. NOTE: Can not find any info on Ed Long and his
record. Far as I know, he still holds that record for most flight
time.
Had the honor of flying in my MKIII with Ed Long. He liked the way it
flew, but did not like the seat. Well, since that flight, I fixed the
left seat to be a tad more comfortable.
john h
PS: While I was searching for Ed Long's record, I did find that an 82
year old man in Ireland solo'd a Robinson helicopter. Now that is
indicative of how old farts fall apart. I sure this elderly gentleman
is an exception.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback Requested (Alternative Engines) Kitplanes Magazine |
| I would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has
successfully
| installed and flown an alternative engine in your plane.
| Cory Emberson
What qualifies as an "alternative"?
john h
DO NOT ARCHVIVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Windscreen Support Brace |
On Mar 25, 2006, at 6:06 PM, planecrazzzy wrote:
> Here's some Pictures....
Congratulations on a good job!
Very nice plane!
I like your beautifully upholstered seats.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier(at)cableone.net> |
Uncle Craig,,
Uncle Craig, are you out there. Need to talk to you. Would you contact me
off list please.
Thanks,
AzDave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stock Performance |
| I was wondering if you did this with no flaps and the stick all the
way back
| ?
| Bill Vincent
That is correct.
It is a characteristic of the Kolb design.
Depending on the situation, it is an excellent way to lose a lot of
altitude in a short period of time at minimum airspeed.
To recover from the mush, I release some back pressure on the stick
and it is flying.
Does not work nearly as well with full flaps.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
Friend Steve,
I'm glad you met my friend Evelyn Johnson. We've corresponded for
some years, and I've written about her in my monthly column. Traded
books...her's is titled Mama Bird. Her Christmas card said she was
quitting instructing. She'll be 96 I think in November. What a grand
lady!
regards,
Bob N.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Sorenson <marksorenson(at)sprintpcs.com> |
| Subject: | Atlanta Area Live with your Airplane |
For those of you interested in LIVING with YOUR AIRPLANE. There are two properties for sale at Big T airport (64GA) just 6 miles from Tarra Field's aerobatic box. Both properties have residnetial accomodations attached to hangars with over 3000 sq ft of hangar space and over 2400 sq ft of living area in the homes. One property has a joint 1000 gal fuel tank. Both properties are located ON THE RUNWAY. One property is asking $399,900 and the other is asking $385,000. These are not currently listed with MLS so save big now on commission with dealing directly with the owners. Currently 4 other IAC members here on the field and we all fly as often as possible critiquing each other. Also we are only a 11 minute drive from Aircraft Spruce and Specialties in Peachtree City, GA. For more information and owner contact info, please contact me at 678-463-5944 or at marksorenson@sprintpcs.com Look up the airport at www.airnav.com or at http://skyvector.com/airport/64GA/Big-T--Air
port
------------------
Best Regards,
Mark-
678-GO-FLY-HI
--------------------
This message was sent from a Sprint PCS Phone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke adventure |
Thanks, John!
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 stroke adventure
>
> | For us poor souls on dial-up, what does the movie show and
> how big a
> | file is it? Thanks!
> |
> | Ed in JXN
>
> Ed:
>
> It is a 13.4mb Quicktime.
>
> Shows an UL flight that terminated with an engine out. Good
> educational clip.
>
> john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
I did a dozen landings today to learn more about how my Firestar II handles different
than before the VGs. Conditions were as thermally and gusty as I have experienced
in Arizona. Wind was about 15 mph, mostly down the 1000 ft dirt runway,
with a small crosswind component. My first landing was at 4350 rpm, nose
high, tail dragging at 30 mph. The plane dropped from there, hit harder than
I like but no bent gear. After that, I kept the rpms at 3,600 down to full idle.
Average touch down speed was 34 mph, almost always 33 to 35 mph, all tail first,
soft landings. Even though conditions were bad, it was easy to land the
plane without hitting hard. In the past, I had to get the mains close to the runway
before I slowed to 40, because at 40 mph it just dropped.
On the way back to the airport, I tried to duplicate the nose drop stall that Dave
reported. I pulled the stick back further so the plane would slow quicker.
This time it stalled at 28 and the nose did drop below level, like Dave described.
I can't really compare that with before the VGs, because I never pulled
my Firestar into a stall that quickly before. And I don't see it happening by
accident.
In summary, I much prefer my Firestar with the Landshorter VGs. I have flown Firestars
for the past 9 years, and I have some time in a Mark II and a Mark III.
