Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gn

February 10, 2007 - February 26, 2007



      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kolb Firestar - recommended propeller
From: "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2007
planecrazzzy wrote: > > Will 2 blade give me faster cruise ? I switched from a 3 blade 63" IVO to a 68" 2 blade IVO several years ago. The cruise speed did not change, nor did the top speed, but it gets off the ground quicker, even carrying 60 more pounds. The other difference is that the 2 blade has more vibration, but has a lower tone that I find easier on my ears. To keep the 68" quiet, the engine needed to be raised and inch. A 66" two blade would be a good choice. If it is a Firestar II, the spacer is needed, for any prop. Just my opinion. John Jung -------- John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94147#94147 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on Oregon-Texas-MV route
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2007
Hi Arty, I am flying that route from Tucson to San Fransisco area this week for a Rotax 912 class in San Leandro. In May I will be flying up to the Portland, Or. area just before the MV Fly-In. Give me a call and I can keep you in better climate (less heat), out of restricted and MOA areas. It will give you more options for airports verses the bare I-95, NV. route and less Mountains to fly over. I can tell you about Tucson and El Paso, you don't have to go around. I can give you some good fueling options, too. I have just flown the lower Texas route in December. I can let you know what it is like to fly from Tucson to MV if you want to know. Give me a call. Roger Lee Tucson, Az 520-574-1080 home 520-791-5286 work I'm at work today, Sat. the 10th. and Mon. the 12th. for 24 hrs. I'm a fireman. I'll be at home Sunday and Tuesday. I leave for California Wed. Any way you go will be fun! -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94159#94159 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Barracuda Spam Firewall <postmaster(at)matronics.com>
Subject: **Message you sent blocked by our bulk email filter**
Date: Feb 10, 2007
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: endorsement to fly into Class B & C airspac
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2007
Hi Art, Good post. You can fly under the outside control zone of class"C" without a radio or transponder. That being said I would at least have a radio. While in the Kolb I only had a radio and I would fly under Tucson class "C" airspace outside control zone under the 4200' floor at 3800' without any issues and that put me about 1000'-1200' AGL. Sometimes I would communicate with Tucson Approach just to let them know I was there and they never gave me any hassle. They were glad I called them. We have a lot of ultrlights in the Tucson area and this is how they traverse the area. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94199#94199 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Going EAB after the ELSA deadline
Folks, A question was asked off forum about going experimental amateur built after the Jan 31, 2008 deadline for ELSA registration expires. One of the things that FAA did to keep from a paperwork nightmare was create form 8050-88A, Affidavit of Ownership. This is different in that you can check a series of boxes that allow you to say, in effect, I have no paperwork of any kind to prove I own this aircraft, have it notarized, and FAA will accept this. This form, too, goes away Jan 31, 2008. Unless you get a DAR willing to take your word that you built it from materials all other options on form 8050-88, the form used for Experimental Amatuer Built aircraft, require a receipt be attached (and this form specifically states, does not include light sport). I don't think FAA is going to allow any back door way into EAB as they have with ELSA. That's the word I got from a DAR, but that's all I have on that subject. You might want to give the Light Sport branch a call at (405) 944-3668 and get the word from the horse's mouth. If they give you an okay, I'd contact my DAR and make sure he's going to play along as he might have his own interpretation. Rick -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Pearce" <rap(at)isp.com>
Subject: Re: fitting needed
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Paul: CPS has a 90 deg fitting for around 20$ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: fitting needed > > Never mind! > > Travis tha man hooked me up! This brings up an interesting subject tho.... John H John W. and Mark G. all have the same set up. They all needed 3 90's to make the oil cooler work on the back of the fuselage. Rotax sends the engenis out with the straight fittings for the oil pump and cooler. The 90's are an option you have to buy at 70 bucks per 2. My question is who has bought 2 pairs and what did you do with the other 90? May could get together on this and pair up the extra fittings and make some gas money if you guys can find them...or at least help out a fellow builder. On another note travis sent me a few photos of the routing of a plane bryan built that used the straight fittings. And the Rotax hose. > > I think he said it was MikeB not sure > > I would like to see more photos of your oil hose routing and type hose used. Im going with areoquip FC-332 > > -------- > Paul Petty > Kolbra #12 > Ms Dixie > painting and reassembly > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94055#94055 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/912soilcoolersideview_191.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/912soilcoolermounting_192.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: endorsement to fly into Class B & C airspac
Date: Feb 11, 2007
| The CHEAPEST I could get mine for ( new ) was around $1,500 for the Transponder & Alt encoder.... | Mike & Mike: Couldn't afford to have all that equipment on board. Somehow I have been able to fly all over CONUS, Canada, and Alaska, with the aid of the cheapest ICOM handheld, the A3, and a Garmin 196 GPS. Sometimes that can be too much stuff to take care of. ;-) john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Sometimes cruising slower gets you where you want to go in less time | and at lower cost. | | Jack B. Hart Jack: How about explaining the above statement. Think my mind is cruising too slow to grasp. Many times, faster cruise will get you there sooner and at less cost, based on speed and time in flight. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JR" <jrsmith2(at)triad.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly
Date: Feb 11, 2007
stupid me.... it the removal of the 11-Man ballot sorry ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly > > Sometimes cruising slower gets you where you want to go in less time > | and at lower cost. > | > | Jack B. Hart > > > Jack: > > How about explaining the above statement. Think my mind is cruising > too slow to grasp. > > Many times, faster cruise will get you there sooner and at less cost, > based on speed and time in flight. > > john h > mkIII > > > -- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly
Date: Feb 11, 2007
| | stupid me.... it the removal of the 11-Man ballot sorry HUH??? john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Back Copy
Date: Feb 11, 2007
| You know John....The 11th man ballot... Mike: Honestly, WTF is the above? Never heard of it and google hasn't either. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Back Copy
Date: Feb 11, 2007
| Never heard of it and google hasn't either. | | john h Well..................so much for back copy. ;-) jrh ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly
> Sometimes cruising slower gets you where you want to go in less time >| and at lower cost. John, To keep things in context: "Basically, it you want to stay up longer, fly further and reduce cost cruise slower. For minimum time between two points, you have to consider refueling time. Sometimes cruising slower gets you where you want to go in less time and at lower cost. In general, the faster cruise eats up hp at a higher rate than the increase in speed, so cost per mile increase dramatically." As taken from the web page and modified: ---------------------------------- If you like to fly one hundred mile legs. Calculating flight times at various speeds will give the following results. trip time total fuel .mph.................hr:min used (gal) ..40..................2:30 2.6 ..45..................2:13 3.3 ..50..................2:00 4.0 ..55....1:49 + 0:30 = 2:19 4.7 (must refuel before or at 93 miles) ..60....1:40 + 0:30 = 2:10 5.8 (must refuel before or at 78 miles) ..65....1:32 + 0:30 = 2:02 6.7 (must refuel before or at 67 miles) On the last three flights, one would have to stop for fuel and so 30 minutes was added to accommodate refueling. Assuming no head wind, this indicates a 50 mph cruise would give the quickest time point to point. ----------------------------------- By not refueling and cruising at 50 mph, the 100 miles in two hours will burn 4 gallons of fuel. The next best time is cruising at 65 mph with a fuel burn of 6.7 gallons. From ferrying the FireFly from south east Missouri to Indiana, I discovered that it was very difficult to refuel and get back on the way in one half an hour. People are drawn to the FireFly, and I had to ask them to get out of the way so I could start up and taxi away. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Subject: malcolm
For those of you interested in Aerocet 1100 floats; Jim Fahey the current owner of the molds, jigs, parts, paperwork, etc. is interested in selling all that he has to another person(s) that might be interested in making the floats. He no longer has the time or interest to do so. Jim can be reached by phone 608-835-7984, or by email jimfahey55(at)yahoo.com . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Thanks for your explanation Jack. Glad I carry that extra 20 gals of fuel. Not so much to save time as to have it when the situation dictates that I need it to survive. John W got me into the habit of topping off the tank every time I land, when flying cross country. Never fails, when I don't do that, that the weather/wind changes drastically, gets nasty, and makes me wish I had all the fuel I could hold to handle the situation. Refuel delays caused by strap hangers is a frequent happening. Normally, I enjoy it when folks take a sincere interest in my bird, where we have been, and where we are going. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO
At 08:36 PM 2/11/2007, planecrazzzy wrote: > > When "I" watched the video..... Afterwards , I noticed his plane looked > "Flyable" ...Did he just Panic , and pull it too soon ? > Did anybody notice that ? Hard to day in this case, there didn't seem to be any major structural damage but there could have been control failure... although my impression is that most of the BRS deployments I've heard of seem to be the pilot panicking after an engine failure. When my engine gets quiet (and it has, more than once) I'm gonna fly it down if I still have control (though I've never had a BRS on any plane I've owned). Once you pull that handle you surrender all control. In the pilot's defense though, he didn't have a lot of time to analyze the situation before he got too low to deploy the chute. OTOH, it looked like he was holding the camera in his hand... possibly paying attention to the filming and not what was happening outside his airplane. Certainly it looked like the pilot of the tow plane was taking evasive action before he did. -Dana -Dana -- -- Why doesn't DOS ever say "EXCELLENT command or filename!" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: Bill Czygan <bczygan(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb burned
Just wanted to bring the group up to date on the Kolb that was going to be burned at the end of flying season last year. Sad to say that, according to the owner, he burned it last November as he had planned. Now, the purpose of this post is not to get anyone in an uproar, but rather, to put the word out to take care of each other. This pilot had no one to fly with and felt left out. Then SP came along and he had that to deal with. This was the on ly way he felt he had left to cope with,and respond to changes he had no co ntrol over. I tried to convince him he had other alternatives, but I wasn't local to him and couldn't make headway. The good news is he is happily pur suing another sport with lots of friends. Sad about the machine though.=0A =0ABill=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A_________________________________________________ ___________________________________=0AHave a burning question? =0AGo to ww w.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb burned
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Just wanted to bring the group up to date on the Kolb that was going to be burned at the end of flying season last year. Bill Bill: Where's the photos? Luckily, I have never seen a Kolb burn. Tried to burn up my mkIII during initial 912 installation in 1994. Got the reg/rec hooked up incorrectly. Was on the telephone, inside the house, smelled an electrical fire, stuck my head out the door and saw smoke and flames coming out from under my brand new engine. Luckily, had a halon fire extinguisher on board to douse the flames. Cost me a new reg/rec, some wiring, and scorched paint. Could have been a lot worse. Lesson learned, I hope. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Immediately after the collision, it looks like he was stalled out and didn't give it time to know if he could control the aircraft or not. Given a little more time and altitude he might have regained control and made a safe emergency landing. But in the end, he walked away and repaired the aircraft so his decision was not a bad one. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94499#94499 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on Oregon-Texas-MV route
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
You can fly through an MOA, its legal, and I have never even seen military traffic while in an MOA. The risk is almost zero. You probably run a higher risk trying to take a longer route around an MOA instead of just going the best way through it. Be safe, but if you try to be ultra careful, you usually end up making bad choices which can be much more dangerous than what you were trying to aviod in the first place. John Hauck does lots of cross country, do you go through MOA's John ? Mike 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=94503#94503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark W German" <aerofab(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re:
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Hi Paul: I have been trying to call but I must have a bad number? I want to show you a new brake petal design I have been working on see the attached PDF file dwg. After spending some time talking to Matco they thank this should much improve our braking power. This is one area I of my kolbra that has not worked. and it has get me in trouble many times. Kolb should look at this more serious. I will be building and installing on my for testing and will keep you informed. I just need to wait for wormer temps. Just spent a week in FL. 72-F and it hurt to come back. Also went by the area where the tornado hit, Not Good. Complete destruction. Let me know what you think. Thanks Mark G 912 Kolbra ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Panel pics > > Took some high res pics of the panel for Scott. Thought I would share with > all of you. > > -------- > Paul Petty > Kolbra #12 > Ms Dixie > painting and reassembly > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90892#90892 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1260048_145.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1260045_476.jpg > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on Oregon-Texas-MV route
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Mike B: Yes, I fly through MOA's. If you have not seen military traffic in an MOA you probably haven't been flying down low where most of us Kolbers fly. Not a good feeling seeing two F-4's coming straight at you at 500 feet AGL, while flying an Ultrastar. Push the stick and head for the trees. I think most of the time we don't see the military traffic although it is there. That is worst case senario. You can always check with nearest FSS. Give them a call and find out what the situation is. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on Oregon-Texas-MV route
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
It is perfectly legal and acceptable to fly into a MOA without talking to anybody. Within MOAs, military and other traffic have equal requirement for traffic separation. That said, I would be extra vigilant, especially M-F during working hours (7am-5pm) as MOAs are used for ACM (dog fighting) and other training that can quickly result in large changes of altitude and direction. Military operations in MOAs I was familiar with were all above 10,000 MSL, but I wouldn't count on that. Speeds below 10000MSL should be <250KIAS unless on a published low level route (IR or VR). Jim N. Idaho > > You can fly through an MOA, its legal, and I have never even seen military > traffic while in an MOA. The risk is almost zero. You probably run a > higher risk trying to take a longer route around an MOA instead of just > going the best way through it. > > Be safe, but if you try to be ultra careful, you usually end up making bad > choices which can be much more dangerous than what you were trying to > aviod in the first place. > > John Hauck does lots of cross country, do you go through MOA's John ? > > Mike Bigelow ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: No Title
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Looks real good Mark. Maybe we should re-name these German Kolbras. hehe -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94555#94555 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kolb..CFI..Instructor..South Florida
From: "miami_guy" <myplanes(at)obyelectronics.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Hello I am currently looking fro a CFI to train me to fly my Kolb Mark III. Located in Broward / Miami Dade County. If someone can point me in the right direction it would be highly appreciated. Regards Miami_guy [Question] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94559#94559 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Most economical cruse speed for a FireFly
> Well jack I think you need to ad the caveat that saving gas at a slower >cruise speed only works with a 0 head wind or some small fraction of it. I >think we need to consider this caution lest someone will try that method and >run out of fuel in some inhospitable area. Arizona Man, Yes you are correct, the calculations were all done without considering head or tail winds. This can easily be accommodated by using ground speed during the calculations for range. Endurance will not change. Just change the air speed to ground speed in the following: "For the range column, identify your useable fuel volume. Divide this volume by gph and multiply by the air speed to find the range. Mpg is the range divided by useable fuel volume." If you fly with a gps that pin points your intended landing site and an in flight timer, it is very easy to determine if you can make it to your intended landing site. Just as soon as you get to altitude and at cruise speed, check the expected time of arrival on the gps. If the expected time of arrival plus the time on the flight timer add up to more than the endurance time at that cruise speed, you will not be able to make it. Next reduce cruise by five miles per hour and again check the gps expected time of arrival and add it to the flight timer reading. If it adds up to less than the endurance time for the new cruise speed, you can make it. If not keep trying. If the head wind is too strong, you will have to change your flight plan or cancel out. All of this can be decided in the first fifteen minutes of the flight. Flying a FireFly cross country is no different than any other aircraft. We just get to stop a little more often. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Not disagreeing with anything you are saying, but (as Paul Harvey says) here is the rest of the story... ATC should have seen the dude in the light high wing even without a transponder. ATC radar ought to be able to pick up primary targets with no trouble, unless he was a long way from the radar site. Having spent a career in ATC, half of it after I started flying ultralights, I have a pretty good idea how well ultralight aircraft show up on radar, so here's how it works. The Quicksilver type ultralights with a jungle gym of wires and tubes going everywhere show up almost as well as the Goodyear blimp. A Kolb paints at least as good as a Cessna 152, which is sort of the baseline primary. One caveat: there is a blind speed of 60 mph, which is a function of the radar sweep. If you are flying tangentially to the radar sweep at 60 mph, in the same direction the antenna is turning, you are invisible as a primary, no matter how much metal you have hanging off. Or if you are not moving, you are invisible. The radar eliminates stationary targets. If the controller turns his radar down to eliminate clutter, and takes it down too far, he won't pick up primaries. That is not your fault, it is his. He should have had it up enough to see the dude in the light sport and call primary traffic for the jet. Since he didn't, his bad. If the dude in the light sport had been monitoring approach freq for the airport in question, he would have known about the jet on approach. His bad. Unless the jet pilot failed to check in on unicom, his bad. Always monitor the appropriate frequency, whether you have a transponder or not. And finally, if you are a genuine Part 103 Ultralight, then you are not legally an airplane, and ATC is not responsible to separate you from anything, although they will separate "real airplanes" from all known traffic, even ultralights, because it is easier than filling our forms for midairs/near midairs. Having said all that, transponders are a Good Thing. And cheaper on ebay. which is where I got mine. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) 30 years ATC, retired, TRI ATCT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94592#94592 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <kfackler(at)ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
Date: Feb 12, 2007
> Having said all that, transponders are a Good Thing. And cheaper on ebay. which is where I got mine. I like that idea. What do I need to know to purchase one that will be compatible with my Rotax 503? -Ken Fackler Kolb Mark II / N722KM Rochester MI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
Date: Feb 12, 2007
You need a 12 volt battery to give you a good clean twelve volts to run it, and a regulator/rectifier to keep the battery charged. Aside from that, just don't hook it's wires up wrong, or all of it's smoke will leak out. Right now there is one on ebay that is new and cheap, but there is apparently a mandatory FAA mod that needs to be done to make older transponders legal, so beware. The mod is referenced in the ebay ad. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation > >> Having said all that, transponders are a Good Thing. And cheaper on ebay. > which is where I got mine. > > I like that idea. What do I need to know to purchase one that will be > compatible with my Rotax 503? > > -Ken Fackler > Kolb Mark II / N722KM > Rochester MI > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
planecrazzzy wrote: > > > Our little UL field is close to Holman Field....One of the local UL flyers > was in the area flying some Light High wing plane > ...a small Jet , on approach,( not so small ) WIZZED right by him. > Around 1,000 ft AGL > > SCARED the crap outa him.... > > He didn't show up on ATC radar.... If he would have had a Transponder > ATC would have given more "Separation".... that's their job.... > > With a transponder you will show up on TCAS, which is far more valuable to jet traffic than ATC. Even when ATC is busy, and not talking to you, the TCAS always shows traffic in the area that have transponders and gives a warning if it calculates a possible collision. ATC is a big help, but we always look at the TCAS when there is lots of GA around. TCAS will warn most jets and large turboprops of your prescence even if ATC does not. Most piston planes do not have TCAS, so its ATC or visual for those, but they are usually flying much slower. 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=94629#94629 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kolb..CFI..Instructor..South Florida
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Is your name Obel by any chance ? There are a couple MK-III's here in Miami, including myself :) I am not a CFI but if you need any help with the MK-III there are several of us around that know aout Kolbs. Do you have your private license or any GA experience ? Mike -------- "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=94631#94631 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO
From: Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net>
Admittedly not being there and seeing only 40 degrees of the entire thing, I was struck by that as well. I am wondering why he pulled the chute. It did not appear to have been a mid air. Did I miss something as well? Todd On 2/11/07 8:36 PM, "planecrazzzy" wrote: > > > Hey Captain Ron, > We don't hear from you much... > > How bout some picture "updates"... > s plane looked > > "Flyable" ...Did he just Panic , and pull it too soon ? > > Did anybody notice that ? > > Gotta Fly... > Mike in MN > > -------- > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94377#94377 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO
Date: Feb 13, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Fredricks" <flyingfox(at)copper.net> > Admittedly not being there and seeing only 40 degrees of the entire thing, > I > was struck by that as well. I am wondering why he pulled the chute. It did > not appear to have been a mid air. Did I miss something as well? > > Todd > > Todd, Looked to me like the tow rope on the other plane wrapped around his prop and yanked him up hard. Also looked like he pulled up into the tow rope before it got caught, instead of diving away to the right as the incident called for. My sound card has died so I did not base this on the audio, and not being there our Monday morning quarterbacking is worth nothing. No doubt though that the tow plane saw him and was avoiding him before he was aware of its presence. Denny ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2007
> Even when ATC is busy, and not talking to you, the TCAS always shows traffic in the area that have transponders and gives a warning if it calculates a possible collision. Just for your info, the TCAS display in the cockpit of those jet aircraft show the distance to the target accurately BUT the bearing can be off. EG. Iv'e done many ILS approaches in VMC conditions with traffic ahead and established on the localizer with visual contact with them, i.e. directly in line between me and the runway, but the TCAS display showed them about 20 degrees off to the left. So if they're trying to see you based on that TCAS display info only, they may not be looking at exactly the right place to see you, plus if your transponder doesn't have altitude mode they wont know your relative height compared to them. And also, if your transponder doesn't transmit altitude information their TCAS only gives a warning of your presence and NOT avoidance information, they need both parameters to produce avoidance guidance. Finaly, please be aware that if your mixing it with the 'heavies', their proceedures etc at these relatively low levels keep their heads inside the cockpit quite a bit of the time which cuts down on the time to look out the window and see you. It's a very busy phase of flight for them. Fly safe ! David. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94666#94666 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Kulp" <undoctor(at)rcn.com>
Subject: New Cuyuna engine (and new ultralight, to boot)
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Hello all, but especially Ultrastar owners, In the current issue of Penny Power, a local classified paper, is an ad for a new Rotec Rally 2B ultralight, with, and here's the interesting part, a NEW Cuyuna engine. I Googled the Rotec Rally and found it's an older kingpost and cable aircraft, which could still be a cheap and fun way to fly the patch. I called the number and the man told me it belongs to a boys' club who never got past assembling part of the "cockpit" and now it's for sale. One of you Ultrastar owners may be interested in buying it for the engine and getting a few bucks back selling the rest. I asked him what he expected to get for it (ad says "make offer") and he hoped to get $2,500. That was last week and I just called him and he still has it. I mentioned telling you folks about it and he was happy about that. So, if you want to try to deal a new, never run, Cuyuna with a sky vehicle to boot, the number to call is 215.257.9771. It's located near Quakertown, PA, which is about 40 miles north of Philly and about 15 miles south of Bethlehem, PA. Dave Kulp Bethlehem, PA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
My feeling is that if I can fly through an area and continually be in gliding distance of a suitable emergency landing site (e.g., golf course, large back yard, etc.), then it is neither congested or densely populated. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
The Key West voltage regulator ($60-$65) does not require a battery and will put out about 12 Amps at 13.8vdc from a Rotax 503. Transponder with or without encoder take about 1.6A. Plus you'll need Antenna, cable, circuit breaker. > > You need a 12 volt battery to give you a good clean twelve volts to run > it, > and a regulator/rectifier to keep the battery charged. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
At 12:20 PM 2/13/2007, Robert Laird wrote: > >...what I find lacking in the "Order 8700.1" is the scenario >where there is a "congested" field surrounded by miles and miles of >uncongested fields. Assuming the congested field is, say, an acre or >less, then when I fly over it I have ample areas for a safe landing. >Only a total breakup of the aircraft would endanger the >structures/people below me... The "order 8700" is actually part of a document for evaluating helicopter external load operations... which, like ultralight flying, cannot be conducted over congested areas. This gets discussed quite a bit on the PPG list. Two PPG pilots recently got nailed on a congested area rap for crossing a 4 lane highway during rush hour-- not flying over it for an extended time, but simply crossing it. A PPG, of course, can land nearly anywhere, but looking at the aerial photos of the area it's clearly a bad place to fly... open areas interspersed with congested areas, and though they stayed (or at least claimed they did) over the open areas (except for the road), there were enough people close enough that somebody was bound to get pissed off. I look at it a bit differently. The ability to make a safe landing is one thing, but if you're over mountains or forest you may well not be able to make a safe landing, but those areas aren't considered "congested". Remember that ultralights need have no inspections, so structural failure isn't out of the question (else why are so many BRS systems sold?). But you don't need to have a total structural failure to endanger somebody... what if your muffler goes through the prop, or some other part comes loose? Falling debris could kill somebody directly under the plane even though the airplane can easily glide to a safe landing some distance away. Looking only at landing areas, you could make a case for flying (airspace issues aside) directly over Manhattan, as long as you were within gliding distance of Central Park. I think the feds would consider Manhattan "congested". In the end, though, it usually comes down to whether you piss somebody off, or have an accident that the FAA can't ignore. Cross over the edge of town at 1000', nobody notices. Do it at 200' and people call the cops. I have a document somewhere with a bunch of related information and specific rulings... if anybody's interested I'll dig it up and post it here. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: New Cuyuna engine (and new ultralight, to boot)
At 11:11 AM 2/13/2007, David Kulp wrote: >Hello all, but especially Ultrastar owners, > >In the current issue of Penny Power, a local classified paper, is an ad >for a new Rotec Rally 2B ultralight, with, and here's the interesting >part, a NEW Cuyuna engine. I Googled the Rotec Rally and found it's an >older kingpost and cable aircraft,... The Rotec Rallye was one of the many "Quickalikes" of the mid 1980's. The "new" Cuyuna engine has likely been sitting on a shelf for 20+ years, and if not properly preserved, could be pretty crispy inside. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I would still like to have a 12V battery in the circuit. I am using a Terra 720 handheld as my "installed" radio, and wired it so that the aircraft's 12V (including motorcycle battery) system ties into the radio's power leads, same circuit my transponder is on. Tried the radio without the 10 AA batteries it normally has, and it was a whining, howling mess. Stuck the 10 AA's in it and it quieted down nicely. If the radio did that without it's usual onboard batteries, wonder how the transponder would do if the 12V battery was not in the circuit? Moral to the story, I am convinced that batteries make great sponges for sucking up random electrical noise and damping odd transients. And I am using a Key West voltage regulator. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation > > The Key West voltage regulator ($60-$65) does not require a battery and > will put out about 12 Amps at 13.8vdc from a Rotax 503. Transponder with > or without encoder take about 1.6A. Plus you'll need Antenna, cable, > circuit breaker. > >> >> You need a 12 volt battery to give you a good clean twelve volts to run >> it, >> and a regulator/rectifier to keep the battery charged. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
In a message dated 2/13/2007 1:16:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, d-m-hague(at)comcast.net write Remember that ultralights need have no inspections, so structural failure isn't out of the question (else why are so many BRS systems sold?). Hi Dana, I take issue with this statement. The FAA does not require inspections but I think that most of us do them. Also I am not so sure that my Firefly is prone to structural failure. The reason that I put a BRS on my Firefly is because I can. They were not available for my Long EZ or any other aircraft that I flew. Don't mean to jump on you but I hate to see statements about UL's that lead the average person to draw the conclusion that they are fragile unsafe machines. Steve Firefly 007 on Floats ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation/Capacitors
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Tried the radio without the 10 AA | batteries it normally has, and it was a whining, howling mess. | Richard Pike Richard: Try installing a 21,000 mf capacitor right after the reg/rec, 12VDC and good ground. It will soak up all that whining from the alternator. I operate my little ICOM A3 without the ICOM battery installed. Works for me. john h PS: During the Firestar days, I had an STS followed by a KX99 which I recharged from the 447 alternator. Tried it once without the capacitor, then promptly reinstalled it. However, this was a small capacitor that I got in a kit from JC Whitney called a battery eliminator for dirt bikes. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
At 01:24 PM 2/13/2007, Thom Riddle wrote: >Please post what you have. If it is online, then a link will do, at least >for me. OK, this is what I have... bits and pieces, in no particular order: from http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/8700_vol2/2_102_00.pdf: (CHAPTER 102. EVALUATE A PART 133 CONGESTED AREA PLAN (CAP)) (a) Congested Area. The congested nature of an area is defined by what exists on the surface, not the size of the area. While the presence of the nonparticipating public is the most important determination of congested, the area may also be congested with structures or objects. An area considered congested for airplane operations could be equally congested for helicopters. If an airplane flying over a congested area at less than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) is in violation of 14 CFR 91.119(b), the area may also be a congested area for a helicopter conducting externalload operations. However, the most important word in this concept is over. Helicopters can operate over relatively small uncongested areas because of their maneuvering abilities. from http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4188.PDF: NTSB Order No. EA-4188, about low flying over a highway: ...The deputy sheriff riding in the passenger seat testified that the aircraft operated over the freeway for at least 30 seconds, at an altitude of 75-100 feet.... ...In the Board's view, even if Interstate 5, a major California freeway, is not "bumper to bumper" on a late Saturday afternoon, moderate traffic in every lane still renders it "congested," for purposes of the regulation. See also Administrator v. Dutton, NTSB Order No. EA-3204 (1990)(Moderate traffic on a highway at 12:55 p.m. is a congested area for purposes of the minimum safe altitude regulation).9 from http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3646.PDF ...the Shepard Mesa subdivision -- comprised of a minimum of 20 houses, in an area approximately .5 mi. x .66 mi.7 -- would qualify as a congested area.... "the aircraft flew at least as low as 300 feet." DMH note: .33 square miles = 211 acres, average 10 acre lots (!) from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI568Y2001.html IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY (RULES OF THE AIR) ORDER, 2001 "congested area" means in relation to a city, town or settlement, an area substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes without adequate safe forced landing areas" DMH note: Not U.S., but interesting that other countries DO define it. from http://www.faa.gov/programs/en/ane/noise/submit.cfm: There is no regulatory definition of 'congested area'. Administrative case law has determined what is congested on a case-by-case basis. [Case references are available on request]). The public should be aware that an area does not have to be completely free of persons or properties to be considered noncongested. Additionally, it is possible that small, noncongested areas as small as an acre or two may allow aerobatics to be performed without violating 91.303's stipulations. from http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=1200&file=1200jar.htm, a discussion of prposed new European regulations: "Hostile environments," as defined under JAR-OPS 3.480, include areas where "a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is inadequate"; where there is "an unacceptable risk of endangering persons or property on the ground"; and "those parts of a congested area without adequate safe forced landing areas."... "Congested areas," as defined in JAR-OPS 3, are essentially any densely populated town or city where no open spaces exist to permit a safe emergency landing in the event of an engine failure. At The Hague meeting, industry and regulatory representatives agreed that the "congested area" concept is made redundant by the distinction between "hostile" and "non-hostile" environments... Another concept created by JAR-OPS 3 was that of "exposure times." Performance Class 1, Category A helicopters can fly over hostile and congested areas, but JAR-OPS 3 allows Performance 2, Category A helicopters to fly over hostile, non-congested areas with an exposure time, the length of which depends on a target engine failure probability of 5 x 10-8, according to Jim Lyons, secretary of the JAAs Helicopter Subcommittee and a CAA official in Britain. This translates, in practical terms, to exposures ranging from a few seconds to several minutes. * * * * * Unfortunately, the phrase "congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons" has not yet been specifically defined by the FAA. The FAA has stated in a 1979 Legal Opinion that it will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Below is a copy of the Opinion--note the FAR references have changed. __________________________ "In response to your letter dated August 28, 1979, and subsequent telephone conversation, we offer the following answers to your three questions. The facts on which our interpretations are based are as follows: A fixed wing aircraft operating at an altitude of 600 feet flew directly over a populated subdivision of Prince William County, Virginia. The subdivision consisted of at least 40 residential homes on one acre lots. While operating in this area, the aircraft made a number of steep turns over one of these houses. 1. What is the interpretation of the term "congested area of a city, town or settlement" as that term is used in Section 91.79(b) of the FARs? The meaning of the term "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis. It first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926. No abstract regulatory definition has yet been developed. However, the following guidelines indicate the interpretations of the Civil Aeronautics board (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give meaning to the term. a. The purpose of the rule is to provide minimum safe altitudes for flight and to provide adequate protection to persons on the ground. Thus, it distinguishes flight over sparsely settled areas as well as large metropolitan areas from low flying aircraft. Thus, size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school (Allman, 5 C.A.B. 8 (1940)); (ii) over campus of a university (Tobin, 5 C.A.B. 162, 164(1941); (iii) over a beach area along a highway, and (iv) over a boy's camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play on shore. b. The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested." Thus, no violation was found in the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because, in the words of the CAB examiner, "it is not known (to the court) whether the dwellings were occupied." In that case, the area surrounding the buildings was open, flat and semiarid. c. The term has been interpreted to prohibit overflights that cut the corners of large, heavily congested residential areas. As made clear in FAR 91.79, the congested area must be an area of a city, town, or settlement. 2. What is the interpretation of the term "sparsely populated areas" as contained in Section 91.79(c)? While this term is not expressly defined, we can conclude that it is something other than a congested area under Section 91.79(a). A subdivision of at least 40 occupied residential homes on adjacent one acre lots in Price William County, VA, would not be considered a sparsely populated area. Such a subdivision would well constitute a "settlement" under the rule. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, EDWARD P. FABERMAN Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulation and Enforcement Division Office of the Chief Counsel" -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
At 03:37 PM 2/13/2007, N27SB(at)aol.com wrote: >Hi Dana, >I take issue with this statement. The FAA does not require inspections >but I think that most of us do them. Also I am not so sure that my Firefly >is prone to structural failure... I hate to see statements about UL's that >lead the average person to draw the conclusion that they are fragile >unsafe machines. No, they're not, and that was not my meaning. My point was only that in the absence of specific inspection criteria, the public (or the government) has no way of insuring that ultralights *are* safe... and as such, they're relegated to areas where people won't get hurt. A Kolb is a pretty solid airplane... but I've heard (maybe not on a Kolb) of mufflers coming loose, going through the prop. I lost the prop on my PPG when the shaft sheared, which couldn't hurt somebody below (I was over woods, and glided to an open field). I watched a Kolb crash when the prop disintegrated. Poorly trained pilots (again remember the regs require no training) lose control of their aircraft and crash. It was only a year or two ago that a moron in a Quicksilver crashed into a crowd at a ball game... you can bet he got (deservedly so) nailed on a congested area / open air assembly rap! Things happen... though most are preventable, they happen a lot more than they do to GA aircraft. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO
From: "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2007
flyingfox(at)copper.net wrote: > Admittedly not being there and seeing only 40 degrees of the entire thing, I > was struck by that as well. I am wondering why he pulled the chute. It did > not appear to have been a mid air. Did I miss something as well? > > Todd > > You can hear the tow rope wrap itself around the prop of his plane... I think with the altitude he was at and the fact that he didn't know if the rope caused any other structural failure, I think he made a good decision to pull the chute and live to fly another day! -------- -Erik Grabowski Kolb Firestar N197BG CFI/CFII/LS-I Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94826#94826 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Things happen... though most are preventable, they | happen a lot more than they do to GA aircraft. | | -Dana Dana: Where have you been the last 20 or so years? You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each morning. I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts, and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in each day. Yes, and they kill themselves at an alarming rate. Yesterday was an exception. One accident reported and one fatality. I'll put my ultralight pilots up to your GA pilots any day of the week. For example, take Oshkosh and Lakeland, we fly thousands of hours each year at both places, in and out of very tight, short grass airstrips, with no voice communications, no control tower, or other type control. Very seldom do we have someone bust their ass. Can not say that for the other side of the airport at OSH or LAL. Yes, we have been flying that way, very safely, more than I have been around ULs, and I started in 1984. Prior to my interests in UL there were a lot of horror stories from folks deciding the could fly because they thought they could. I think most of those days have been over for a long, long time. UL/Lt Planes are a lot more sophisticated now than they were in the early days. One exception if Kolb aircraft. They have been built tough since the beginning. That is why I chose to build and fly them. Take care, john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: BRS DEPLOYMENT VIDEO
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I think he made a good decision to pull the chute and live to fly another day! | | -------- | -Erik Grabowski Erik: Me too. What ever it takes to walk away from it. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com>
Subject: Txp's
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I've read the recent comments about transponders -- and yes, they're expensive, and no, we don't want to be 'controlled' any more than necessary, and we don't particularly like talking to ATC when we fly. BUT - txp's are designed to let us fly safely, with lessened danger of a midair, and go many places where you can't otherwise; and we can always turn them off if we feel we don't need them. But they can also be used as a rudimentary means of comm. if the radio quits. There are codes that indicate you can transmit but not receive, and vice-versa; ATC may say "If you can read me, Ident" and then follow up with yes-no-answerable questions. You can say a lot that way. And of course there's the emergency code, which will wake up every ATC man within a hundred miles -- but at least you will get located quite accurately and very promptly. That alone is worth a lot if you ever need it. In my limited experience they pack up now & then. I once was seriously chastised by ATC over Portland ME when my txp showed me at 1300' ( a REAL no-no!) when I was actually over 4000'. After they bellowed awhile I told them I knew there were no windows in the radar-room, but there WERE in the tower -- and why couldn't the tower personnel just look out the window and see that there was no aircraft at 1300', even if they couldn't see me at 4000'? They still blustered & grumbled but at least took no action against me. I had no idea that my readout was actually reading out 1300', until they told me. But txp's do let you fly safer & I'll get one, and an encoding altimeter too, if I can. And a BRS -- that's a luxurious bit of equipment I've never been able to have. Avoiding a serious crash is important to me, moreso than money. FWIW Russ Kinne ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
At 06:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote: >Where have you been the last 20 or so years? > >You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each >morning. I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts, >and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in... No doubt. My point was that when Part 103 was created, UL planes *were* crashing with distressing regularity, so the congested area prohibition made sense. Things have gotten a LOT better since then, of course, but a person could still (perfectly legally) fly a dangerous UL, or fly with no training. I still suspect the UL accident rate is worse than GA's, but I don't know by how much... and I could very well be wrong. The problem is that there is no record keeping; the FAA / NTSB don't report or even investigate UL crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an ultralight. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
Dana Hague wrote: > > At 06:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote: >> Where have you been the last 20 or so years? >> >> You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each >> morning. I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts, >> and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in... > > No doubt. My point was that when Part 103 was created, UL planes *were* > crashing with distressing regularity, so the congested area prohibition > made sense. Things have gotten a LOT better since then, of course, but > a person could still (perfectly legally) fly a dangerous UL, or fly with > no training. > > I still suspect the UL accident rate is worse than GA's, but I don't > know by how much... and I could very well be wrong. The problem is that > there is no record keeping; the FAA / NTSB don't report or even > investigate UL crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an > ultralight. > > -Dana > In the homebuilt experimental world, the accident rate is significantly higher during the test period. After that, the rate is within normal deviation of factory planes rate. If test period hours and corporate jet & other turbine flight hours were removed from the numbers, homebuilts would probably have a better record than other piston a/c. Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give the appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they look up your privates before you get on an airliner. "Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you." If you are flying a cross-country in a homebuilt & using atc when near a major metro area with class B airspace, It's quite likely that the controller will take you directly over his active runways if you are crossing at right angles to the runway. This path minimizes conflict with his 'heavy' traffic. Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into this rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never flown in *any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I have read FAA reports where unregistered planes such as this one were involved in a fatal accident and no investigation was done. There are exceptions. This one got a lengthy investigation. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1 the FAA / NTSB don't report or even investigate UL > crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an ultralight. > > -Dana > > -- > -- > Don't put it off, procrastinate today. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Date: Feb 13, 2007
As far as the jet "Scud Running" - jets are not really supposed to scud run, and ATC is not to encourage it. There has been an FAA order around for years that is universally ignored, it is 7110.22D. Controllers don't like it because the lame ones can't work traffic two dimensionally like they usually do, some jet pilots don't like it because they can't fly a slam dunk approach. In essence, it says that jets descending into an airport should be at or above 5,000' AGL until they are about to turn base leg, or get within 5 miles of the airport, or a combination of the above. It is to prevent what one US Airways Captain referred to as "trolling for Cherokees." Rather than explain it, I will just post the order as .jpg files and let you draw your own conclusions. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) planecrazzzy wrote: > Hi Guys.... > I came back and there were all kinds of posts.... > > Arty.... I think Richard already explained your question....(elec system) > > Richard.... Thanks for jumping in....I was hoping you would... > > The guy was in an Experimental (Sky Ranger ? ).... > > and it was a little ways away from St Paul...(aprox 10 statue miles) > > Tower probly didn't know his ALT , > > and I think the Jet was a little too low.. ( scud running ) > > Although for that area...it's "Under" Class B > > > Gotta Fly... > Mike & "Jaz" in MN Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94881#94881 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/711022d_large_183.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/711022d2_large_816.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/letter_to_airmen_large_848.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/map_1_large_932.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/map_2_large_154.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
At 08:13 PM 2/13/2007, Steven Green wrote: > >I have read FAA reports where unregistered planes such as this one were >involved in a fatal accident and no investigation was done. There are >exceptions. This one got a lengthy investigation. > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1 Unregistered plane, yes... but true ultralights, no (though there are exceptions). -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
At 08:11 PM 2/13/2007, Charlie England wrote: > >Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give the >appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they look up >your privates before you get on an airliner. > >"Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you." In most cases (especially the current Transportation Security Gestapo) I'd agree with you, but Part 103 is a gift... they could have just said register all aircraft, even hang gliders, and license all pilots. That they didn't would be unthinkable in today's political climate, and amazing even then. Certainly there are things I'd like to change in 103 (SP/LSA completely missed the original target), but not at the risk of having them revise the whole thing. >Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into this >rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never flown in >*any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown. The public doesn't *want* to be educated. They'd rather feel safe taking off their shoes before boarding an airliner and evacuating buildings when somebody shakes his jelly donut and leaves "suspicious white powder" on his desk. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
Dana Hague wrote: > > At 08:11 PM 2/13/2007, Charlie England wrote: >> >> >> Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give >> the appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they >> look up your privates before you get on an airliner. >> >> "Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you." > > In most cases (especially the current Transportation Security Gestapo) > I'd agree with you, but Part 103 is a gift... they could have just said > register all aircraft, even hang gliders, and license all pilots. That > they didn't would be unthinkable in today's political climate, and > amazing even then. Certainly there are things I'd like to change in 103 > (SP/LSA completely missed the original target), but not at the risk of > having them revise the whole thing. > >> Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into >> this rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never >> flown in *any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown. > > The public doesn't *want* to be educated. They'd rather feel safe > taking off their shoes before boarding an airliner and evacuating > buildings when somebody shakes his jelly donut and leaves "suspicious > white powder" on his desk. > > -Dana > -- We are in agreement; That's the point I was (rather inadequately) trying to make. :-) While I understand the pragmatic implications of your phrasing, I would disagree that it's a 'gift'. The authorities consider *anything* we do a 'gift' from the authorities. This is a radical departure from the intent of those who framed the constitution. We should never miss a chance to tell our elected officials the we disagree. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Dangerous UL Pilots???