These Landshorter VGs make my plane easier to land then any non-VG Kolb I have
flown. Granted, if I had flaps, I might never had tried them.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24339#24339
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave G." <occom(at)ns.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke adventure |
Engine appears to labelled "Arctic Cat" does anyone know the source of the
problem?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KD Industries Inc." <kd(at)ican.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar II for sale Canada |
Kolb Firestar II for sale.
503 DCDI, 103 hrs. TT , 3 blade ivoprop, stitts aerothane covered,folding
wings,custom made cover,EIS, radio,Gps, set up as single seat,allways been
stored in a hanger. Located in Ontario.
12000.00 CAD.
Dave
kd(at)ican.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 stroke adventure |
| From: | "Steve Garvelink" <link(at)cdc.net> |
Excellent video! This guy either has the right stuff or is extreamly lucky. I
think a lot of both and nerves of steel. My impression is that he was flying
to low for the area that he was flying over. I started to feel uncomfortable
when I could see no good options to land. I would like to see a full screen version
of this video. It is an excellent training video.
Steve Garvelink
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24361#24361
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jbowaaf(at)wmconnect.com |
also perhaps relevant to this thread, would be the aviation life story of mr.
clint mchenry. those who favor younger pilots might find his history of
interest.
john bowman, bldg avid+ flyer from airdale
prairieville la (near baton rouge)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kolbdriver" <kolbdriver(at)mlsharp.com> |
| Subject: | Rear Enclosure Mark III C |
Folks,
Does anyone have photos of how they installed the Rear Enclosure of their
Mark III C??
I'm speaking of the clear vinyl, not the older style lexan enclosure?
Thanks,
Mike
Mark III C
North Central Oklahoma
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Chris Mallory wrote:
> He
> said that the reason for this is that because of the VGs, the Wing
> wants to
> keep flying but the tail wants to stall first, adding the VGs aft will
> balance the two flying surfaces and eliminate this tendency.
Sorry,
Sounds like sales propaganda to me.
Any airplane that stalls tail first would be an extremely dangerous
plane to try to fly.
I can assure you that my VGs do not make my plane stall tail first.
Any increased authority that results form VGs placed on the
horizontal tail surfaces will make the potential to land tail first
even greater not less, because VGs act to increase angel of attack
before stall.
Increased angel of attack means the tail is even lower.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Older Pilots |
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Older Pilots
>
> Perhaps "we" should contact the author of the article to determine
> what data he based his comment upon. A few dozen request might get
> his attention.
> jerb
No, lets find him, I'll hold him and Big Lar can hit him in the nose.
Larry, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Perkins <2scott(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | 4 stroke for Kolb Flyer, Lazair, Woodhopper etc |
This past weekend
I visited the national powered paragliding championship in FL
and saw the neatest little 150cc 4 stroke with electric start being
used on the paragliders with a claimed 14 hp at 7700 rpms.
It was guieter and won the endurance competition ( by 40 minutes) where
they see who can stay airborne the longest with just 2 liters of fuel.
The whole time I was thinking of how cool it would be to have
two of these on a Kolb Flyer or Lazair or Hummingbird or for that matter
just one on a Delta Nomad or the
BabyBeta-Bird.http://vulatalk.zdwebhosting.com/pictures3/babebeta/index.html
or the
Woodhopper
http://vulatalk.zdwebhosting.com/pictures3/woodhopper/index.html
and probably the Gypsy as well !
Oh the Zipper would have been a great one for two also...
http://vulatalk.zdwebhosting.com/pictures3/zipper/index.html
I wouldnt have to think too hard to come up with a dozen more....
I miss Del Cross as now I dont know of another Kolb Flyer now flying anywhere.
The new little 4 stroke is from the U.K. co. called Bailey Aviation etc.
http://wwww.baileyaviation.com
The sales rep suggested the barrel and some internal parts were from a
4 stroke motorcycle application.
the entire engine supposedly weighs 45 lb with electric start and a slightly
larger engine is currently undergoing tests.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Land Shorter VG's on Firestar II |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
This JOA guy has lost all credibility with me due to his statement about the tail
stalling first causing the tail to be low. The VGs work as described but this
guy's knowlege of the purpose of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator is
limited at best. I'm sure he has a good product, at least as good as the home
made ones, but he is no expert in flight theory or aerodynamics. I'm not either
but do know and understand what the experts say.
On ALL succecssful standard configuration aircraft, the tail is designed to continue
to fly at speeds below which the wing will be fully stalled, assuming the
CG is within limits. Without effective elevator control the pilot cannot get
March 06, 2006 - March 27, 2006
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fy