At 09:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote: > >About 99.9 % of the ULs out there are really unregistered airplanes, >by the regs. True. Some are more blatant than others, though. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JRatcli256(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Gas Tank Study
Hi Gang, I'm looking into increased fuel supply for my Mark 3x. I think size, shape, location and angle would have a large effect on the lowest usable fuel level. also soughing of fuel fore & aft and various angles of bank would seriously effect stability and again - useable fuel levels. Distance from the rotation point having the most effect. Have a program that will allow me to draw various shape/size tanks and rotate it around an axis. Could rotate it around the center of the tank, but don't think this would be correct. Need to determine the longitudinal and vertical axis an aircraft rotates around, especially the Mark 3x in coordinated flight. I can move the axis wherever I want in the program. Think it would be at some point along the cord-line of the wing - centerline of the airframe, possibly at the balance point. Know there must be an engineer or someone out there that can guide me. Any takers? John H. you must have taken this into consideration when planning your larger tank. Thanks -- John Ratcliffe ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Richard Pike wrote: > > > In essence, it says that jets descending into an airport should be at or above 5,000' AGL until they are about to turn base leg, or get within 5 miles of the airport, or a combination of the above. > > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > I see that date on that as 1986, it may be out of effect or long forgotten... In reality, flying into the busiest airports in the world and also to smaller ones, we are never at 5000 feet when we turn base leg... Be it IFR or VFR, base is usually between 2000 to 3000 feet. If you are worried about fast flying jets, a transponder will solve 99 % of that problem. An altitude encoder is even better, but not necessary. When you have TCAS shouting TRAFFIC at you while flying a jet, you can bet the guys flying it start looking out the windows to see what they are about to run into. Nothing is perfect, but TCAS works very very well. The biggest reason for me to install a transponder was to open up a bunch of airspace and many airports to you I am flying cross country. If you are low over farmland, you can turn it off so as not to attract attention, but its nice to have when you want it. It will give you some added safety when you are flying high with larger aircraft or aircraft that are talking to ATC. Even though ATC does not always have time to point out traffic to everyone, they are usually pretty good about it and increases safety a lot in busy airspace. 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=94907#94907 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 13, 2007
There are all kinds of theories, but in the real world, John has a very workable solution that has served him well. Mine is quite different, it is mostly in the gap seal area between the wings, but it serves me well. And since I can't weld aluminum, it was suitable for my skill level. As far as distance from the rotation point, stability - I don't know about that, but at the last Kolb Homecoming before he left us, Norm flew my MKIII and said it flew delightfully, more like a Firefly than a MKIII. I value that very highly, so I guess having the gas tank up high doesn't hurt. Here's how it works - http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg1.htm Have modified the upper part of the tank since I made that page, to see how it looks now, go here - http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg2.htm Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: JRatcli256(at)aol.com To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:35 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Gas Tank Study Hi Gang, I'm looking into increased fuel supply for my Mark 3x. I think size, shape, location and angle would have a large effect on the lowest usable fuel level. also soughing of fuel fore & aft and various angles of bank would seriously effect stability and again - useable fuel levels. Distance from the rotation point having the most effect. Have a program that will allow me to draw various shape/size tanks and rotate it around an axis. Could rotate it around the center of the tank, but don't think this would be correct. Need to determine the longitudinal and vertical axis an aircraft rotates around, especially the Mark 3x in coordinated flight. I can move the axis wherever I want in the program. Think it would be at some point along the cord-line of the wing - centerline of the airframe, possibly at the balance point. Know there must be an engineer or someone out there that can guide me. Any takers? John H. you must have taken this into consideration when planning your larger tank. Thanks -- John Ratcliffe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
Date: Feb 13, 2007
If it is long forgotten, then you need to let the Classic Jet Aircraft Association know it, it is in their latest publication, pdf page 15. http://www.classicjets.org/documents/Jet_Operations_Guide.pdf Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:13 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Transponder for separation > > > Richard Pike wrote: >> >> >> In essence, it says that jets descending into an airport should be at or >> above 5,000' AGL until they are about to turn base leg, or get within 5 >> miles of the airport, or a combination of the above. >> >> Richard Pike >> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) >> > > > I see that date on that as 1986, it may be out of effect or long > forgotten... In reality, flying into the busiest airports in the world > and also to smaller ones, we are never at 5000 feet when we turn base > leg... Be it IFR or VFR, base is usually between 2000 to 3000 feet. > > If you are worried about fast flying jets, a transponder will solve 99 % > of that problem. An altitude encoder is even better, but not necessary. > When you have TCAS shouting TRAFFIC at you while flying a jet, you can bet > the guys flying it start looking out the windows to see what they are > about to run into. Nothing is perfect, but TCAS works very very well. > > The biggest reason for me to install a transponder was to open up a bunch > of airspace and many airports to you I am flying cross country. If you > are low over farmland, you can turn it off so as not to attract attention, > but its nice to have when you want it. It will give you some added safety > when you are flying high with larger aircraft or aircraft that are talking > to ATC. Even though ATC does not always have time to point out traffic to > everyone, they are usually pretty good about it and increases safety a lot > in busy airspace. > > 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=94907#94907 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
Date: Feb 13, 2007
| The biggest reason for me to install a transponder was to open up a bunch of airspace and many airports to you I am flying cross country. | | Michael A. Bigelow Mike: I choose to stay out of Class B and C airports. In fact, I don't care to fly into Class D airports. I like going into uncontrolled airports and cow pastures. I don't have any problems with airspace as I happily fly cross country with my ICOM A3 and Garmin 196. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 13, 2007
John R: Designing a fuel tank for the mkIII is pretty easy. Get some good card board or chart board. Construct the tank out of the card board to fit the space it is going into. Cross baffle the inside. Design the bottom of the tank to have a lowest point that every drop of fuel will drain out when the airplane is in straight and level flight attitude. Built ours out of .050" 5052 aluminum sheet. Pop riveted together, then welded it. Sloshed four times with Randolph fuel tank slosh and seal for auto fuel and avgas. Any questions? john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: No child left behind
Looks like it's working -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 14, 2007
| Are you going for a Kolb record of non-stop coast to coast? | | Wow, that's a lot of fuel! jim dunn Hi Jim: 20.5 gals is a lot of fuel when compared with 5 or 10 gal fuel systems. My tank is 25.0 gal. Wish we could fly coast to coast non-stop on that amount of fuel, but that is not the case, not at 4 or 5 gph and about 24 hours flight time from California to my strip in Alabama. Fuel is safety, primarily. Fuel is convenience. When we run low on fuel, other problems will usually rear their heads, i.e., wind, weather, darkness, unavailability of fuel at the next intended stop, and on and on, until Murphy runs out of ideas. With a lot of fuel on board I have the luxury of looking at my GPS, ETE (estimated time enroute), looking over at the fuel sight gauge, and making an instant decision on weather I have fuel to make it with an adequate reserve, or I need to find some place to land a little nearer. Slowing down to conserve fuel to make it to the next available fuel is a "last" option for me. Many other factors are involved in flying cross country. A lot of places I fly I have to have a lot of fuel in order to make it to the next because there is no place to land for fuel in between. I never did understand the FAA's intention when writing a 5 gal limit into Part 103. To me, more fuel is safety. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Txp's
Date: Feb 14, 2007
But txp's do let you fly safer & I'll get one, and an encoding altimeter too, if I can. And a BRS ->> Hi Russ, ...and an extra engine and a rubber dinghy and an ELT and a torch as big as a searchlight and a full immersion suit and a spare GPS and a spare radio and a spare Txponder in case the other one goes crook and some signal flags and a Verey pistol ( with spare cartridges)..... Pity I can only carry enough fuel to get to the end of the taxiway... Cheers Pat. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder for separation
Date: Feb 14, 2007
(else why are so many BRS systems sold?). >> Not in the UK. Hardly anyone has one. Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net>
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Here are some pictures of my gas tank mock up and fabrication. the shape allows it to be installed with just one cage tube cut out. The sloped sides allow for room to install the fuel pump, gascolator, hot box and battery. It's about 19 1/2 gallons. I added an extra fitting on top so I could pump fuel into it from an aux. tank in the passenger seat if ever required. I had to fabricate and weld in a mounting platform for it to sit on. Rex Rodebush Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-032#95032 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/07080004_small_128.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/07080001_small_171.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/10010004_small_138.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Subject: Signal mirrors
Date: Feb 14, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Kinne" <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Txp's I carry a signal mirror (about 3 oz), I changed the thread to better "reflect" (pun intended) the subject. The CFI that I got my SP lic from carried a silver CD that someone had sent him to use for a signal mirror. Not easy to break, weighs nothing and will do the job nicely. Larry,Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Ultralight Callsign
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2007
So far I've successfully avoided any need to contact ATC in an Ultralight. But after selling my Quicksilver and buying a Kolb I intend to go places and do things starting this Spring. When calling tower or Approach in an "N" numbered aircraft you might use a callsign like "Experimental 3252Y" or "Cessna 1234T", but what about an Ultralight? "Kolb Ultralight" sounds too short. What should I use for a callsign? What do YOU use for a callsign? Maybe Richard Pike could shed some light on this . . . Thanks, Jim N. Idaho -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-080#95080 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Back when I had my Hummer, and before I got it "N" numbered, at that time you also had to have a Radio Station License onboard to use a transceiver. I sent in for an FCC license and just put Hummer Ultralight on the appropriate line. It came back "24790U" so I always checked in "Hummer Ultralight 90Uniform" and everybody was happy. Since a station license is no longer required, not sure what the current protocol is. Unless someone else on the list can help, looks like time for a "Google" search to me.... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:48 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Ultralight Callsign > > So far I've successfully avoided any need to contact ATC in an Ultralight. > But after selling my Quicksilver and buying a Kolb I intend to go places > and do things starting this Spring. > > When calling tower or Approach in an "N" numbered aircraft you might use a > callsign like "Experimental 3252Y" or "Cessna 1234T", but what about an > Ultralight? "Kolb Ultralight" sounds too short. What should I use for a > callsign? > > What do YOU use for a callsign? Maybe Richard Pike could shed some light > on this . . . > > Thanks, > Jim > N. Idaho > > -------- > Jim > N. Idaho > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-080#95080 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Txp's, survival gear
In a former life (GA) I flew abt 90% xc. When over 'rough" areas...mostly forrest, mountains, desert...I carried a lightweight homemade survival kit consisting of 2-12oz al. cans of most any sugared carbonated drink (sugar has calories, it's liquid, carbonated liquid can be used a a wound-rinse, and cans used for hauling water, boiling and cooking); few packets of dried coffee, meat bullion, chewing gum; plastic-wrapped beef jerky (helps thicken the hot water); couple of large pemican and choc. bars. Tools: one of those crazy combination tools (for removing cowling, panels for shelter or fire reflector), vice grips (also good for holding cooking can over fire), a lg and small fish hook and 20' line (also used with shelter, clothes line), fold-up al. and mylar blanket (gnd cover, shelter, pers. cover), signalling mirror, two road flares, a flashlight with GOOD batts, roll of Get 'Em Home tape (Duct), waterproof can of big kitchen matches and Bic lighter; and a couple of wire coat hangers, useful for can handles, hanging stuff to dry, holding food over fire. First aid: Can of bandaids..reg size, large, compress, 3' cloth tape for tourniquet; tube antibiotic cream; few aspirin Packaging: all the stuff I wanted to keep dry/fresh I sealed with ziplock bags. Maybe even better would be one of those kitchen gadgets that can seal with plastic wrap. The ziplocks can also hold water, when you are down. I had an old al. box abt 18" long, 6"X6" with fairly tight lid that all the stuff fitted in. It was watertight (?) and could be used for cooking. Yes it was way too big, but available, and on end it made something to sit on, by the fire! This kit was only for a short wait of a few days, and minor injury. Other people will question my selection, and I'm glad to say I never used it, except to eat the jerky before the "rot date." But in this day of cell phones I suppose I'd take mine PLUS the wind-up LED flashlight that can recharge the phone. It's quite bright and will keep you talking as long as yer cranking fingers hold out. Let the flames/thread begin! regards, Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Do your kids call you Papa Mike also? My Kolb is an Ultralight, not an experiemental and doesn't have an N-number so I can't use that type of call sign. planecrazzzy wrote: > Hi, > When I fly into Airports , or Fields ...I use "Experimental 381PM " > > Then after first call.... I use ... One ,Poppa, Mike > > They usually call me just "Poppa Mike" -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-108#95108 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 14, 2007
No guessing about Callsigns, the AIM is very specific on what you use for a Callsign in an aircraft: 4-2-4. Aircraft Call Signs a. Precautions in the Use of Call Signs. 1. Improper use of call signs can result in pilots executing a clearance intended for another aircraft. Call signs should never be abbreviated on an initial contact or at any time when other aircraft call signs have similar numbers/sounds or identical letters/number; e.g., Cessna 6132F, Cessna 1622F, Baron 123F, Cherokee 7732F, etc. EXAMPLE- Assume that a controller issues an approach clearance to an aircraft at the bottom of a holding stack and an aircraft with a similar call sign (at the top of the stack) acknowledges the clearance with the last two or three numbers of the aircraft's call sign. If the aircraft at the bottom of the stack did not hear the clearance and intervene, flight safety would be affected, and there would be no reason for either the controller or pilot to suspect that anything is wrong. This kind of "human factors" error can strike swiftly and is extremely difficult to rectify. 2. Pilots, therefore, must be certain that aircraft identification is complete and clearly identified before taking action on an ATC clearance. ATC specialists will not abbreviate call signs of air carrier or other civil aircraft having authorized call signs. ATC specialists may initiate abbreviated call signs of other aircraft by using the prefix and the last three digits/letters of the aircraft identification after communications are established. The pilot may use the abbreviated call sign in subsequent contacts with the ATC specialist. When aware of similar/identical call signs, ATC specialists will take action to minimize errors by emphasizing certain numbers/letters, by repeating the entire call sign, by repeating the prefix, or by asking pilots to use a different call sign temporarily. Pilots should use the phrase "VERIFY CLEARANCE FOR (your complete call sign)" if doubt exists concerning proper identity. 3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha. EXAMPLE- 1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf. 2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit "Experimental" after initial contact). _______ So by the book, I am "Kolb 49KK Experimental" on initial contact when talking to a tower facility and I drop the "Experimental" on subsequent calls to the same frequency. When I call Ground Control first, I am "Kolb 49KK Experimental" on the initial call and "Kolb 49KK" on subsequent calls to Ground. When I switch frequency to the Tower, I am "Kolb 49KK Experimental" on the initial call and "Kolb 49KK" on subsequent calls to Tower. Why have I only included "Experimental" in my initial calls to Tower Facilities and not said anything about Approach Control, Center or Flight Service Stations? Well that's because of the following FAR exerpt: 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft; (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator; and (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with operating control towers. You can see that we are only required to Notifly the Tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft and no other facility. At all other times, my callsign is "Kolb 49KK". As for the Ultralight Kolb's among us, the above does not apply. But lacking any other guidance for the FAA, using the same format of "aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name" and include Ultralight so that ATC knows you don't have an "N" number can't be to far off base. It is a very stringent requirement that the FAA has put on Ultralight vehicles that want to operate in certain airspace: 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. The required authorization is required to be obtained while the ultralight is still on the ground and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-114#95114 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <kfackler(at)ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 14, 2007
>>"Kolb Ultralight" sounds too short. What should I use for a callsign? I don't say this is the 'right' answer, but it is 'an' answer. Pretty much everyone in the thumb area of Michigan has at least an ASC or EAA registration number. We use those when calling Flight Service, Pontiac, Flint, and Selfridge as well as on all unicoms. Seems to work well. -Ken Fackler Kolb Mark II / N722KM Rochester MI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 14, 2007
You could try ..."heyyou .... idiot in the tower......." >>"Kolb Ultralight" sounds too short. What should I use for a callsign? I don't say this is the 'right' answer, but it is 'an' answer. Pretty much everyone in the thumb area of Michigan has at least an ASC or EAA registration number. We use those when calling Flight Service, Pontiac, Flint, and Selfridge as well as on all unicoms. Seems to work well. -Ken Fackler Kolb Mark II / N722KM Rochester MI _________________________________________________________________ Dont miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: Xtra on Barnstormers
Date: Feb 14, 2007
http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?PHPSESSID=0f9b63483a3ce95ffae5410314279feb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Rex: My fuel tank is very much the same shape as yours. We designed mine to fit in the upper rear half of the fuselage in order to open up the bottom rear for a cargo compartment. Looks like you could do the same thing and not kill available cargo space. With 25.0 gal I never consider using the left seat for an aux tank. That is my flight desk. ;-) A couple things I could never get over to the Kolb folks is a nice generous cargo compartment and a big fuel tank. Maybe if we keep reminding them that these are quite necessary items for those of us that like cross country flying, we can get them working on a couple upgrades. Glad to see folks upgrading fuel capacity during the building phase of their projects, and not after they are complete. Most folks finish the airplane, fly it a few hours, and immediately want more fuel. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Txp's, survival gear
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2007
I intend to do a lot of cross country in my Kolb also, and I have wondered what I should carry... I remember John Hauck mentioning a rifle, which I think is a great idea if you end up in the mountains out west, all sorts of things can eat you out there ! What else do you suggest John ? Mike 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-161#95161 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Txp's, survival gear
Date: Feb 14, 2007
| What else do you suggest John ? | | Mike Bigelow Hi Mike: I usually carry a little 9mm with me if I am going to flying in CONUS. If I plan to fly in Canada I replace the 9mm with a Marlin Papoose .22 cal auto matic rifle that has a removeable barrel and a nice cordura carrying case that slips right under my seat for easy access. The .22 is primarily for survival food, not protection. I don't need protection from squirrel or coons unless they are rabid. Anything any bigger and I better have my running shoes on. For CONUS flights, in addition to the 9mm automatic, I'll have all my camping gear, a couple weeks MRE's, 3 liters water in one liter Nalgene bottles. I keep one up front with me so I can drink while I am flying. Always have a way to tie down the airplane. I always have the titanium auggers. If going out west or north across the border I'll also have three tie down stakes made from steel rebar with a chain link welded near the top for the rope. Good stout nylon rope, at least 3/8". A hatchet to drive the stakes. If you gotta drive stakes, usually there are plenty rocks to use for a hammer. An old Rotax engine tool kit, the kind that came with the new engines, plus some additional tools jammed in there. Safety wire, lots of nylon tie wraps, and a roll of duct tape. I take what it is going to take to support me living out of the airplane for the duration of the trip. Granola bars and mixed nuts are great. Although we have more than our share of mixed nuts in the Kolb group get togethers. hehehe I usually bring my Alabama credit card, a 6' length of 7/8" ID vinyl tubing for refueling from somebody's fuel can. My fuel filler access is on top of the center section. Figuring out what to take on cross country flights depends on where you plan to fly. If you are going north, Canada, and Alaska, you can get all the recommended gear from the Alaska Flight Supplement and from the Canada Flight Supplement. These two publications are invaluable for flying through Canada to and in Alaska. Of course, current sectionals, unless you have a current Jeppesen Data Base in your handy dandy Garmin 196 GPS, plus current obstruction clearance software. I usually update these just prior to departure from home. John W told me I was good to go if either sectionals or jeppesen data base was current. Recommend you all listen to John W. He has been flying professionally, US Army and in civilian life, his entire life. He is a wealth of "correct" info and knows where to dig for it and how to interpret it correctly. Everytime he and I fly together I learn something from him. I appreciate his help, although he can get on your case pretty hard at times. Usually, I will have instant radio problems or feign deafness from VN and old age. ;-) If you have any specific questions, I will be glad to help. I have a file somewhere in my computer that has a list of gear I carried with me to Alaska, 2004. If I can find it, I will post it to the List. Next week is get started repairing and mounting the new 912ULS on Miss P'fer. She will be down 6 months the 22d of Feb. I am starting to get a little antsy to fly her. Take care, john h mkII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
John - Thanks for the clarity of your response. I've been thinking about a problem that many of us "formerly fat ultralights but now E-LSAs" might have. As I understand the AIM, my call sign should be: MaxAir Drifter one-niner-six-four Charlie. HOWEVER - almost no one outside the ultralight arena knows what a MaxAir Drifter is, so it doesn't tell them anything about my speed in the pattern, which is a key factor in separation at non-towered airports. I land at 35 -38 mph... So should those of us flying E-LSAs be using "Experiemental Light Sport" in our call sign (which is then dropped after the first announcement.) The AIM doesn't seem to address this. Arty Trost Sandy, Oregon --- John Williamson wrote: > > > No guessing about Callsigns, the AIM is very > specific on what you use for a Callsign in an > aircraft: > 3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft > type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the > digits/letters of the registration number. When the > aircraft manufacturer's name or model is stated, the > prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four > Alpha. > > EXAMPLE- > 1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf. > > 2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit > "Experimental" after initial contact). > _______ > > > So by the book, I am "Kolb 49KK Experimental" on > initial contact when talking to a tower facility and > I drop the "Experimental" on subsequent calls to the > same frequency. > > When I call Ground Control first, I am "Kolb 49KK > Experimental" on the initial call and "Kolb 49KK" on > subsequent calls to Ground. > > When I switch frequency to the Tower, I am "Kolb > 49KK Experimental" on the initial call and "Kolb > 49KK" on subsequent calls to Tower. > > Why have I only included "Experimental" in my > initial calls to Tower Facilities and not said > anything about Approach Control, Center or Flight > Service Stations? Well that's because of the > following FAR exerpt: > > 91.319 Aircraft having experimental > certificates: Operating limitations. > (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an > experimental certificate shall > (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental > nature of the aircraft; > (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise > specifically authorized by the Administrator; and > (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental > nature of the aircraft when operating the aircraft > into or out of airports with operating control > towers. > > You can see that we are only required to Notifly the > Tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft and > no other facility. > > At all other times, my callsign is "Kolb 49KK". > > As for the Ultralight Kolb's among us, the above > does not apply. But lacking any other guidance for > the FAA, using the same format of "aircraft type, > model or manufacturer's name" and include Ultralight > so that ATC knows you don't have an "N" number can't > be to far off base. > > It is a very stringent requirement that the FAA has > put on Ultralight vehicles that want to operate in > certain airspace: > 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. > No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within > Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or > within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of > Class E airspace designated for an airport unless > that person has prior authorization from the ATC > facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. > > The required authorization is required to be > obtained while the ultralight is still on the ground > and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific > instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. > > -------- > John Williamson > Arlington, TX > > Kolbra, 912ULS > http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-114#95114 > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List > > Web Forums! > > > > > www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com "Life's a daring adventure or nothing" Helen Keller "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
In a message dated 2/14/2007 9:44:29 P.M. Central Standard Time, cstonex(at)msn.com writes: well then maybe we could say something like "Rodger Dodger, 10-4 good buddie..... Kolb jocket over and out!" or "Kolb to tower, Kolb to tower. come in Tower. Over" It worked on science fiction movies in the 60's and that was on TV too! ever notice how some people forget to enjoy life and laugh once in a while. Rule 62; "Don't take yourself so damed seriously" Chuck, Flying and Dying are serious ! Ed ( Firefly # 62) Do NOT Archive ! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
At 07:17 PM 2/14/2007, John Williamson wrote: > >It is a very stringent requirement that the FAA has put on Ultralight >vehicles that want to operate in certain airspace: > 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. >No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class >C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface >area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has >prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that >airspace. > >The required authorization is required to be obtained while the ultralight >is still on the ground and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific >instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. I've never heard that. As I've always understood it, "prior authorization" can be obtained while airborne, as long as you contact ATC before entering their airspace. Do you have a cite for the ground contact requirement? Of course, if you don't have a radio you have to call them from the ground first (a few weeks ago we flew PPG's with no radio inside (near the edge, but inside) Class D airspace. We told them where we would be flying, and how high (under 200' that day) and they had no problem with it. -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 14, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:43 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ultralight Callsign > ever notice how some people forget to enjoy life and laugh once in a > while. Rule 62; "Don't take yourself so damed seriously" > > LEBTF > Chuck If you are going to cuss, you should at least learn how to spell it! smiling in Oregon! Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Arty -- I can't imagine it would be any different than what the rules say. I flew an N-numbered experimental for a couple of years that had all the flight characteristics of an E-LSA and used the method John so splendidly described. It occurred to me many times as I was approaching or in the pattern that word "experimental" seems to automatically make GA pilots think of you as slow, which is not a bad thing. However, I was passed many times by other experimentals going faster than the Bonanza's... but I'll admit those are probably the exceptions that make the rule. So just stick with what the current AIM says until/unless they update it. -- Robert P.S. So many experimentals do not have recognizable manufacturer names to GA pilots, so my instructor told me just to say "Experimental Two Two Six Niner Juliet" rather than "Aventura Two Two Six Niner Juliet Experimental"... and that's what I did in a variety of Class D and Class C airspaces, and every pattern, and I never, ever had anyone -- pilot or ATC -- suggest it was wrong or should be different. And it was/is a WHOLE lot simpler, too. So, that's typically what I use now, even when I fly an ultralight. On 2/14/07, TheWanderingWench wrote: > > John - > > Thanks for the clarity of your response. I've been > thinking about a problem that many of us "formerly fat > ultralights but now E-LSAs" might have. > > As I understand the AIM, my call sign should be: > MaxAir Drifter one-niner-six-four Charlie. > > HOWEVER - almost no one outside the ultralight arena > knows what a MaxAir Drifter is, so it doesn't tell > them anything about my speed in the pattern, which is > a key factor in separation at non-towered airports. I > land at 35 -38 mph... > > So should those of us flying E-LSAs be using > "Experiemental Light Sport" in our call sign (which is > then dropped after the first announcement.) The AIM > doesn't seem to address this. > > Arty Trost > Sandy, Oregon > > > --- John Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > No guessing about Callsigns, the AIM is very > > specific on what you use for a Callsign in an > > aircraft: > > 3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft > > type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the > > digits/letters of the registration number. When the > > aircraft manufacturer's name or model is stated, the > > prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four > > Alpha. > > > > EXAMPLE- > > 1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf. > > > > 2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit > > "Experimental" after initial contact). > > _______ > > > > > > So by the book, I am "Kolb 49KK Experimental" on > > initial contact when talking to a tower facility and > > I drop the "Experimental" on subsequent calls to the > > same frequency. > > > > When I call Ground Control first, I am "Kolb 49KK > > Experimental" on the initial call and "Kolb 49KK" on > > subsequent calls to Ground. > > > > When I switch frequency to the Tower, I am "Kolb > > 49KK Experimental" on the initial call and "Kolb > > 49KK" on subsequent calls to Tower. > > > > Why have I only included "Experimental" in my > > initial calls to Tower Facilities and not said > > anything about Approach Control, Center or Flight > > Service Stations? Well that's because of the > > following FAR exerpt: > > > > 91.319 Aircraft having experimental > > certificates: Operating limitations. > > (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an > > experimental certificate shall > > (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental > > nature of the aircraft; > > (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise > > specifically authorized by the Administrator; and > > (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental > > nature of the aircraft when operating the aircraft > > into or out of airports with operating control > > towers. > > > > You can see that we are only required to Notifly the > > Tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft and > > no other facility. > > > > At all other times, my callsign is "Kolb 49KK". > > > > As for the Ultralight Kolb's among us, the above > > does not apply. But lacking any other guidance for > > the FAA, using the same format of "aircraft type, > > model or manufacturer's name" and include Ultralight > > so that ATC knows you don't have an "N" number can't > > be to far off base. > > > > It is a very stringent requirement that the FAA has > > put on Ultralight vehicles that want to operate in > > certain airspace: > > 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. > > No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within > > Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or > > within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of > > Class E airspace designated for an airport unless > > that person has prior authorization from the ATC > > facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. > > > > The required authorization is required to be > > obtained while the ultralight is still on the ground > > and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific > > instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. > > > > -------- > > John Williamson > > Arlington, TX > > > > Kolbra, 912ULS > > http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-114#95114 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > > Subscriptions page, > > FAQ, > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List > > > > Web Forums! > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com > > "Life's a daring adventure or nothing" > Helen Keller > > "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death." > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
At 10:51 PM 2/14/2007, TheWanderingWench wrote: > >As I understand the AIM, my call sign should be: >MaxAir Drifter one-niner-six-four Charlie. > >HOWEVER - almost no one outside the ultralight arena >knows what a MaxAir Drifter is... Generally you'd say "Maxair" or "Drifter" but not both... but most of the experimental guys I know would just identify as "Experimental one-niner-six-four-Charlie". If the tower needs to know more they'll ask. I can't remember where, but I seem to recall something about ultralights being suggested to use the word "ultralight", a number (I think it was the pilot's birth year but I could well be mistaken) and initials... "Ultralight five niner Delta Hotel". -Dana -- -- Don't put it off, procrastinate today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Dana -- I agree, I don't think he will find a citation requiring it to be while on the ground... it can be done in the air. And this leads to a funny story.... Years ago, I wanted to fly into an airport that was Class-E-to-the-surface, so, being the proper UL pilot, I called ATC for prior authorization. The ATC guy first asked if I had a radio and I said yes. He asked why didn't I call in the request while I was in the air, and I said that I wasn't sure if that was okay. He said sure it was just fine. Then I said that I usually don't fly high enough to be able to contact ATC (he laughed). So I again asked him if it would be okay to fly in there, and he said sure... Then -- always being careful about government types and their rules and regs -- I said, but how will the people at the airport know that you gave me prior authorization? His answer, in a warm, Texas drawl, was, "Well, you just tell 'em that BUD said it was okay." So, that's my "in" from now on. If I ever get in trouble, I just tell them that Bud at Houston Center said it was "okay." hehehehehe -- Robert On 2/14/07, Dana Hague wrote: > > At 07:17 PM 2/14/2007, John Williamson wrote: > > > >It is a very stringent requirement that the FAA has put on Ultralight > >vehicles that want to operate in certain airspace: > > 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. > >No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class > >C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface > >area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has > >prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that > >airspace. > > > >The required authorization is required to be obtained while the ultralight > >is still on the ground and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific > >instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. > > I've never heard that. As I've always understood it, "prior authorization" > can be obtained while airborne, as long as you contact ATC before entering > their airspace. Do you have a cite for the ground contact requirement? > > Of course, if you don't have a radio you have to call them from the ground > first (a few weeks ago we flew PPG's with no radio inside (near the edge, > but inside) Class D airspace. We told them where we would be flying, and > how high (under 200' that day) and they had no problem with it. > > -Dana > -- > -- > Don't put it off, procrastinate today. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
> > > John - > > As I understand the AIM, my call sign should be: > MaxAir Drifter one-niner-six-four Charlie. For Experimental or E-LSA, Kolb would not be the manufacturer unless Elmer Kolb built and N-numbered your aircraft. Technically the builder is the person that assembled it. Also, don't include the model in the call sign. You never hear Cessna 182 147PG as a callsign, it would be Cessna 147PG. I would also not say "Experimental Light Sport". Too many words. I would stick to Experimental. That said, an "Experimental Trost 1964C" would tell them even less about the aircraft so if I were you I would just say "Experimental 1964C". I think Approach will still want to know if you're experimental. I believe there is something in clarification of Experimental Operating Limitations that ATC was the one that could clear you for flying over densely populated areas. >> 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. >> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within >> Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or >> within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of >> Class E airspace designated for an airport unless >> that person has prior authorization from the ATC >> facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. >> >> The required authorization is required to be >> obtained while the ultralight is still on the ground >> and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific >> instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. The above makes no requirement to obtain authorization while still on the ground. You can get authorization by radio to deviate from the transponder/mode C requirement for Class B & C. If you don't have a radio it would have to be from the ground. If you don't have a Xpdr/mode C installed, it can be 1 hour prior (either by air or on the ground). It doesn't make sense but if your installed transponder is inop you can ask on the radio and get immediate clearance without Xpdr or C. Jim N. Idaho ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Do you think GW would mind if I used "Kolb One"? > I don't say this is the 'right' answer, but it is 'an' answer. > > Pretty much everyone in the thumb area of Michigan has at least an ASC or > EAA registration number. We use those when calling Flight Service, > Pontiac, > Flint, and Selfridge as well as on all unicoms. Seems to work well. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
BEAUTIFUL PICTURE !!!! Wow, that would make a GREAT postcard. I thought about using my FF s/n as part of the call sign, but I'd rather not have anything traceable to me. This is off the original topic, but . . . Controlled airspace does not imply a tower. The Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (KCOE) airport is uncontrolled (i.e., no tower), but has surface Class E airspace within 5sm (to provide separation protection for the instrument approaches). Outside 5sm it becomes Class E airspace above 700 AGL, and eventually uncontrolled airspace. As I read the regs I cannot fly into that airspace in an ultralight unless I contact Spokane Approach Control. Talking to local UL pilots, NOBODY contacts RAPCON. If they have a radio they will do as GA pilots do -- tune in the CATF and make their calls. I was at the Spokane FSDO (FAA) office a few weeks ago and asked them about this. The "Operations" guy there said the Surface Class E was not active unless it was IFR so during VFR the floor of the Class E airspace over KCOE was 700 AGL. I had never seen this in the regs. I thought surface class E was always there. I told him that seemed unsafe if the regs would force me to fly below 700AGL over an airport which would interfere with traffic. He then backed down saying he didn't know anything about ultralights. As you know, VFR GA pilots have no requirement to contact ATC in Class E airspace. It seems odd that the regs would require UL pilots to do this, but this is what the regs appear to say. The bottom line: I don't know for sure and it appears the FAA doesn't either. > 14feb07 > Jim, > My FireFly was regestered with the EAA. They gave > the plane E005CB as a reg. number. I have it on the > tube in front of the tailfeathers in 4" numbers. As an > ultralight I stay away from controled airspace, so I > don't talk to the tower... But while on the radio to > broadcast my intentions at uncontroled airports and > CTAF I use "Ultralight Five Charlee Bravo". > Attached is a photo shot from a Caravan at 7,000ft. > It shows east Maui... the Hana airport, Hana bay and > above the clouds the summit of Haleakala (10,000 ft.) > Aloha, > Henry > > Henry Voris > P.O.Box 1194 > Kula,Hawaii 96790 > henry_voris(at)yahoo.com > 808-878-2443 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Since the early 80's when I first started carrying a hand held VHF radio in ultralights, I have used the station license of the radio for a call sign. I'm always Ultralight 10U no matter what model ultralight I'm flying. Even though the regulations don't address it specifically, aircraft other than certified GA aircraft usually use the type aircraft rather than the manufacturor in the call sign. For instance, a Phoebus sailplane will always call himself "Sailplane 90WS" rather than "Phoebus 90WS". A Grob motor glider will call himself "Motor Glider 90WS" rather than "Grob 90WS". After registration, I plan on calling myself "Light Sport 90WS" (actual numbers will be the registration numbers). My guess is that once the light sport category becomes popular, they will shorten that to "Sport 90WS". Probably during initial contact with tower, the best would be to use "Light Sport 90WS Experimental". -------- Dave Bigelow Kamuela, Hawaii FS2, HKS 700E Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-210#95210 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Txp's, survival gear
Date: Feb 15, 2007
I carry what I think I'll need to keep me alive, >> Quite so Russ, your wide range of conditions in the US against those in the UK just dont bear comparison. Here you would be hard put to find an area to crash in, except perhaps a bit of Wales and and part of Scotland, that you wouldnt be found pretty sharpish. On the other hand only a few years ago the remains of a Hurricane with the pilots skeleton still in the cockpit was found which had been sitting in a wood in Surrey since 1940. Surrey is probably one of the counties with the highest population in the UK, so as Fats said `one never knows do one?` Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
>>> 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. >>> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within >>> Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or >>> within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of >>> Class E airspace designated for an airport unless >>> that person has prior authorization from the ATC >>> facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. >>> >>> The required authorization is required to be >>> obtained while the ultralight is still on the ground >>> and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific >>> instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. > >The above makes no requirement to obtain authorization while still on the >ground. Jim, Am I missing something here? For the last several years I have been flying into tower controlled airports for fly ins. I always used a cell phone to call before leaving the ground. I have never been denied permission to land. I told them I was a red Kolb FireFly, I would explain my route, and we would agree on a holding pattern within sight of the tower until they could pick me up. I told them I could hear them on the radio but due to the open cockpit they would not be able to understand any thing I said. They always picked me up right away and phased me in between other air craft. On one trip they called me several times on the way to ask where I was. They phrased the questions so I could use PTT clicks to answer yes or no. To get back out, I tail along with someone who has a good radio, or I use my cell phone. The main thing is to not tie up the runways. I fly to the ramp or cruise taxi. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Arty, I've been doing the same with our Allegro 2000 (not experimental) , that is, using the prefix Light Sport. Initially when I used Allegro as a prefix there was nearly always a pause then a question asking for clarification of type in a perplexed tone of voice. Once I started using Light Sport the questions have diminished greatly. Sometimes I get questions out of curiosity about the make but no more confusion about type or category. I'm still waiting on the FAA to come up with a 4 digit code for the type. I've been asked this before by ATC and I tell them we are still waiting on the FAA for the assignment. FYI - FAA assigned codes for aircraft can be found here http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/CNT/5-1.htm Thom in Buffalo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
On first call to ground or tower, I was taught use the type and registration, i.e. "Cessna 7568 Tango", all acknowledgements would then be shortened to 68 Tango. When riding in the back of my buddies LongEZ, the first call was "Experimental 455 Zulu Delta" and all acknowledgements were 4 Zulu Delta. The only time I was ever asked for more information was when requesting flight following. The controllers at Whidbey Island NAS always asked "68 Tango, say aircraft type". "68 Tango is a Cessna 182". During one particularly dead evening as my date and I were coming back from a late dinner in Friday Harbor, I got a chance to chat with the controller a bit. He said it was their practice to assign transponder codes that reflected aircraft type, so they would know speed range, and direction of travel. Does this correspond to the experience of you ex ATC guys? At the Arlington Airshow the controllers in the temporary tower expect you to call ahead from a predetermined point. That was the only time they wante d to hear from aircraft. After that, the practice was don't call us, tower will call you, and no acknowledgement was wanted, other than follow their instructions. Rick On 2/15/07, Jack B. Hart wrote: > > > >>> =A7 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. > >>> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within > >>> Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or > >>> within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of > >>> Class E airspace designated for an airport unless > >>> that person has prior authorization from the ATC > >>> facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. > >>> > >>> The required authorization is required to be > >>> obtained while the ultralight is still on the ground > >>> and the ATC Facility contacted will give specific > >>> instructions to the ultralight vehicle operator. > > > >The above makes no requirement to obtain authorization while still on th e > >ground. > > Jim, > > Am I missing something here? > > For the last several years I have been flying into tower controlled > airports > for fly ins. I always used a cell phone to call before leaving the > ground. > I have never been denied permission to land. I told them I was a red > Kolb > FireFly, I would explain my route, and we would agree on a holding patter n > within sight of the tower until they could pick me up. I told them I > could > hear them on the radio but due to the open cockpit they would not be able > to > understand any thing I said. They always picked me up right away and > phased > me in between other air craft. On one trip they called me several times > on > the way to ask where I was. They phrased the questions so I could use PT T > clicks to answer yes or no. > > To get back out, I tail along with someone who has a good radio, or I use > my > cell phone. > > The main thing is to not tie up the runways. I fly to the ramp or cruise > taxi. > > Jack B. Hart FF004 > Winchester, IN > > =========== =========== =========== > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Yep. Used it all the time. Or at least whenever I was working a homebuilt. Here is part of the FAA manual that describes what you are looking for. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/CNT/5-3.htm It is a system whereby ATC knows what you are and how fast you are on a flight plan. HXA is a homebuilt experimental with a cruise speed of less than 100 knots. Kolbs fall into this category. HXB is for humebuilts flying between 100 & 200 knots, HXC is homebuilts flying faster than 200 knots. If your Kolb has transponder with mode C, then you are a HXA/A. Now you know exactly what to put down when you file your next IFR flight plan for your Firestar... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Ultralight Callsign During one particularly dead evening as my date and I were coming back from a late dinner in Friday Harbor, I got a chance to chat with the controller a bit. He said it was their practice to assign transponder codes that reflected aircraft type, so they would know speed range, and direction of travel. Does this correspond to the experience of you ex ATC guys? Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Richard: Canada wants the designator when you file VFR. They use the same one as the US. john h mkIII PS: I also used my FCC radio license for my call sign when flying the Firestar. For got the numbers, but the prefix was N. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Hi John, I thought about mounting the tank as you did but was concerned about aft C.G. (I know this has been talked about before and your tank has not been a problem for you!). Anyway, while the area under the tank will have the battery, hot box, fuel pump, gascolator and ELT; I will make a storage area behind the tank, accessable from the outside, for lighter stuff. ie, sleeping bag, tent, etc. Rex Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-263#95263 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 15, 2007
| I thought about mounting the tank as you did but was concerned about aft C.G. (I know this has been talked about before and your tank has not been a problem for you!). | | Rex Rex: Neither has the 11.6 lb Maule Tundra Pneumatic Tailwheel and 125+ lbs of gear under the 150 lbs of fuel. Your system will work fine, but will be limited on amount of gear you will be able to carry. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Txp's
Date: Feb 15, 2007
- the stats for engine-failures in twins scare me.>> Hiya Russ, my hat comes off to all you guys who do REAL flying across hostile landscapes. I felt reely tough when I bought a lifejacket when planning to fly to France. WOW.. about 24 miles and you can see the other side when you leave this coast. It all depends to what you are accustomed I suppose. In the end we didn`t go to France because we couldn`t find a hotel within range. Sleeping under the wing is not on my itinerary these days Stats for engine failure in twins? .Is that real or an abberation in the figures? You have twice as many engines then you get twice as many failures? Reminds me of the guy who always took a bomb with him when he flew by airline on the grounds that the chances of having two bombs on board where vanishingly small. Perhaps you can persuade Homeland Security to issue one person per flight with a bomb on the same basis. Unfortunately my Kolb, when the engineer finally got round to a detailed examination, was found to have a twisted cage. This was not detectable until the wings were mounted and squared up so I am at the moment waiting for a new one, plus some Lexan and a few bits from Kolb USA. In the meantime the old cockpit is being stripped out ready for rebuild when the cage arrives. I reckon a couple of months minimum. The way things are going I reckon that if I can scrounge a ride from someone at Monument Valley that will be about the first flight since last July. Great shame as we have had a number of cold clear windless days when the flying would have been great during the winter period. Already things are getting quite Springlike. Snowdrops are out, daffodils about ready to pop, beech trees are showing buds and birds are chasing each other around the garden. Temp today is 10 degrees C. Pretty good for Feb. Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Actually, if you ask approach or even center for flight following, those are the same designators thye use also. I was just being facetious about filing IFR in a Kolb. Or at least I hope I was... But if we stay on this list long enough, probably someone will come up with an IFR certified Kolb. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Ultralight Callsign > > Richard: > > Canada wants the designator when you file VFR. They use the same one > as the US. > > john h > mkIII > > PS: I also used my FCC radio license for my call sign when flying the > Firestar. For got the numbers, but the prefix was N. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Frozen Lake pic
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Last week I had a great day flying around. Here is a pic I took of my plane on Saratoga Lake, NY. It is a compilation of 4 photos stiched together to form a panorama shot. I used Autostitch to make it. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-285#95285 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/lake_497.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
I think we could all give that talk. Glad to have you with us. > Be safer than me. One day I could give a safety talk on how the "chain of > small decisions and circumstances" can lead you to an incident or accident > if you don't realize. It is hard to accept that you screwed up. > John Bickham ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Frozen Lake pic
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Scott, Great photo. I just wish more of the group would post recent photos of their Kolb's and where they are flying! -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-290#95290 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Rex, Did you add some fuselage to the rear of your airplane? If so why? Looks good! -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-315#95315 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Frozen Lake pic
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Here's a picture taken last Summer flying the Hoodoo River of N. Idaho. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-324#95324 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dcp_5339_197.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
This gets to be a little long, but some clarifications are in order: -- Shall: means a procedure is mandatory. -- Should: means a procedure is recommended. -- May: means a procedure is optional. -- Will: means futurity, not a requirement for the application of a procedure. I use Experimental 381PM , Then after first call.... I use ... One ,Poppa, Mike *** ATC specialists may initiate abbreviated call signs of other aircraft by using the prefix and the last three digits/letters of the aircraft identification after communications are established. The pilot may use the abbreviated call sign in subsequent contacts with the ATC specialist. On first call to ground or tower, I was taught use the type and registration, i.e. Cessna 7568 Tango, all acknowledgements would then be shortened to 68 Tango. When riding in the back of my buddies LongEZ, the first call was Experimental 455 Zulu Delta and all acknowledgements were 4 Zulu Delta. P.S. So many experimentals do not have recognizable manufacturer names to GA pilots, so my instructor told me just to say Experimental Two Two Six Niner Juliet rather than Aventura Two Two Six Niner Juliet Experimental... and thats what I did in a variety of Class D and Class C airspaces, and every pattern, and I never, ever had anyonepilot or ATCsuggest it was wrong or should be different. And it was/is a WHOLE lot simpler, too. So, thats typically what I use now, even when I fly an ultralight. *** Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. HOWEVER - almost no one outside the ultralight arena knows what a MaxAir Drifter is, so it doesnt tell them anything about my speed in the pattern, which is a key factor in separation at non-towered airports. I land at 35 -38 mph. Generally youd say Maxair or Drifter but not both... but most of the experimental guys I know would just identify as Experimental one-niner-six-four-Charlie. If the tower needs to know more theyll ask. *** Using MaxAir or Drifter and your number is the correct callsign. The word Experimental as the prefix in a callsign is never correct. For Experimental or E-LSA, Kolb would not be the manufacturer unless Elmer Kolb built and N-numbered your aircraft. Technically the builder is the person that assembled it. Also, dont include the model in the call sign. You never hear Cessna 182 147PG as a callsign, it would be Cessna 147PG. *** Aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name has been accepted by the FAA to include the Kit Manufacturer name and the precedence is in http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/CNT/5-1.htm. Ive never heard that. As Ive always understood it, prior authorization can be obtained while airborne, as long as you contact ATC before entering their airspace. Do you have a cite for the ground contact requirement? *** AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not deviate from the provisions of a visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic clearance except in an emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained. Additionally, the pilot may request a different clearance from that which has been issued by air traffic control (ATC) if information available to the pilot makes another course of action more practicable or if aircraft equipment limitations or company procedures forbid compliance with the clearance issued. Pilots may also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood, or considered unacceptable because of safety of flight. Controllers should, in such instances and to the extent of operational practicality and safety, honor the pilots request. 14 CFR Part 91.3(a) states: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. THE PILOT IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE if ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation, or in the pilots opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy. *** I dont have any citation of the ground contact requirement except for common sense. I wouldnt fly up to an area and hope to be able to contact a controlling facility whose receiver might be a long way for my little radio to reach. You can get authorization by radio to deviate from the transponder/mode C requirement for Class B & C. If you dont have a radio it would have to be from the ground. If you dont have a Xpdr/mode C installed, it can be 1 hour prior (either by air or on the ground). *** There ia a big difference between asking for Prior Authorization and a Deviation. Since an Ultralight is not an airplane, and FAR 91 does not apply, it cant be granted a deviation, an ATC facility does have the ability to Authorize it to perform a specific action. *** ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows: (1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability, the request may be made at any time. (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time. (3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation. As I read the regs I cannot fly into that airspace in an ultralight unless I contact Spokane Approach Control. Talking to local UL pilots, NOBODY contacts RAPCON. If they have a radio they will do as GA pilots dotune in the CATF and make their calls. *** Doing what the other fellow is doing wrong, doesnt make it right. The Operations guy there said the Surface Class E was not active unless it was IFR so during VFR the floor of the Class E airspace over KCOE was 700 AGL. *** Your Operations guy needs to read the regs. Surface Based Class E airspace is as charted and always there. The big difference between that airport in Class E airspace as opposed to Class G airspace is the weather requirements to operate VFR. 71.71 Class E airspace. 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace. 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums. Class E: Less than 10,000 feet MSL... 3 statute miles... 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feet, 2,000 feet horizontal from clouds. Class G:1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude) (with Exceptions) 1 statute mile.... Clear of clouds. It is a system whereby ATC knows what you are and how fast you are on a flight plan. HXA is a homebuilt experimental with a cruise speed of less than 100 knots. Kolbs fall into this category. HXB is for humebuilts flying between 100 & 200 knots, HXC is homebuilts flying faster than 200 knots. If your Kolb has transponder with mode C, then you are a HXA/A. *** An excellent explanation! The HXA, HXB and HXC are ICAO designations recognized worldwide for a homebuilt aircraft that hasnt had a Type Designation applied for and assigned. I could keep going but Im getting tired. The regs arent that hard to read. Just remember that they are what they read and we cant interpret them to what is convenient, or to match what you are or have been doing. -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-333#95333 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
John, you're obviously doing your homework, so I might have missed something... Experimental Operation Limitations, IAW FAA Order 8130.2F, must contain the line item, "*The pilot in command of this aircraft must notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into and out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan*"... DVD On 2/15/07, John Williamson wrote: > > kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net> > > This gets to be a little long, but some clarifications are in order: > -- Shall: means a procedure is mandatory. > -- Should: means a procedure is recommended. > -- May: means a procedure is optional. > -- Will: means futurity, not a requirement for the application of a > procedure. > > "I use "Experimental 381PM ", Then after first call.... I use ... One > ,Poppa, Mike" > *** ATC specialists may initiate abbreviated call signs of other aircraft > by using the prefix and the last three digits/letters of the aircraft > identification after communications are established. The pilot may use th e > abbreviated call sign in subsequent contacts with the ATC specialist. > > "On first call to ground or tower, I was taught use the type and > registration, i.e. "Cessna 7568 Tango", all acknowledgements would then b e > shortened to 68 Tango. When riding in the back of my buddies LongEZ, the > first call was "Experimental 455 Zulu Delta" and all acknowledgements wer e 4 > Zulu Delta." > "P.S. So many experimentals do not have recognizable manufacturer names t o > GA pilots, so my instructor told me just to say "Experimental Two Two Six > Niner Juliet" rather than "Aventura Two Two Six Niner Juliet > Experimental"... and that's what I did in a variety of Class D and Class C > airspaces, and every pattern, and I never, ever had anyone=97pilot or > ATC=97suggest it was wrong or should be different. And it was/is a WHOLE lot > simpler, too. So, that's typically what I use now, even when I fly an > ultralight." > *** Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or > manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration > number. > > "HOWEVER - almost no one outside the ultralight arena knows what a MaxAir > Drifter is, so it doesn't tell them anything about my speed in the patter n, > which is a key factor in separation at non-towered airports. I land at 35 > -38 mph." > "Generally you'd say "Maxair" or "Drifter" but not both... but most of th e > experimental guys I know would just identify as "Experimental > one-niner-six-four-Charlie". If the tower needs to know more they'll ask. " > *** Using MaxAir or Drifter and your number is the correct callsign. The > word "Experimental" as the prefix in a callsign is never correct. > > "For Experimental or E-LSA, Kolb would not be the manufacturer unless > Elmer Kolb built and N-numbered your aircraft. Technically the builder is > the person that assembled it. Also, don't include the model in the call > sign. You never hear Cessna 182 147PG as a callsign, it would be Cessna > 147PG." > *** Aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name has been accepted by the > FAA to include the Kit Manufacturer name and the precedence is in > http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/CNT/5-1.htm. > > "I've never heard that. As I've always understood it, "prior > authorization" can be obtained while airborne, as long as you contact ATC > before entering their airspace. Do you have a cite for the ground contact > requirement?" > *** AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for th e > purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft t o > proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. Th e > pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not deviate from the provisions of a > visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic > clearance except in an emergency or unless an amended clearance has been > obtained. Additionally, the pilot may request a different clearance from > that which has been issued by air traffic control (ATC) if information > available to the pilot makes another course of action more practicable or if > aircraft equipment limitations or company procedures forbid compliance wi th > the clearance issued. Pilots may also request clarification or amendment, as > appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood, or considered > unacceptable because of safety of flight. Controllers should, in such > instances and to the extent of! > operational practicality and safety, honor the pilot's request. 14 CFR > Part 91.3(a) states: "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly > responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that > aircraft." THE PILOT IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE if AT C > issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or > regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopar dy. > *** I don't have any citation of the "ground contact requirement" except > for common sense. I wouldn't fly up to an area and hope to be able to > contact a controlling facility whose receiver might be a long way for my > little radio to reach. > > "You can get authorization by radio to deviate from the transponder/mode C > requirement for Class B & C. If you don't have a radio it would have to b e > from the ground. If you don't have a Xpdr/mode C installed, it can be 1 h our > prior (either by air or on the ground)." > *** There ia a big difference between asking for "Prior Authorization" an d > a "Deviation". Since an Ultralight is not an airplane, and FAR 91 does n ot > apply, it can't be granted a "deviation", an ATC facility does have the > ability to "Authorize" it to perform a specific action. > *** ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations mus t > be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspa ce > within the time periods specified as follows: > (1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but withou t > operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C > capability, the request may be made at any time. > (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the > airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to > proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the reques t > may be made at any time. > (3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, > the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation. > > "As I read the regs I cannot fly into that airspace in an ultralight > unless I contact Spokane Approach Control. Talking to local UL pilots, > NOBODY contacts RAPCON. If they have a radio they will do as GA pilots > do=97tune in the CATF and make their calls." > *** Doing what the other fellow is doing wrong, doesn't make it right. > > "The "Operations" guy there said the Surface Class E was not active unles s > it was IFR so during VFR the floor of the Class E airspace over KCOE was 700 > AGL." > *** Your "Operations guy" needs to read the regs. Surface Based Class E > airspace is as charted and always there. The big difference between that > airport in Class E airspace as opposed to Class G airspace is the weather > requirements to operate VFR. > =A7 71.71 Class E airspace. > =A7 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E > airspace. > =A7 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums. > > Class E: Less than 10,000 feet MSL... 3 statute miles... 500 feet below , > 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feet, 2,000 feet horizontal from clouds. > > Class G:1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude) > (with Exceptions) =85=85 1 statute mile.... Clear of clouds. > > "It is a system whereby ATC knows what you are and how fast you are on a > flight plan. HXA is a homebuilt experimental with a cruise speed of less > than 100 knots. Kolbs fall into this category. HXB is for humebuilts flyi ng > between 100 & 200 knots, HXC is homebuilts flying faster than 200 knots. If > your Kolb has transponder with mode C, then you are a HXA/A." > *** An excellent explanation! The HXA, HXB and HXC are ICAO designations > recognized worldwide for a homebuilt aircraft that hasn't had a Type > Designation applied for and assigned. > > I could keep going but I'm getting tired. The regs aren't that hard to > read. Just remember that they are what they read and we can't interpret t hem > to what is convenient, or to match what you are or have been doing. > > -------- > John Williamson > Arlington, TX > > Kolbra, 912ULS > http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Frozen Lake pic
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
I wish people would post more pics too. Everyone probably thinks their pics are boring because it is the same scenery they are used to. But for the people in different parts of the world it is very interesting. Some people here probably never even saw a frozen lake. Larry's canyon pics are very interesting to me. If I saw scenery, like in his videos, near here I would think that a massive nuclear explosion wiped out everthing. [Shocked] I want to see more Idaho pics too, hint, hint. If I suddenly wind up single and free I'd be temped to move to Idaho. It's way up on the list. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-342#95342 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
John, I just read the previous messages and I see you already said this... DVD ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> Date: Feb 15, 2007 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Ultralight Callsign John, you're obviously doing your homework, so I might have missed something... Experimental Operation Limitations, IAW FAA Order 8130.2F, must contain the line item, "*The pilot in command of this aircraft must notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into and out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan *"... DVD On 2/15/07, John Williamson wrote: > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Frozen Lake pic
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
For some great N. Idaho pics see http://www.chrisberard.com/galleries.htm Chris is my buddy flying in the trike in my pic. When the wx warms up we'll be taking more pics in the country West of here (central WA). It is nice in Idaho most of the time, but 3-4 months of the year it's Winter. This year it's been particularly brutal with no sun in over 30 days. Our runway is currently mush from snow melt and thaw, so even with good wx this weekend (Sun & 40 degrees) I may not be able to fly. Coming from NY you might find Idaho OK. But many see its beauty in Summer & Fall and move here only to move away after 1 or 2 winters. I can't blame them. I'd like to find some cheap runway property in Nevada, Arizona, etc. Unfortunately I don't think it exists any more. Here's another picture looking down inside the crater of Mount St. Helens. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-352#95352 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dcp_3037_932.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Rex, Did you add some fuselage to the rear of your airplane? If so why? Looks good........ Paul, No, the cage is as received from Kolb. It was one of the first X-tra cages. I think the present ones are a little different in the back. Rex Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-358#95358 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Hi Dennis and All, When others don't know the rules/regs/recommended practices, (aka idiots), we can't stoop to their level. Being a pilot is serious and requires us to maintain a professional/correct attitude and presence all the times. If you have to educate the unknowing, by all means do so. If you operate by the rules nobody can fault you. The ATC folks of the FAA are the only FAA types that are really there "To help Us." Even some of them have to be brought up to speed on the correct phrasology at time. -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-384#95384 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Callsign
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
My hunble apologies to Homer. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-387#95387 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2007
If you are N numbered I would not use the term "Ultralight". Ultralights are required to avoid N-numbered aircraft. If they think you're an Ultralight they might expect you to get out of their way. I would stick with "Experimental xyz" or Experimental Kolb xyz". I think a glider pilot touched on this briefly, but if you are a special category (glider, amphib, float plane, etc.), that should also be included in your initial call. E.g., "Amphib experimental 33254". Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland. wrote: > "jim" wrote: -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-391#95391 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
| On the other hand, if I had called myself an ultralight when I was on base | leg turning final, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Moral vectories | are not anything like legal ones. | | Richard Pike Richard: It is still a matter of good sense and each pilot clearing each other. A good pilot does not pull out in front of another "object" , UL, Exp, GA, or whatever. It is a matter of common horse sense. I'll yield to any other aircraft that wants to push his way in, same as automobiles, and rude folks on the sidewalk. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
> >"Cessna departing Highlands, say your call sign" >"Highlands unicom, do you know the N-number of the Cessna 182 that taxied >out a minute ago? Because he just pulled out in right in front of >Experimental 02Papa when I was on short final, and I want to make a report >about a near mid-air to flight standards." > >The silence was deafening - but I bet he didn't do it again. > >On the other hand, if I had called myself an ultralight when I was on base >leg turning final, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Moral vectories >are not anything like legal ones. > Richard, My interpretation has been that all of these rules between aircraft and ultralight vehicles apply while both are in the air. If I am in the pattern and some one calls in with intent to land, I go spend a few minutes out of the way. But if I am on final and some one starts to taxi out, I do not break off. If they don't or appear not to see me, I go around. Most get stopped just at the edge of the runway. I land just beyond them and turn off and taxi by them on the grass so that I don't hold them up by landing at mid field and wait at a turn around. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
We can work it out | later if we're both alive. Works for me. | Russ Russ/Gang: Several years ago I landed at Sierra Vista, AZ. I had already turned short final, had been in the pattern a while, calling my position and intention all the way. I heard one of the C-54 fire fighting water tankers calling straight in for my runway. I called again short final and soon touched down and turned off, just as that big sucker buzzed me. Very close. He was fussing about having to make a go around and how much time and money it was costing. A couple hours later I departed Sierra Vista to the north. Heard same C-54 call departing. I couldn't see behind me, but I knew this turkey was going to screw with me again. He did, very close, too close for me. I keyed the mike and politely told him that one day we would meet on the ground, on a much more equal footing. He did not reply. Either he did not hear me or did not pay any attention to what I had said. Always amazes me how folks in progressively larger and faster aircraft assume the part that they are also larger and faster than they really are. An exception to the many, many polite, professional pilots out there. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 15, 2007
BTW, this is a C-54: john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
At 09:24 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote: > > We can work it out > heard one of the C-54 fire fighting water >tankers calling straight in for my runway. I called again short final >and soon touched down and turned off, just as that big sucker buzzed >me. Very close. We base very close to (4 miles) and fly in & out of Cartersville Airport, just N.W. of Atlanta. Anytime we hear (_ _ _ Pappa Alpha) = Phoenix Air It's "duck & cover" time. They are fast and grey and hard to see. Little dots that get big real fast! Nice guys and we get along fine, but we both know who has the right of way. And it ain't us. http://www.phoenixair.com/military_ops.php ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsign
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
ITS A CORN COB POWERED BOMBER WANTABE 8-) http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-54_skymaster.pl Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com Sent: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Ultralight Callsign BTW, this is a C-54: john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: pictures
Date: Feb 16, 2007
I just wish more of the group would post recent photos of their Kolb's and where they are flying! Aerial photography work on the 2006 tour de cure bike ride for the American diabetic's association. Boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 16, 2007
I don't know if it would help or not.... when I ordered the 16 gal alum fuel tank from the old kolb company,, it came fitted right behind the seat. In doing W&B on the fuel tank I found it to be almost centered on the rear cg. When flying solo in the mkIII C I fly near the rear cg. So from full to empty on the fuel level does not change the cg enough to matter ( going from memory less than 1 / 4 inch. When I have two on board the cg of the plane is further forward, causing a fuel burn to move the cg more to the front as the fuel burns off. If anyone is interested let me know. Boyd Young MkIII C ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Rex, That is interesting. How does the aileron torque tubes exit the fabric? Are there any other photos of a finished mark3X that have that extenion? I am also wondering how that will affect the flaps and mounting of the oil cooler. What engine are you planning to use? -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-586#95586 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ultralight Callsigns
Date: Feb 16, 2007
identify myself as "Kolb | niner three delta, Experimental," and educate the unwashed masses! (At | least the ones at MY airport.) | | Gosh, I love this List! | | Dennis Kirby Hi Denis: IIRC, John W briefed me that make and N number were all that was required except when making initial contact with the tower or other controller. At an untowered airport, Kolb 101AB. Towered airport, Kolb 101AB Experimental. If I am wrong, I am sure I will get corrected. ;-) john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007
> How does the aileron torque tubes exit the fabric? Paul P: Put a dollar patch where the torque tube will come through. Cut a nice snug hole in the patch. When everything is finished, cut a nice leather patch with pinking shears to finish it off. -------- John Hauck MKIII/912ULS hauck's holler, alabama Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-591#95591 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JRatcli256(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Subject: Follow-up on Gas Tank Study
Hi Gang, Thanks to all for the responses. Although I didn't say so in my initial post - I did an archive search on gas tanks and concluded that an aluminum tank similar to Johns, Rex , etc., was the preferred method and design. Single tank, fuel sender, more fuel, bottom pickup with gascolator. Looking at the pictures - you guys sure do some nice work. Richard P. - You must really know your fiberglass. Really smooth job. John B. - Great job. Noticed the windshield frame tubes are missing. Is that a Mark 3 classic frame? Being somewhat over my initial budget and still wanting the moon, I came across some gas cans that can be used in the Mark 3x that I plan to use. For three @ $8.00 each (allowing 19.5 gal. total fuel) and no removal of the side tubes on the cage to make them fit, I feel the price is right in comparison to $200 - 300 or more for an aluminum tank. Can't weld or bend aluminum and fiberglass a bit expensive also. The tanks I found are 6.5 gal. each. Three to five can be installed in the cage depending on how they are arranged. All can be installed or removed thru the side of the cage very easily when empty (and three when full if your strong enough, which I'm not). They weigh about 40# each when full and you are bent down under the wing. My son brought that up as I was proudly showing him my accomplishment. Funny how kids seem to get smarter as they get older / and I get dumber. What I'm trying to determine is - at what angle fore and aft and side to side to mount them to get the most useable fuel in any anticipated flight regime (max. angles of climb, approach with flaps, and banks left/right. After a week, I think I've worked it out (again), but trying to anticipate before I fabricate. Any additional input would be appreciated. For those interested: The tanks are manufactured by "Blitz" and in my area, available only at Home Depot. They are called 6+ Gas Cans and are the same thickness as the TNK original tanks. But Red in color - not clear. And hold 6.5 gal. each. You can see what they look like at http://www.blitzusa.com/fuelcanda.htm Physical size is 8.5 x 14.25 x 18.5 inches. They can be installed/removed thru the side or behind the passenger seat. The fore & aft structural tube supporting the center back of the cockpit (3/8 x .035) and the fuel tank bracketing tubes (1/4 x .035) have to be removed, and new tubes installed to support the new tanks. Especially the 3/8 x .035 center back support tube. I plan on leaving mine in the plane and fueling from outside per John H. hose, with the option available to remove the tanks if absolutely necessary in the field. Disadvantages are same as original tanks and not clear (Can't see fuel quantity). Although far from perfect I plan on using the Fuelman flow meter and keeping track of flight time on EIS. Still playing with ideas on easier fueling locations/options. I'm in the 2.5 gal lifting category John H. spoke of. Any Ideas along that line would be appreciated also. Have been thinking about a fuel fill manifold with a single fill location somewhere accessible with the wing unfolded. Maybe I'm just dreaming. Still wanting the moon on a beer budget. Will post pictures when I have everything worked out. Thanks again all. John Ratcliffe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: Arizona Man <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Poly fiber
I am starting to think ahead a bit and wondering which fabric weight most people are using. I am wondering if there are any pluses to going with the heavier fabric. Ron (Arizona) M3X Suzuki 1.3 ltr DOHC (108 hp estimated) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com>
Subject: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC
Date: Feb 17, 2007
This is off topic but I know it will get to a lot of readers. Yesterday my daughter had to put her dog to sleep because he was turning aggressive towards her and other animals in the house. It was very difficult for her to do. He was an eight year old catahula male that she raised from a pup. She is looking for a good quality 13 inch beagle male under 12 weeks old. We live in Des Moines and have not had much luck finding one here from a breeder who knows what he is talking about or that sounds trustworthy. If any one knows of anybody who has a litter available, please let me know off list. My email is cstonex(at)msn.com. Thanks guys. Chuck S _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC
Date: Feb 17, 2007
This would be considered SPAM >From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com> >Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com >To: FlyChallenger(at)yahoogroups.com >Subject: Kolb-List: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:31:07 -0600 > > >This is off topic but I know it will get to a lot of readers. Yesterday my >daughter had to put her dog to sleep because he was turning aggressive >towards her and other animals in the house. It was very difficult for her >to do. He was an eight year old catahula male that she raised from a pup. >She is looking for a good quality 13 inch beagle male under 12 weeks old. >We live in Des Moines and have not had much luck finding one here from a >breeder who knows what he is talking about or that sounds trustworthy. If >any one knows of anybody who has a litter available, please let me know off >list. My email is cstonex(at)msn.com. >Thanks guys. >Chuck S > >_________________________________________________________________ >Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. >Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com>
Subject: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC
Date: Feb 17, 2007
David Key this is not spam ...this is a genuine request for assistance .... If you don't know the answer then ignore it. That is what a caring person would do. This would be considered SPAM >From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com> >Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com >To: FlyChallenger(at)yahoogroups.com >Subject: Kolb-List: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:31:07 -0600 > > >This is off topic but I know it will get to a lot of readers. Yesterday my >daughter had to put her dog to sleep because he was turning aggressive >towards her and other animals in the house. It was very difficult for her >to do. He was an eight year old catahula male that she raised from a pup. >She is looking for a good quality 13 inch beagle male under 12 weeks old. >We live in Des Moines and have not had much luck finding one here from a >breeder who knows what he is talking about or that sounds trustworthy. If >any one knows of anybody who has a litter available, please let me know off >list. My email is cstonex(at)msn.com. >Thanks guys. >Chuck S > >_________________________________________________________________ >Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. >Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com > > _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
In deed... Chuck Just ignore the man behind the curtain... 8-/ Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: cstonex(at)msn.com Sent: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 1:25 PM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC David Key this is not spam ...this is a genuine request for assistance .... If you don't know the answer then ignore it. That is what a caring person would do. This would be considered SPAM >From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com> >Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com >To: FlyChallenger(at)yahoogroups.com >Subject: Kolb-List: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:31:07 -0600 > > >This is off topic but I know it will get to a lot of readers. Yesterday my >daughter had to put her dog to sleep because he was turning aggressive >towards her and other animals in the house. It was very difficult for her >to do. He was an eight year old catahula male that she raised from a pup. >She is looking for a good quality 13 inch beagle male under 12 weeks old. >We live in Des Moines and have not had much luck finding one here from a >breeder who knows what he is talking about or that sounds trustworthy. If >any one knows of anybody who has a litter available, please let me know off >list. My email is cstonex(at)msn.com. >Thanks guys. >Chuck S > >_________________________________________________________________ >Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. >Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. =0 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: snuffy(at)usol.com
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC
Date: Feb 17, 2007
My favorite beagle was a pilot in WWI he shot down the Bloody Red Baron numerous times........I think from a Kolbra....... ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
RUFF way to go 8-) hahaha Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: snuffy(at)usol.com Sent: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC My favorite beagle was a pilot in WWI he shot down the Bloody Red Baron numerous times........I think from a Kolbra....... ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Subject: Ole Paint! Not the horse! Polyurethane
From: Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Guys One of the things that seems not to be known by anyone that I have talked to over the years, is the composition and technology behind the covering and finishing systems that we use on fabric planes.. Surely someone on the net can tell us how to make our own paints? I think we have seen most products go up 10 to 20 percent this year.. Seems like a good time to try to circumvent the Aircraft coating companies.. 200 dollars a gal seems absurd to me.. Here is a little blurb.. Herb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ole Paint! Not the horse! Polyurethane
Herb, One of the biggest problems with the alternative coating systems, whether urethane, latex, or whatever is how to make a repair should you get a tear or a bad case of hangar rash. Another is UV protection of the fabric. Yet another is selling your creation to a repairman or an A & P when your next annual is due. If you look down the road a piece, the price of knowing that the covering job on which you lavished your time and attention is going to give you the service you deserve is pretty cheap, really. Remember, all that stuff about lift and drag is a sham. Airplanes fly on money, usually in large quantities. :-) Rick On 2/17/07, Herb Gayheart wrote: > > Guys > > One of the things that seems not to be known by anyone that I have > talked to over the years, is the composition and technology behind the > covering and finishing systems that we use on fabric planes.. > > Surely someone on the net can tell us how to make our own paints? > > I think we have seen most products go up 10 to 20 percent this year.. > Seems like a good time to try to circumvent the Aircraft coating > companies.. 200 dollars a gal seems absurd to me.. > > Here is a little blurb.. > > > Herb > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Alot of "V" speed info
From: "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Feb 17, 2007
....alioth.net/Pageb11About%20Aircraft%20Speeds.htm#V_S_ That sure was a lot of words about V speeds etc. Unfortunately some of it is self-contradictory, much of it hard to follow and contains a lot of absolutes, some of which are just not correct. That is not to say that it does not contain some good info, but I believe there are other sources for this sort of information that are easier to understand. Two such sources are listed below. http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/contents.html http://www.av8n.com/how/ Thom in Buffalo Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-741#95741 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Here's dimensions of the stock Kolb (TOK) 16 gal tank. Lar. Larry Bourne Santa Fe, NM www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "icrashrc" <icrashrc(at)aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:10 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Gas Tank Study > > I would be interested in pictures, dimensions, plans, drawings, ect. of > the 16 gallon tank from Kolb. Feel free to send what you have back channel > if you don't think it all belongs on the list. > > icrashrc(at)aol.com > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: October in Alabama
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Hi Gang: James Tripp cruising his FSII at 6,000 feet over Alabama. Shot from Miss P'fer. john h mkIII DO NOT ARHCIVE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Ole Paint! Not the horse! Polyurethane
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Years ago I decide my Hummer's factory sails were no longer airworthy, and recovered it with generic dacron, purchased from Aircraft Spruce for about a third the cost of Stits fabric. Painted it with Sears Latex Gloss Black for U/V protection, based on the premise that it would be staying in a hangar, and the original sail had lasted for ten years, and (according to Mike Fischer - Fischer Flying Products, the black makes a good U/V barrier) and then I trimmed it out in high gloss yellow, from Sherwin-Williams. Had about $300 in the whole affair. The best Latex you can buy is only about $25 a gallon. Latex is super easy to do, works well, not too glossy, just don't lay two Latex painted surfaces together, they will adhere to each other, and when you separate them, something bad will happen. Attached the fabric to the structure with Rand-O-Bond. Stits Poly-Tak would probably be as good. If price is the main consideration, go with Latex. If you want it airplaney - go with something else. (spend money) I don't plan to ever do another airplane, but if I did, I think I would try using Classic Coatings dope (Aircraft Spruce). Dope is like lacquer, gives a pretty finish, is cheaper than Stits, and I have always found dope easy to work with. Swimming upstream here - Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Gayheart" <herbgh(at)juno.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Ole Paint! Not the horse! Polyurethane > Guys > > One of the things that seems not to be known by anyone that I have > talked to over the years, is the composition and technology behind the > covering and finishing systems that we use on fabric planes.. > > Surely someone on the net can tell us how to make our own paints? > > I think we have seen most products go up 10 to 20 percent this year.. > Seems like a good time to try to circumvent the Aircraft coating > companies.. 200 dollars a gal seems absurd to me.. > > Here is a little blurb.. > > > Herb > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Jack Carillon <pcarillonsr(at)neo.rr.com>
Subject: Pictures of winter flying Dec. 2000
I've been reading the list everyday for many years and really enjoy the info and seeing the pictures you guys send. Here are some pixs I shot from the back seat of my 1994 Firestar II In Nov. of 2000 with my son Bob flying a straight in approach to my friend Leonard's 600 foot strip where i kept my Kolb at the time. Temp that day was about 25 degrees. His strip starts at the edge of the snow. In the last pix you can just see the nose of a Kolb in the hanger to the right, this is the one Ralph Hoover(Ohio Ralph) ended up with after it was sold 2 or 3 times. Jack Carillon Akron , Oh. DSC00034.JPG DSC00035.JPG DSC00036.JPG DSC00037.JPG DSC00038.JPG DSC00039.JPG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Alot of
Date: Feb 18, 2007
.... Let's get Newton back!.... Bob, If you read through them both, all the way, you'll find that Bernoulli is not the leading actor in the play, but as you stated, only a bit player. They also bust some other myths. Good reading for a snowy winter day. Thom in Buffalo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Morning Gang: I knew I wanted a big fuel tank when I built my mkIII. Experience gained from flying the Ultrastar and Firestar dictated lots of fuel. The Firestar was built with the normal 5 gal plastic tank and a Ken Brock seat tank. Advertised as 10 gal, it held 8 gal useable. I was able to make some pretty long cross country flights summer 1988 with this configuration. Problem with this set up was size of the seat. Took up most of my cockpit space. That winter we overhauled the FS from cage out. Stuck an 18 gal alum tank up top behind the bulkhead, which opened up the bottom for cargo. Summer 1989 I was able to cross country with all my stuff inside the airplane. The year before I had to sling load the sleeping bag under the belly. Built the mkIII 16 years ago, along with a 25 gal fuel tank. It is mounted in the normally open area behind my head, opening up the bottom area for cargo. This tank has given good service with no leaks, thanks to fuel tank slosh and seal. The photo of fuselage shows the fuel site gauge on the bulkhead behind the left seat. Man, I wish the old gal still shined like it did when this photo was taken. Course, it had not flown yet either. The two primary changes folks want as soon as they fly their new Kolbs is fuel and cargo space. Best build it in before you fly. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Arizona Man <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Pictures of winter flying Dec. 2000
Neat pics, always nice to see the movement of the airplane. Ron (Arizona) =============================== ---- Jack Carillon wrote: ============ I've been reading the list everyday for many years and really enjoy the info and seeing the pictures you guys send. Here are some pixs I shot from the back seat of my 1994 Firestar II In Nov. of 2000 with my son Bob flying a straight in approach to my friend Leonard's 600 foot strip where i kept my Kolb at the time. Temp that day was about 25 degrees. His strip starts at the edge of the snow. In the last pix you can just see the nose of a Kolb in the hanger to the right, this is the one Ralph Hoover(Ohio Ralph) ended up with after it was sold 2 or 3 times. Jack Carillon Akron , Oh. DSC00034.JPG DSC00035.JPG DSC00036.JPG DSC00037.JPG DSC00038.JPG DSC00039.JPG ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pictures of winter flying Dec. 2000
From: "Ralph Hoover" <flht99reh(at)columbus.rr.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Jack, looks as nice now as it did then. Only difference is, its many additional "testimonies"! Thanks again for your assistance in locate it's history. Ohio Ralph Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-867#95867 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: October in Alabama
From: "Ralph Hoover" <flht99reh(at)columbus.rr.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2007
John, I hope you and James don't mind my using that picture as a backdrop on my screen saver. The detail of the planes and the ground at 5,800 feet is fantastic. Ohio Ralph Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-872#95872 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Arizona Man <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Fuel Tank material
While I am waiting on the .25 angle alum engine mounts I started looking at where to install the fuel tank. I looked at JOHN fuel tank and knowing that I am not going to fly the distances he does decided on a smaller tanks. I am thinking of two tanks along the tail boom. I already snipped off the two little tubes who I guess are there for fabric covering. I am not sure how many gallons I will end up carrying at full load. But I am guessing 18 or so. I have not settled on exact dimensions so I can't yet even attempt a math solution. I can't remember from the old threads and sure don't know how to look them up, what kind of aluminum we used. I have some memory that it should be 5000 series but ain't sure. Any of you fabricators out there let me know what you used. I think either 6061 or 5000 are used for welding reasons. anyone has constructed the tanks the way I am thinking of doing it? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Tank material
Date: Feb 18, 2007
| I can't remember from the old threads and sure don't know how to look them up, what kind of aluminum we used. I have some memory that it should be 5000 series but ain't sure. Ron Mason ********************************************************* Ron: 5052 is the preferred material for fuel tanks, both aviation and marine. Very easy to use the archives. This url is at the bottom of all posts to the Kolb List: http://www.matronics.com/Navigator/?Kolb-List When you arrive there, go down the list to see what you want to do. Archives search engine will help me find those posts that are relative to what I am looking for if the author used a good subject. This is why it is important to keep a good subject line. Archives search engine is here: http://www.matronics.com/search/ On that page is says select search engine at the top of the page. Open the drop down menu and click on Kolb, or which list you want to search. Three lines down it says: Search String. Simply put in there what you are looking for. If you want to see what you have sent to the Kolb List, put your name in there. If you want to see what I sent to the List, put Hauck in there. If you want to pull up as much info as you can on fuel tanks, put fuel tank in the space. Then hit begin search, and you are on your way. Simple as pie. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Arizona Man <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Tank material
Thanks saw it there. next thing is the filler tube ain't seen it there. I need something like a car tube so I can get the gas into it. I swear last time I went through this I saw some outfit up in PHX that makes the whole thing for a reasonable price. Can't find them now. It would be nice to send the plans to someone and have the tanks come back ready to install. My Tig machine doesn't have AC so I can't weld aluminum. Ron (Arizona) ================= ---- planecrazzzy wrote: ============ Look in the ACS&S catolog....They explain it there...it's in the front part by the Aluminum stock..... Gotta Fly... Mike in MN -------- . . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Tank material
Arizona Man wrote: > > > Thanks saw it there. next thing is the filler tube ain't seen it there. > I need something like a car tube so I can get the gas into it. I swear > last time I went through this I saw some outfit up in PHX that makes the > whole thing for a reasonable price. Can't find them now. It would be > nice to send the plans to someone and have the tanks come back ready to > install. My Tig machine doesn't have AC so I can't weld aluminum. > > Ron (Arizona) snipped If you can fold up the AL to make a proper fitting box, you can pop rivet it & 'proseal' it shut. A 5 sided box with flanges for the 6th side makes it easy to rivet the box 'dry' & seal the seams/rivets, then put the last side on 'wet'. Closed end pop rivets are available but wouldn't be needed with proper technique. Most of the sealant makers make a sealant that is resistant to all the current auto fuel additives. BTW, someone mentioned 'sloshing compound'. Be very sure the entire tank is perfectly clean if you use it. Many homebuilders have had slosh begin to peal off in the tank, risking fuel pickup blockage. Experts think that this is caused when the slosh can't stick well to the not-perfectly-clean metal. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Whats in a name?
From: "Ralph Hoover" <flht99reh(at)columbus.rr.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2007
After continuing to see "Miss P'fer" as the name to John's Hauck's plane, I got to thinking. And that always becomes dangerous to a mind like mine. But the weather, being as it is here in Ohio, I thought It would be a fun thing to name your planes , as John has done. (We used to name our Harleys). John, I have no idea what is behind the name Miss Pfer, but it no doubt would be an interesting story. If you have, Not since I have been a reader of thsi site, so please bore the oldtimers and enlighten us newer drivers! And since I am waiting for a response, here are the names I have donned for others on this site, for their plane, based on their messages, locations, habits or what have you. And guys! Its all in fun. For John Houck, I would name his plane Plow-boy, Richard Pike would have his named Second Coming, Bob N. as Profound, Bill Vincent - Chill-Out, David Lehman Water-boy, Biglar -Get-er-done, Jack Carillon (not referring to size, but location) Blimp, Thom Riddle - Slide Rule and last but not least..........MIKE in MN......................Weldrod! And that dog of his......Oxcy.! Now come and beat me up! Oh-Hi -O Ralph Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-920#95920 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Tank material
Date: Feb 18, 2007
| BTW, someone mentioned 'sloshing compound'. Be very sure the entire tank | is perfectly clean if you use it. | | Charlie Charlie: I cleaned my 25 gal aluminum tank with a gal of mek. Sloshed it real good with the MEK before I sloshed it four times, once a day for four days. I used Randolph Avn/Auto Slosh and Seal, which is no longer available. It worked great for me, and after 15 years is still leak free. Fuel tank slosh sealer is very prominently used in my other hobby, antique tractors. These old fuel tanks are not nearly as easy to work with as nice clean aluminum. There are many brands out there that work well. We haven't had a tractor fall out of the sky and crash lately. ;-) A few important components of fuel system are: 1-a finger strainer fitting in the tank outlet. 2-a good tank vent on top of the tank, run out the bottom of the fuselage. 3-a sealed fuel filler cap. 4-Fitting top and bottom to connect a fuel sight gauge. If you mount the fuel tank up top behind the bulkhead, you can use a fuel sight gauge and not be bothered by electric gauges which are noted to malfunction. My old sight gauge is still operational. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?
Date: Feb 18, 2007
| John, I have no idea what is behind the name ?oMiss P?Tfer | Oh-Hi -O Ralph Ralph: Had a friend who had a pet turtle named T'fer, T fer turtle. Later on down the road, I found a tree frog, put him in a terrarium on the kitchen counter for my little boys to observe. His name was F'fer, F fer frog. When I built my my Ultrastar, it was named P'fer, P fer plane. The Firestar was named Cousin P'fer, because I watched an old aerobatic Stearman at Lakeland fly. Its name was Cousin Smoky, IIRC. When I built the mkIII, this airplane was more sophisticated than any of the other two. She was appropriately named Miss P'fer. She has been called all kinds of names. Mostly Miss Pifer. ;-) She is Miss P'fer, P fer plane. That is the end of my story. If I build another airplane I will name it Ernie after my last big old black male Bassett Hound. Why? Cause I liked Ernie a lot. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JRatcli256(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Subject: Re: Fuel tank Material
Charlie and all, Hadn't thought about riveting an aluminum tank and not welding. Then sealing compound. What's the consensus on this? May have to reconsider. John Ratcliffe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel tank Material
JRatcli256(at)aol.com wrote: > Charlie and all, > > Hadn't thought about riveting an aluminum tank and not welding. Then > sealing compound. > > What's the consensus on this? May have to reconsider. > > John Ratcliffe Works well for just about every all-metal homebuilt that uses leading edge wing tanks (also Boeing & various other commercial/military mfgrs). Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Hi All, Just got back from a Rotax repairman course. I would highly recommend taking the class. It puts facts and Myths into perspective and may keep someone from spending big bucks in the future from bad advise or poor repairs. There is lots of good information. You strip an engine down and reassemble it. They supply the books and cover all of the 912's systems. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-954#95954 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Gas Tank Study
From: "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net>
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Paul, I will be ordering a 912S this Summer. I hadn't really thought about the fabric / torque tubes but John's suggestion seems good. I'll figure out the cooler, etc. later. I attached some extra pictures of the tank and mounts. The cage is on its side for the final welding. I used 5052-H32 .06" thick for the tank. Rex Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-995#95995 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/02180006_small_805.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/02180005_small_298.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/02180004_small_131.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/02180003_small_120.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/02180002_small_864.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?
Have my Eugene Dietzen Microglide Decimal Trig Type Log Log SN 048057 from '41...MADE IN U.S.A. Also some made while teaching class in slide rule construction...one has five scales: top, slider, center, another slider, bottom scale. regards, Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ do not rchive ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?
At 12:51 PM 2/19/2007, Bob Noyer wrote: > >Have my Eugene Dietzen Microglide Decimal Trig Type Log Log SN >048057 from '41... Well, I'm a little younger I guess... alas, my Dad's good slide rule (c. 1948) was stolen from our car along with just about everything else my older sister was bringing back to college around 1970... so I have his "less good" one, and a newer plastic one. When I was in 8th grade (1972) it was the very last year that slide rule was taught, next year's class was required to buy those newfangled electronic calculators. 'Course the circular slide rule E6B was still in use when I learned to fly a couple of years later... -Dana -- -- Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Hi All, >From Eric Tucker at Kodiak/Rotax. The 912 came out in 1989 and the certified S came out in 1990. The original TBO was 600 hrs. Rotax currently produces 5k 912's a year. With a little more data they might go to 1800 hr. TBO. Business is booming worldwide for the Rotax. I recommend everyone that works on a Rotax engine take the class. Lots of good info. 1. If you built or changed your prop then you should get a Dynamic prop balance for the longevity of your gearbox. 2. The engine was set up to run better temps. and vibration smoothness at 4800-5200 rpm. 4700 and below usually run a little more temp, but more vibration, whether you feel it or not. I have heard of some guys that want to run the engine at 5500 rpm all the time, well yes it can, but you will pay more in excessive wear later. 3. Mufflers should have 5 liters volume for your Rotax 912uls/s to have a tuned exhaust. This is stated in the instalation manual. 4. Your 912 was set up to fly for up to 30 minutes at 75% power if you lose oil pressure. Yes, better to land, but not at the expense of crashing. Yes the engine will need some work if you go for the 75% at 30 min. Remember your cylinders are not water cooled, only the heads. 5. Water temp gauges are not needed if you are keeping you CHT's in limits. 6. Use only mineral spirits to clean you aluminum engine if it becomes necessary. If you use some types of cleaners and note that there are color changes then this is undesirable. 7. clean your carbs with only mineral spirits. No carb cleaners. They are too harsh. 8. No automotive wire connectors are supposed to be used. 9. Rotax would like to see an oil sample sent in to analysis lab once a year at annual. 10. Shock cooling a Rotax is not an issue while flying. Lots of data to support this. Just some tips and issues discussed at the Rotax class. If you haven't been, or you heard something from a friend or other mechanic then it is just hearsay or some other logic or experience from a different engine type. There have been quite a few items that have changed over the years and some of the old ideas do not apply to todays engines v.s. the 10-15 year old 912's. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'113#96113 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Hi Guys, Myth Bottom line for the ethanol/methanol is don't worry about it. It might rob a little power, but will not hurt a Rotax engine. Not all engines can say that, but Rotax can. The factory did test up to 5% because of places around the world that use it and that is why you see it printed in their manual, but just didn't test more. They can not test all variables from users from around the world. There are some places in the world that add up to 15-20%. There is nothing in the Rotax engine that comes in contact with fuel that this will bother. This comes fro Eric Tucker from the Rotax/Kodiak. He is the go to man for all engine issues of any kind including accident investigation, trouble shooting, maint. instruction and tech support. He has seen it all, more or less. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'114#96114 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Not all Rotax engines used in Kolbs are 4 strokes, yet based on this post and your previous post, you make everything sound all inclusive, but only refer to the 912, or the 912S, so could you clarify things a bit? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 5:24 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Class > > Hi Guys, > > Myth > > Bottom line for the ethanol/methanol is don't worry about it. It might rob > a little power, but will not hurt a Rotax engine. Not all engines can say > that, but Rotax can. The factory did test up to 5% because of places > around the world that use it and that is why you see it printed in their > manual, but just didn't test more. They can not test all variables from > users from around the world. There are some places in the world that add > up to 15-20%. There is nothing in the Rotax engine that comes in contact > with fuel that this will bother. This comes fro Eric Tucker from the > Rotax/Kodiak. He is the go to man for all engine issues of any kind > including accident investigation, trouble shooting, maint. instruction and > tech support. He has seen it all, more or less. > > -------- > Roger Lee > Tucson, Az. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'114#96114 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
Richard Wouldn't it be nice if Rotax saw the need for a smaller 4 stroke for us Air heads....... 8-) One that produced about 50 or 60 hp at half the weght of a 912 would be nice... 8-) Rotax already produces a ( 65 hp@7,000rpm) 4 stroke V-twin for Skidoo called the 4TEC V800 I wonder if they've considered it for aircraft use??? 8-) Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: richard(at)bcchapel.org To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 5:59 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Class Not all Rotax engines used in Kolbs are 4 strokes, yet based on this post and your previous post, you make everything sound all inclusive, but only refer to the 912, or the 912S, so could you clarify things a bit? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> To: Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 5:24 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Class > > Hi Guys, > > Myth > > Bottom line for the ethanol/methanol is don't worry about it. It might rob > a little power, but will not hurt a Rotax engine. Not all engines can say > that, but Rotax can. The factory did test up to 5% because of places > around the world that use it and that is why you see it printed in their > manual, but just didn't test more. They can not test all variables from > users from around the world. There are some places in the world that add > up to 15-20%. There is nothing in the Rotax engine that comes in contact > with fuel that this will bother. This comes fro Eric Tucker from the > Rotax/Kodiak. He is the go to man for all engine issues of any kind > including accident investigation, trouble shooting, maint. instruction and > tech support. He has seen it all, more or less. > > -------- > Roger Lee > Tucson, Az. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'114#96114 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. =0 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Hi Roger: Glad you got to go to 912 school. Paul Petty and I have had the opportunity to attend three of Eric's courses so far. | 1. If you built or changed your prop then you should get a Dynamic prop balance for the longevity of your gearbox. How come I have to get a dynamic prop balance if I fly a Warp Drive that is balanced? | 2. The engine was set up to run better temps. and vibration smoothness at 4800-5200 rpm. 4700 and below usually run a little more temp, but more vibration, whether you feel it or not. During the last 13 years and 2,500+ hours flight time with 912uls and 912ul, I have discovered temps tend to drop rapidly, not increase, below 5,000 rpm, especially the 912ul. I like flying 5000 to 5200 rpm normal cruise. The 912uls generates much more heat than the 912ul primarily because of increased compression ration and power output. The 912uls also rapidly cools below 5000 rpm. | | 4. Your 912 was set up to fly for up to 30 minutes at 75% power if you lose oil pressure. Yes, better to land, but not at the expense of crashing. Yes the engine will need some work if you go for the 75% at 30 min. Remember your cylinders are not water cooled, only the heads. Roger, check your notes on the above. I believe the engine will run for quite some time without coolant, if you come back on the power and keep the oil temp down. Engine oil does more cooling than water, including the head. The cylinders are aircooled. Yes, if you lose a water hose, keep on flying until you find a safe place to land. Now, if you lose oil pressue in a 912 series engine, you just bought yourself an engine. First thing to go is the crankshaft, and that only takes a few seconds when the oil pressure is gone. | | Just some tips and issues discussed at the Rotax class. If you haven't been, or you heard something from a friend or other mechanic then it is just hearsay or some other logic or experience from a different engine type. Don't think it is hearsay if the friend or mechanic has attended the 912 School and taken copius notes. Be sure and check you notes on the "loss of oil pressure and continued flight" statement. john h mkIII hauck's holler 912 mechanic 1st class. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?
At 09:37 PM 2/19/2007, John Hauck wrote: > >Did you know that Kolbs are not like any other aircraft? Kolbs are in >a class by themselves... Touche! > PPG's are those little things at Sun and Fun and Oshkosh that eat up >the best flying time during the day, while the ULs and light planes >sit on the ground. > >Guess if I didn't want to do anything but try and keep my suspension >lines straight and out of the prop, and make it nearly all the away >around the UL traffic pattern at Lakeland and OSH, I'd be chomping at >the bit to be a PPG guy... Fortunately I have no desire to fly a PPG at Oshkosh, why bother when you can take off from a baseball diamond?... they're more for buzzing around the fields at treetop level, or a long cruise along the beach. As I said I don't intend to quit PPG... but I'm sure I'll be flying the PPG a lot less once I get my Kolb airborne... :) -Dana -- -- If cars had followed the same developmental path as computers, a Rolls Royce would cost $100, get a million miles per gallon and explode once a year, killing everyone inside. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Hi John, 1. Prop balance, because all the components out there with the prop are not balanced and nuts and bolts don't always weigh the same. It needs to be balanced as a complete system, not just the prop. Everything from the mounting hub is not balanced. Talking to Warp Drive they said there props are within a couple of grams and add this to the other components and I think you might find it out farther than you might think. The only way to tell for sure is to get it checked with the proper tool. 2. The 912 standard and the 912 certified engine are pretty much the same engine. A quote fron Eric Tucker. Just more documented paperwork for the certification and one or two minor changes. There should be no difference in temps. unless it is just because two engines are running differently (i.e. fuel, oil, climate, ect.) 3. Sorry about the misprint on oil. It is in fact the coolant loss and the extended flight time. I had been up since 3 a.m. that day. Just to tired and blurry eyed. 4. Said nothing about anyone that had been to a Rotax class, only those who have never been and have tried to use info gleened from other engines, rumors (lots of those) or old time A&P's. The Rotax 912 is a different and better engine than some. Some of the notes have changed. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'200#96200 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Hi Richard, Sorry I was only talking about the 912 engine series. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'201#96201 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Hi Roger: | 2. The 912 standard and the 912 certified engine are pretty much the same engine. Agree with the above. The only difference in the two is parts are serial numbered and there is a paper trail to track the certified engine. They also get a longer run in at the factory than the uncertified version. | 4. The Rotax 912 is a different and better engine than some. I believe the beauty of the 912 series engines are not that they are different, but they are simple, 4 cyl flat opposed, overhead valve and push rod actuated. Liquid and oil cooled heads, air cooled cyls. When you get right down to it, they are great engines that perform well. Are extremely reliable and will continue to operate well beyond the current factory TBO. We pulled the gear box off my last engine, 912ULS, at 1200+ hours. There was not signs of wear on any component except one 50 cent thrust washer. This is with a 72" Warp Drive Prop and no dynamic balancing. So........if we can find a facility that will dynamically balance our prop, we are going to really be in business. When I sold my 912ULS it was producing the same power as it did the first day I flew it. When I spoke of operating temps in my previous post, I was not comparing certified with uncertified. I was comparing 912UL and 912ULS. I flew my 912UL and 912ULS, both for more than 1200 hours each. The 912UL does not produce nearly as much heat as the 912ULS. Both engines will not maintain proper CHT and engine oil temps below 4800-5000 rpm. That is the reason to quickly come off cruise power to bring the heat down should you lose coolant or water pump for some reason. I believe, with the increased use of the 912 series engines, as Eric Tucker told you, the factory TBO will be increased. When I started flying my first 912, TBO was 600 hours. The last engine was 1200. Would love to see 1500 or 1800 or more next time. Hope my new engine will give me the same performance and reliability that the last two did. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 20, 2007
... Bottom line for the ethanol/methanol is don't worry about it.... Roger, If alcohol is not an issue with Rotax engines, then why does Bing sell an optional seal, float, etc kit for Bing 64 carburetors used on 912 series engines? Thom in Buffalo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?
In a message dated 2/19/2007 9:38:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes: Hi Dana: Did you know that Kolbs are not like any other aircraft? Kolbs are in a class by themselves. They are special. They fly better, and satisfy my every aviating desire. That is why I fly them. Hi John, I agree, My Firefly on floats is unlike anything I has seen. It is a joy to fly and can be folded in minutes and transported to distant locations if you do not feel like flying that far. I can't think of anything that could replace it. BTW, his name is Puddle Buster. Named after Bryan Melborn's Poodle. Puddle Buster Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Feb 20, 2007
John H, The current TBO for the newer 912 series engine is already 1,500 hours, beginning with 4,404,718 on UL engines. Not sure which serial number on the ULS engines is the first w/ 1500 hour TBO. I think it will indeed be increased again sometime. We have only about 470 hours on our 912UL s/n 4,405,916 built in 2003 and it shows no signs of aging at all. GREAT engine but sure is expensive and getting more so with the US$ continuing to tank. Thom in Buffalo Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'234#96234 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 20, 2007
| The current TBO for the newer 912 series engine is already 1,500 hours, beginning with 4,404,718 on UL engines. | Thom in Buffalo Morning Thom: You are absolutely correct. My mistake. Yes, they are very expensive, but they perform and are the most reliable engine available. I'd rather spend the money and feel comfortable to enjoy my sport, than the alternative. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Hi to John and all other Kolbers who were friends of Az. Dave as Dave Pelletier was known. I talked with Dave's wife, Eve just the other day. She told me that the NTSB had finished the inspection of Dave's plane and found NO mechanical faults with it. I am sure we all knew this would be the result, but it is good to know the official results. The remains will come back up to Prescott to the Embry Riddle Aeronautical University for further inspections and tests. They have an aircraft "Accident" investigation course that recognized as world class. I am going to try to make MV again this year. Hope to see all of you there. The Az. Bald Eagle (George Thompson) From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:20 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Class > > > | The current TBO for the newer 912 series engine is already 1,500 > hours, beginning with 4,404,718 on UL engines. | Thom in Buffalo > > > Morning Thom: > > You are absolutely correct. My mistake. > > Yes, they are very expensive, but they perform and are the most > reliable engine available. I'd rather spend the money and feel > comfortable to enjoy my sport, than the alternative. > > john h > mkIII > > > -- > 1:44 PM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "hillstw" <hillstw(at)jhill.biz>
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Speaking of Rotax classes; who knows when and where upcoming 912 classes will be? Jimmy 912S ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Class > > Hi to John and all other Kolbers who were friends of Az. Dave as Dave > Pelletier was known. > I talked with Dave's wife, Eve just the other day. She told me that > the NTSB had finished the inspection of Dave's plane and found NO > mechanical faults with it. I am sure we all knew this would be the result, > but it is good to know the official results. The remains will come back up > to Prescott to the Embry Riddle Aeronautical University for further > inspections and tests. They have an aircraft "Accident" investigation > course that recognized as world class. > I am going to try to make MV again this year. Hope to see all of you > there. > The Az. Bald Eagle (George Thompson) > > > From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:20 AM > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Class > > >> >> >> | The current TBO for the newer 912 series engine is already 1,500 >> hours, beginning with 4,404,718 on UL engines. | Thom in Buffalo >> >> >> Morning Thom: >> >> You are absolutely correct. My mistake. >> >> Yes, they are very expensive, but they perform and are the most >> reliable engine available. I'd rather spend the money and feel >> comfortable to enjoy my sport, than the alternative. >> >> john h >> mkIII >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 1:44 PM >> >> > > > -- > 1:44 PM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Hi All, Eric Tucker mentioned that they were looking at the 1800 TBO. Hi Thom, I don't know about Bing, but only what Eric Tucker stated. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'351#96351 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
ATI PLANS ROTAX TRAINING CLASSES AT SUN 'N FUN Aero Technical Institute (ATI) will offer several Rotax engine training classes at the Sun 'n Fun Fly-in at Lakeland Florida in mid-April. A 4-stroke class will be held on April 17-18, and if that fills up, another will be offered April 22-23. A 2-stroke class will be held April 19-20. Also offered is a one-day class on 4-strokes on April 21. All classes are from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. at the Lockwood display in the new Sun 'n Fun Light Plane area (formerly Paradise City/Ultralight Area). Cost is $445 for advance registration and $545 if you register at the event. The one-day class is $295 before March 15, 2007, or $325 afterwards. To register, call 863-655-5100. For more information, visit _www.AeroTechnicalInstitute.com_ (http://www.AeroTechnicalInstitute.com) . steve


**************************************
Check out free AOL at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and much more. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Limited Range
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Kolb Friends - All the recent discussion on bigger fuel tanks for our Kolbs has just hit home for me. In flight planning for my first REAL cross-country trip, I am currently making plans for the upcoming Monument Valley trip in May. The cold, hard truth has suddenly become clear: ten gallons of fuel is proving to be quite limiting for me, especially in northwest New Mexico and the four-corners region, where we are hard-pressed to find airports within 200 miles of each other! Up to now, the stock 10 gallons of fuel in my Mark-III was adequate for local flying, and the occasional round-robin flights (usually under 100 miles) that always begin and end at my home airport. But now I'm finding that it's gonna take some real planning to hopscotch my way to Goulding's without running dry en route. At this point, I'm considering bringing an extra 5 gal gas can with me (full, of course) as emergency backup. In case I encounter unforcast headwinds that would cause me to burn up all my gas before reaching my destination, I'm thinking it would be better to land on a lonely dirt road and refill rather than land on that dirt road and be out of gas! John H is right - I'm already thinking about options for more fuel capacity. Dennis Kirby Mark-III, 912ul, and only 200 miles of range, in Cedar Crest, NM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Subject: Re: Limited Range
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Can you land on a lonely dirt road next to a gas station? Jim N. Idaho > > > . . .I'm thinking it would be better to land on a lonely dirt > road and refill rather than land on that dirt road and be out of gas! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: Limited Range
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Dennis, These look neat. I haven't used one or talked with anyone who has but I'm trying to figure out a good excuse to try one. http://www.imtra.com/downloadtypes/nauta_brochure.pdf Maybe someone knows something about these. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kfackler" <kfackler(at)ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Limited Range
Date: Feb 20, 2007
> Can you land on a lonely dirt road next to a gas station? Let me share a story about that, if I may. I wasn't flying a Kolb at the time, but anyone who flies anything might learn from this. I found myself running short of fuel and happened to spot just what you described, a gas station on a lonely road. And it had a large open area right next to it. I mean, it looked so good that I could practically taxi to the gas pump from that area, so down I went. What I couldn't tell from altitude (and was too green a pilot to analyze) was that this spot was an access point for heavy trucks going into and out of a construction area nearby. There had been some rain a few days previously and these big trucks had rutted the area badly. And I mean HUGE. The landing nearly beat me to pieces, not fun. But I got down okay, got my gas, and got ready to leave. By now, as is usual with these birds, I'd drawn quite a crowd. After dispensing with the usual questions (how fast, how high, do you need a license) I managed to get my bird cranked and turned to depart. This is when I made the biggest mistake of all up to this point. I failed to walk the spanI planned to takeoff from. The ruts were unbelievable and I was actually bounced into the air, VERY hard, before the plane was quite ready to fly. I managed to get the nose down and caught it before smashing back down and established my climb. After a few minutes of letting the nerves settle, I thought, "Man, that was one rough landing and takeoff. I sure hope this bird is holding together." So I began a visual scan. Wings okay, tail okay, right main okay. Left main? Left main? Gone! Yeah, that last bump literally ripped the main gear and gear leg off the airplane. I had the 'pleasure' then of completing the flight to my home field wondering just how badly I was going to be mauled when I crashed this thing on two wheels. I'd actually seen a two wheel landing done once, when a guy's wheel just fell off as he rolled down the runway. (Rushed his pre-flight it turned out and forgot the safety pin.) So I knew the technique, which is to land real soft, wait for the wing on the damaged side to start to drop, then give it all the opposite inputs you've got. I had to buzz the runway several times to get the attention of my buddies (no radios in use back then) and they cleared all the parked airplanes out of my way. I got it down with no additional damage other than to my already frazzled nerves, but it was probably way more luck than skill. I was even able to drive back to the gas station and retrieve the gear assembly and later put it back on the plane. Again, dumb (and I mean dumb) luck. But the lesson is, I hope, all too obvious. Landing where you don't know the ground truth is risky. And always walk your takeoff run at a strange location. -Ken Fackler Kolb Mark II / N722KM Rochester MI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillUribe(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Subject: Re: Limited Range
Up to now, the stock 10 gallons of fuel in my Mark-III was adequate for local flying, and the occasional round-robin flights (usually under 100 miles) that always begin and end at my home airport. But now I'm finding that it's gonna take some real planning to hopscotch my way to Goulding's without running dry en route. Hi Dennis, This is how I would do it. Take Albuquerque to Milan Grants airport following I-40 79.7 miles. Milan Grants airport to Gallup 58.9 miles following I-40 Gallup west over I-40 to Chambers 36.8 miles then north via 191 to Chinle 83.1 miles. Fuel up at Chinle with the 5 gal tank I carry in the jump seat and head on into MV. Simple Will Uribe El Paso, TX but working in Arlington, TX FireStar II N4GU _http://www.members.aol.com/willuribe/mv/_ (http://www.members.aol.com/willuribe/mv/)


**************************************
Check out free AOL at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and much more. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Class
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Hi Guys, If you have the choice take the 3 day class. There is way too much stuff to cover in one day. It took all three days. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'434#96434 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Limited Range
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2007
I tried a 5 gal. can in the other seat with a facet pump. It was in the way and could not carry passengers or luggage. The Imtra 6 gal. fuel bladder works very well. I had a seperate facet pump and fuel shut off to it and it pumped into my main tanks so I could read the level on my EIS. I mounted it jsut behind the main fuel tanks. I was very happy with it and I had 3.5 hours of run time. It wa easy to fill with airport fuel trucks, also. Some of the guys saw it last year at MV. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'435#96435 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Limited Range
Date: Feb 21, 2007
Dennis I have a aux fuel system that has served me well for a number of years in my MKIIIc. I bought a cheap 6.5 gallon gas can that I attached a faucet pump to. The pump has a cigarette lighter style plug wired to it. I have a self sealing quick connect plug on the output line from the pump that I connect to its mate which fills my two five gallon tanks when flying cross country. When I get a few gallons down on my 5 gallon tanks I plug in the pump and transfer fuel. I like to keep my main tanks near full so if there are any problems with the fuel transfer process I can adjust my flight plan while I still have fuel. So far no problems other than over filling and venting fuel once or twice. This set up gives me almost four hours flying time with half hour reserve. Most of my flying is close to home so the aux system works best for me. If I had a larger main tank I would be carrying allot of extra fuel and weight that I wouldn't use or would have to worry about condensation from running with a half empty tank most of the time. Someone mentioned that they couldn't put luggage in the passenger seat with their set up but that hasn't been a problem for me. I pack a tent, cot, folding chair, sleeping bag, tie downs, brief case sized flight bag and a few other items in the passenger seat with my tank. The tent, cot, tie downs, and the chair go behind the tank and then are all seat belted into place. Again the information is worth what you paid for it. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Limited Range > > > > Kolb Friends - > > All the recent discussion on bigger fuel tanks for our Kolbs has just > hit home for me. In flight planning for my first REAL cross-country > trip, I am currently making plans for the upcoming Monument Valley trip > in May. > > The cold, hard truth has suddenly become clear: ten gallons of fuel is > proving to be quite limiting for me, especially in northwest New Mexico > and the four-corners region, where we are hard-pressed to find airports > within 200 miles of each other! > > Up to now, the stock 10 gallons of fuel in my Mark-III was adequate for > local flying, and the occasional round-robin flights (usually under 100 > miles) that always begin and end at my home airport. But now I'm > finding that it's gonna take some real planning to hopscotch my way to > Goulding's without running dry en route. > > At this point, I'm considering bringing an extra 5 gal gas can with me > (full, of course) as emergency backup. In case I encounter unforcast > headwinds that would cause me to burn up all my gas before reaching my > destination, I'm thinking it would be better to land on a lonely dirt > road and refill rather than land on that dirt road and be out of gas! > > John H is right - I'm already thinking about options for more fuel > capacity. > > Dennis Kirby > Mark-III, 912ul, and only 200 miles of range, in > Cedar Crest, NM > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chris Wolf <cwolf41(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Update on AZ Dave
Date: Feb 21, 2007
> > > George T: > >Thanks for the update on AZ Dave. Glad it was not a mechanical >problem, and wish it had not been a piloting problem. What is the update on AZ Dave? This is the first message I've seen. Did I miss something earlier? Chris Wolf cwolf41(at)comcast.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chris Wolf <cwolf41(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Update on AZ Dave
Date: Feb 21, 2007
> > | What is the update on AZ Dave? | >| Chris Wolf > > >Chris: > >I did the leg work for you. > >http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=60301674?KEYS=george_thompson?LISTNAME=Kolb?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=08560112529?SHOWBUTTONS=YES > >john h >mkIII Thanks very much, John. So the NTSB found no mechanical problems. I guess that means we'll probably never know for sure what really happened. All we know for sure is that two pilots, with over forty years of flying experience between them, crashed and died while doing touch and goes on a beautiful Monday morning. Eve lost her husband, and I lost my best friend. Chris Wolf cwolf41(at)comcast.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Fawcett" <flysurveyor(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb Mark III Xtra for sale
Date: Feb 21, 2007
I'm selling my Kolb Mark III Xtra. It needs engine, covering & instruments. See my ad in Barnstormers.com http://barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=search&PHPSESSID=4bfbd52bc96bd9634226b2aa60ed613d Jack Fawcett Trinidad, CA 707-490-6182 _________________________________________________________________ The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 21, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Long range tank
Pretty much as detailed by Planecrazzy. A common boat tank, a Facet pump and some connections. Holds almost seven gallons giving my Mk3 about three hours range and a twenty minute reserve with 17 gallons total. Rick -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Picture taken from a Kolb
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 21, 2007
Bill, the photos are great. Here are a couple of Winter in Texas photos I took today while out flying. (It only got to 78 degrees today) -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'594#96594 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0577_171.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0567_140.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net>
Subject: cuyunna
Date: Feb 22, 2007
just in case someone needs it, I have a whole 430 cuyunna engine available. It has been run but I do not know much about the history. I have had it for about five years or so in my hanger. It was to be used on a mini max so I have the reversed fan for it also. I have numerous parts, mufflers, etc. if anyone would be interested. I have no doubt this would run well. I also have two brand new mukini carbs. Ted Cowan, Alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before overhaul
From: "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2007
My Kolb Firestar has 180 hours on the engine. Everything seems to be running fine. I have full instruments and have never noticed any deviation from normal temp. I've been told that I should have the engine sent back to CPS for a 150 hour inspection. Is this recommended? What are most of you pilots doing? Thanks. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'676#96676 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before overhaul
John, First take the exhaust manifold off and take a look at the cylinders and pistons. If there's no evidence of seizure or excessive carbon buildup, fly on. This will only cost a couple of bucks for new gaskets. This will tell you everything you need to know without doing a teardown and splitting the cases. Rick On 2/22/07, John H Murphy wrote: > > > My Kolb Firestar has 180 hours on the engine. Everything seems to be > running fine. I have full instruments and have never noticed any deviation > from normal temp. I've been told that I should have the engine sent back to > CPS for a 150 hour inspection. Is this recommended? What are most of you > pilots doing? Thanks. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'676#96676 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before overhaul
From: "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2007
Have the engine never been decarboned? Rotax recommends that it be inspected every 50 hours and decarboned as needed. I decarbon mine at 100 hours and I have never been able to detect a ring that is stuck on the end by checking it through the exhaust port. I have never failed to find a stuck oil ring at 100 hours. My engines have always run good with stuck oil rings, I just don't want to push it too far. My last 100 hours was with Pennsoil Air cooled, injected, and even that didn't help. Here is my best advise: If you do choose to not decarbon, at least stop flying when the engine gets difficult to start. I believe that is the engines last call for help, and the next thing it will do is quit on you. Just my opinion, after 18 years of flying Rotax two cycles. -------- John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'688#96688 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before overhaul
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2007
I had 147 hours on the 447 and it had a good amount of carbon. I'm glad I decided to decarbon it. The rings were free and It would have been OK for a while longer. I run Pennsoil for air cooled engines at 50:1 premix. After I had decarboned it I noticed some oil dripping from the front of the engine and I had to remove the engine and replace the oil seals. I did this at about 160 hours. Here is how it looked before I did any decarboning. Looking at the rings from the exhaust port always looks good. If it looks bad then it is probably really, really, bad. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'700#96700 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc01960_364.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove
rhaul Scott, I've got about 460 hours on my 447 and it's never been overhauled. I've looked at the pistons and cylinder walls through the exhaust port and it's very clean with no carbon. I attribute that to the synthetic oil I use. My first engine had about the same hours and it looked just as good. I don't plan on doing anything for at least another 200 hours. Of course I fly at 5000 RPM which should be prime for carboning up. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar, 447 20 years flying it -- "olendorf" wrote: I had 147 hours on the 447 and it had a good amount of carbon. I'm glad I decided to decarbon it. The rings were free and It would have been OK for a while longer. I run Pennsoil for air cooled engines at 50:1 premix. After I had decarboned it I noticed some oil dripping from the front of the engine and I had to remove the engine and replace the oil seals. I did this at about 160 hours. Here is how it looked before I did any decarboning. Looking at the rings from the exhaust port always looks good. If it looks bad then it is probably really, really, bad. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'700#96700 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc01960_364.jpg ________________________________________________________________________ FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again! http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before overhaul
From: "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2007
Hi Guys, Aren't Rotax air cooled 2 strokes supposed to be overhauled at 300 hrs.? -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'782#96782 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Number of hours on engine before overhaul
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
And that SYNTHETIC OIL would Be???? 8-) Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com Sent: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul Scott, I've got about 460 hours on my 447 and it's never been overhauled. I've looked at the pistons and cylinder walls through the exhaust port and it's very clean with no carbon. I attribute that to the synthetic oil I use. My first engine had about the same hours and it looked just as good. I don't plan on doing anything for at least another 200 hours. Of course I fly at 5000 RPM which should be prime for carboning up. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar, 447 20 years flying it -- "olendorf" wrote: I had 147 hours on the 447 and it had a good amount of carbon. I'm glad I decided to decarbon it. The rings were free and It would have been OK for a while longer. I run Pennsoil for air cooled engines at 50:1 premix. After I had decarboned it I noticed some oil dripping from the front of the engine and I had to remove the engine and replace the oil seals. I did this at about 160 hours. Here is how it looked before I did any decarboning. Looking at the rings from the exhaust port always looks good. If it looks bad then it is probably really, really, bad. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'700#96700 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc01960_364.jpg ________________________________________________________________________ FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again! http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752 ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before overhaul
From: "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2007
I should have mentioned that I have a Rotax 503, with Dual carb & ignition. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'816#96816 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Fawcett" <flysurveyor(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb Mark III Xtra Wings & fuselage for sale
Date: Feb 22, 2007
Fellow Kolbers, It's painful, but I have to sell my kit... The wings & flaperons & tail surfaces are done. The powder coated fuselage is on the steel gear with obrien brakes. Tail boom in. Dual controls & seats are in. Floorpan & instrument pod is done. It needs covering, instruments & engine. Wings & tail surfaces had been aligned & attached. Now they're off ready for cover. See at Barnstormers.com Search for Kolb Mark III xtra Retiring & just not enough money to finish & make house payments too. $7500 Jack Fawcett Trinidad, CA _________________________________________________________________ The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: crash
Date: Feb 23, 2007
<< they pulled an Ultra-lite and its pilot out of a tree near us last week. Plane was shot but the pilot was saved. Makes running into a barn look better!>> Hi All, my mate who lives in Raleigh. NC sent me this last night. Anyone know any details? Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: JOHN WILLIAMSONS PICTURES
Date: Feb 23, 2007
It's neat to see a Kolb flying at night. >> Hi all, is this another freedom that you have that we don`t ?. Its illegal here to fly after sunset. I have flown in the dark once in my old Thruster. I was cuaght out by a bank of cloud which covered the west. The sun went behind it and never came out again and it got dark about an hour before time. I picked my way along a road, following car lights, getting lower and lower to try to hang on to the ground. Pinpointed my position at a motorway intersection and then launched across a valley with no road, towns or lights guided only by the lights of Bath University on a hill 5 miles away and Bath itself about 7 miles away to my right. It was great. Like being Dracula out for a night trip. I picked up a couple of car headlights under me as they drove up a hill through woods and then saw a light patch of earth which I remembered had just been harvested. I dropped into the field, swinging violently around a large tree which I could only see as I got low enough to catch it against the skyline. I sat in the plane getting my breath back and a figure loomed out of the darkness. "Why didn`t you land in thic girt field over thur?. I didnt` like to say `Because I couldn`t see it ` The farmer gave me a lift home, and the next afternoon with a mate and a couple of farm hands we lifted the Thruster over a barbed wire fence into the large field from which I took off and flew back to my home field about 3 miles away. Very exciting. By the way `thic girt` means `that large` in my home dialect of Wiltshire. Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: Mike Schnabel <tnfirestar2(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: crash
Appears to have been a Powered Parachute... http://www.newsobserver.com/158/story/544888.html pat ladd wrote: << they pulled an Ultra-lite and its pilot out of a tree near us last week. Plane was shot but the pilot was saved. Makes running into a barn look better!>> Hi All, my mate who lives in Raleigh. NC sent me this last night. Anyone know any details? Cheers Pat --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: crash
From: "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Pat et al: Might be this one. Occurred on 19 Feb. http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=255196 -------- George Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'829#96829 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Number of hours on engine before overhaul
Klotz KL216 50:1 mix. Ralph -- knowvne(at)aol.com wrote: And that SYNTHETIC OIL would Be???? 8-) Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com Sent: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul Scott, I've got about 460 hours on my 447 and it's never been overhauled. I've looked at the pistons and cylinder walls through the exhaust port and it's very clean with no carbon. I attribute that to the synthetic oil I use. My first engine had about the same hours and it looked just as good. I don't plan on doing anything for at least another 200 hours. Of course I fly at 5000 RPM which should be prime for carboning up. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar, 447 20 years flying it -- "olendorf" wrote: I had 147 hours on the 447 and it had a good amount of carbon. I'm glad I decided to decarbon it. The rings were free and It would have been OK for a while longer. I run Pennsoil for air cooled engines at 50:1 premix. After I had decarboned it I noticed some oil dripping from the front of the engine and I had to remove the engine and replace the oil seals. I did this at about 160 hours. Here is how it looked before I did any decarboning. Looking at the rings from the exhaust port always looks good. If it looks bad then it is probably really, really, bad. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'700#96700 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc01960_364.jpg ______________________________________________________________________ __ FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again! http://track.juno.com/s/lc? s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.p d?c=uol5752 ______________________________________________________________________ __ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ________________________________________________________________________ FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again! http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Yeah I wish mine didn't carbon up. I'm very comfortable with the Pennzoil so I'll stick with it. I can get it locally so that makes it easy. I don't mind taking the engine apart every so often and looking around. Gives me a chance to inspect everything, clean and paint where necessary. I would have had to pull it off to replace the oil seals even if I decided not to decarbon. Once it's off you might as well decarbon it. Maybe if I had to send my engine off and pay $500 I would think differently. Everyone has to determine what is best for them for the oil they use and how they run the engine. As long as the decision isn't "I don't know what to do or how to do it so I'll do nothing and assume it is ok because someone else got 600 hours on their engine" There is a guy near me that has had trouble with a 503 and all he knew how to do was change spark plugs so he changed them twice in one week because of hard starting. Turns out the engine needed a decarbon bad. He had about 280 hours on it. Sold the engine, bought a 582 because it was easier for him than taking the engine apart and decarboning it. $80 in gaskets vs. $4000-5000 and without a plane for 6 months while installing a new engine. I'll go the $80 route. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'841#96841 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Beauford T" <beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Brother Olendorf... Carbon encrusted 447's have a special place in my life.... I still awaken abruptly in the middle of the night, drenched in a cold sweat, having dreampt of a glacier-like flow of the stuff oozing up from under my Simmons to silently overtake and smother me and my VISA card in our sleep... Short version... I have a 447... it ran fine for 88 hours...clean as a whistle... than it began to produce carbon... slowly at first, then with increasing speed... There ensued an endless cycle of decarbonings, fiddling with carbueration, etc... which ultimately ended in ring seizure from the excess carbon and a number of out-of-wallet experiences over at Castle Lockwood with new pistons installed... The goons wearing the black hoods and a light coat of oil over there eventually diagnosed the problem which brought me to ruin... it was the gradual deterioration of the rubber seat at the base of the choke (or enrichment circuit for you purists out there) piston in the Bing 54. Over time this condition permitted the flow of increasing amounts of raw gas onto the Rotax...much as if the choke were gradually being applied, more with each passing hour. The result was carbon... cubic yards of carbon.... And the insidious part of this is that the choke piston appears to be fully seated while this process is taking place. The only way to detect it is to remove the part and carefully examine the rubber seal installed up under the base of the piston to see if it has shrunk up and is no longer capable of sealing the choke metering seat. Midway in the process, my piston crowns had developed carbon which precisely matches what your photo shows... Heinrich, the Chief Rotaxman at the Castle, assured me that there was absolutely no reason for a normal 447 to make that much carbon on the pistons if the fuels were being mixed to 50:1 specification and the Pennzoil air cooled was being used. I would suggest that you take the time to check the condition of your choke piston before pursuing other, more arcane theories about where the carbon is originating.... Worth what ye paid fer it.... Beauford of Brandon FF #076 (still waiting for the stinking BRS...) ----- Original Message ----- From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul > > Yeah I wish mine didn't carbon up. I'm very comfortable with the Pennzoil > so I'll stick with it. I can get it locally so that makes it easy. I > don't mind taking the engine apart every so often and looking around. > Gives me a chance to inspect everything, clean and paint where necessary. > I would have had to pull it off to replace the oil seals even if I decided > not to decarbon. Once it's off you might as well decarbon it. Maybe if I > had to send my engine off and pay $500 I would think differently. > > Everyone has to determine what is best for them for the oil they use and > how they run the engine. As long as the decision isn't "I don't know what > to do or how to do it so I'll do nothing and assume it is ok because > someone else got 600 hours on their engine" > > There is a guy near me that has had trouble with a 503 and all he knew how > to do was change spark plugs so he changed them twice in one week because > of hard starting. Turns out the engine needed a decarbon bad. He had > about 280 hours on it. Sold the engine, bought a 582 because it was > easier for him than taking the engine apart and decarboning it. $80 in > gaskets vs. $4000-5000 and without a plane for 6 months while installing a > new engine. I'll go the $80 route. > > -------- > Scott Olendorf > Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop > Schenectady, NY > http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'841#96841 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Now that's some good info beauford, brother, or maybe even dad [Shocked] Maybe I have the same condition. I did recently have the plunger out while changing the grommet and it looked ok at that point but I wasn't inspecting it, per say. Maybe I'm just running too rich. I actually try to run it as lean as a can. At 5800 rpm I shoot for 1150 egt. You never really know with these things. I check the plugs every 20 hours and they seem fine. I'll just keep an eye on it. I wasn't actually worried about it. I just wanted folks to see what things could look like after 150 hours. In my opinion at 150 hours the heads should at least be pulled off to look. This isn't that hard to do. Leave the intake and exhaust manifolds on, pull the heads off, admire your clean pistons, flip the head gaskets over and torque the heads down. It usually boils down to people not wanting to do anything then looking for lots of reassurance that it will be ok to ignore. Like with cars, it really burns my britches when people have a Check Engine light come on in their cars. They ALWAYS ask "how do I turn that light off?" That light is on to tell you something is WRONG and they don't want to fix it they just want the damn light off. ARRRRRG. I wonder if these same people get serious anal bleeding and think OH MY GOD, how am I going to get these stains out? Ha, I crack myself up. Oh well you picked a bad day to prompt me to respond. [Twisted Evil] -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'853#96853 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove
rhaul
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
GREAT! TIP Well worth the price 8-) Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:05 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul Brother Olendorf... Carbon encrusted 447's have a special place in my life.... I still awaken abruptly in the middle of the night, drenched in a cold sweat, having dreampt of a glacier-like flow of the stuff oozing up from under my Simmons to silently overtake and smother me and my VISA card in our sleep... Short version... I have a 447... it ran fine for 88 hours...clean as a whistle... than it began to produce carbon... slowly at first, then with increasing speed... There ensued an endless cycle of decarbonings, fiddling with carbueration, etc... which ultimately ended in ring seizure from the excess carbon and a number of out-of-wallet experiences over at Castle Lockwood with new pistons installed... The goons wearing the black hoods and a light coat of oil over there eventually diagnosed the problem which brought me to ruin... it was the gradual deterioration of the rubber seat at the base of the choke (or enrichment circuit for you purists out there) piston in the Bing 54. Over time this condition permitted the flow of increasing amounts of raw gas onto the Rotax...much as if the choke were gradually being applied, more with each passing hour. The result was carbon... cubic yards of carbon.... And the insidious part of this is that the choke piston appears to be fully seated while this process is taking place. The only way to detect it is to remove the part and carefully examine the rubber seal installed up under the base of the piston to see if it has shrunk up and is no longer capable of sealing the choke metering seat. Midway in the process, my piston crowns had developed carbon which precisely matches what your photo shows... Heinrich, the Chief Rotaxman at the Castle, assured me that there was absolutely no reason for a normal 447 to make that much carbon on the pistons if the fuels were being mixed to 50:1 specification and the Pennzoil air cooled was being used. I would suggest that you take the time to check the condition of your choke piston before pursuing other, more arcane theories about where the carbon is originating.... Worth what ye paid fer it.... Beauford of Brandon FF #076 (still waiting for the stinking BRS...) ----- Original Message ----- From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> To: Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine before ove rhaul > > Yeah I wish mine didn't carbon up. I'm very comfortable with the Pennzoil > so I'll stick with it. I can get it locally so that makes it easy. I > don't mind taking the engine apart every so often and looking around. > Gives me a chance to inspect everything, clean and paint where necessary. > I would have had to pull it off to replace the oil seals even if I decided > not to decarbon. Once it's off you might as well decarbon it. Maybe if I > had to send my engine off and pay $500 I would think differently. > > Everyone has to determine what is best for them for the oil they use and > how they run the engine. As long as the decision isn't "I don't know what > to do or how to do it so I'll do nothing and assume it is ok because > someone else got 600 hours on their engine" > > There is a guy near me that has had trouble with a 503 and all he knew how > to do was change spark plugs so he changed them twice in one week because > of hard starting. Turns out the engine needed a decarbon bad. He had > about 280 hours on it. Sold the engine, bought a 582 because it was > easier for him than taking the engine apart and decarboning it. $80 in > gaskets vs. $4000-5000 and without a plane for 6 months while installing a > new engine. I'll go the $80 route. > > -------- > Scott Olendorf > Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop > Schenectady, NY > http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'841#96841 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. =0 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'881#96881 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
I have twice... First time there was a piece of something in the carb. bowl on my 503 and it blocked my fuel flow, landed in a field... Second time, my belt drive shaft broke and the prop fell off, landed in a field... Oops, guess that really isn't an engine out, more like a prop out... DVD On 2/23/07, John H Murphy wrote: > > > Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
At 12:29 PM 2/23/2007, John H Murphy wrote: > >Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? Twice in my Taylorcraft (one total, valve seat came loose, one partial, contaminated fuel)... got down OK both times. We won't count the number of times in the PPG where it's generally a non event. The previous owner of my Ultrastar had one, when the diaphragm in a replacement fuel pump was bad from the start... he put it down on the runway but broke a landing gear leg. -Dana -- -- But, Officer, a broadsword is hardly a concealed weapon! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
3 engine outs for me. The first two was a loose wire attached to the coil on my 377. The 377 had been converted to CDI. The third was on my brand spanking new 447. With 4 hours on the engine I was flying the pattern and the engine just stopped. It was a bad CDI unit. The unit passed all diagnostic tests using an OHM meter but it didn't work. -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'888#96888 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Shimei" <mshimei(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax engine - Number of hours on engine
Date: Feb 23, 2007
My friend has a Firefly with 525 hours on a 447, Never de-carboned,starts after a few revs,and uses about 2.5 GPH just cruising around.He bought the engine new and flew this time in 3 =BD yrs. Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "blackbird" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
I have had 5 engine outs in the last 10 years of flying Rotax engines....all were on a 532 with all of the mods....including aftermarket CDI....but single ignition.. Kolbra will have DUAL ignition... All were due to the CDI unit failing.......Never tore the aircraft up....but....IT certainly gives a new meaning to situational awareness.... Pickup coil failed.....Internal wire on the winding broke.....I'm one of them who would take the time to literally unwind it....LOL Wayne McCullough Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'898#96898 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
My engine quit 5 minutes into a 130 mile XC flight (not in a Kolb) and I landed safely at a theme park. It turns out corrosion had been shaving material off the plastic follower on the points until it quit. Replaced parts and took off 4 hours later and completed the XC. I sorta had one in my Kolb (self-induced). I ground-adjusted the prop to reduce max RPM and did not tighten down the center hub enough. It went to low rpm and would only get to 3000 rpm (not nearly enough for SAL). Fortunately I was in the pattern and had just turned downwind after taking off so made a landing in the opposite direction that I had just taken off. I have also had several power losses all within 5 miles of my home field. In each case I was able to limp back to the field. I finally figured out the problem. It appears engine failures are quite common in ultralights. Of the 4 of us that fly ULs at my home field, we had 5 engines quite cold in a 30-day period at the end of last Summer. So far, we only know what caused 3 of them. > > Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
Only one so far when the valve in the primer bulb decided it was time to break loose. Fortunately it chose four feet off the runway and it was all a non event although at the time it was exciting. Had it occured the day before when I was cruising down the Arkansas River at 100 feet it would have been a different story. The 582 was undamaged and continues on. Rick On 2/23/07, blackbird wrote: > > > I have had 5 engine outs in the last 10 years of flying Rotax > engines....all were on a 532 with all of the mods....including aftermarket > CDI....but single ignition.. > > Kolbra will have DUAL ignition... > > All were due to the CDI unit failing.......Never tore the aircraft > up....but....IT certainly gives a new meaning to situational awareness.... > > Pickup coil failed.....Internal wire on the winding broke.....I'm one of > them who would take the time to literally unwind it....LOL > > > Wayne McCullough > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'898#96898 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
I forgot about the one in my Experimental. Engine quite < 300' AGL due to fuel starvation after my first T&G in the CompAir-4HP I had just purchased. I lowered the nose and turned back towards the field and the engine restarted (lucky for me, because I had no where to go except into trees). Corrected the fuel & vent design modifications the builder made and it runs great now. > My engine quit 5 minutes into a 130 mile XC flight (not in a Kolb) and I > landed safely at a theme park. It turns out corrosion had been shaving > material off the plastic follower on the points until it quit. Replaced > parts and took off 4 hours later and completed the XC. > > I sorta had one in my Kolb (self-induced). I ground-adjusted the prop to > reduce max RPM and did not tighten down the center hub enough. It went to > low rpm and would only get to 3000 rpm (not nearly enough for SAL). > Fortunately I was in the pattern and had just turned downwind after taking > off so made a landing in the opposite direction that I had just taken off. > > I have also had several power losses all within 5 miles of my home field. > In each case I was able to limp back to the field. I finally figured out > the problem. > > It appears engine failures are quite common in ultralights. Of the 4 of > us that fly ULs at my home field, we had 5 engines quite cold in a 30-day > period at the end of last Summer. So far, we only know what caused 3 of > them. > >> >> Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
We won't count the number of times in the PPG where it's generally a non event. Non event provided your not down wind of your LZ 8-) It's 6:1 glide don't get ya real far in a head wind ...8-( And them down wind landings when a Thermal pops cant be too healthy either.... The only real thing ya got going for you is your Very Portable and carry along a Huge Hanky every time you fly..... It's used to wipe up the mess you leave when your Canopy Collapses too close to the deck..... 8-( Dana Flying a wing that's prone to collapse is Not for the Birds... 8-) HAHAHAHAHA 20 years in the soaring sports makes one appreciate a wing with bones... Flying fish not Jelly fish 8-) Mark ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: crash
Date: Feb 23, 2007
thanks Mike Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: knowvne(at)aol.com
You guys need to take up GOLF 8-) hahahha Mark Vaughn -----Original Message----- From: jim@tru-cast.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Who has had an engine out in flight? My engine quit 5 minutes into a 130 mile XC flight (not in a Kolb) and I landed safely at a theme park. It turns out corrosion had been shaving material off the plastic follower on the points until it quit. Replaced parts and took off 4 hours later and completed the XC. I sorta had one in my Kolb (self-induced). I ground-adjusted the prop to reduce max RPM and did not tighten down the center hub enough. It went to low rpm and would only get to 3000 rpm (not nearly enough for SAL). Fortunately I was in the pattern and had just turned downwind after taking off so made a landing in the opposite direction that I had just taken off. I have also had several power losses all within 5 miles of my home field. In each case I was able to limp back to the field. I finally figured out the problem. It appears engine failures are quite common in ultralights. Of the 4 of us that fly ULs at my home field, we had 5 engines quite cold in a 30-day period at the end of last Summer. So far, we only know what caused 3 of them. > > Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? ________________________________________________________________________ across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
I have been flying Kolbs for the last 11 years with a 377 and then a 503. No engine outs. In the 8 years before that, I had two engine outs. Both with engines that someone else had rebuilt. I prefer engines that are either new, or that I have seen the inside of. -------- John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'924#96924 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Jack, your logs are great. such detail. You should put them all online. I would spend all day reading them. Mine are more like: "saw hot air ballon." "Very smooth air." I want to know more about this: "June 25, 2001 Flight 144 - 3 minutes, 57:36 tt. Tried the aluminum foil and acrylic glue on the axles and it seemed to work" -------- Scott Olendorf Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop Schenectady, NY http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'931#96931 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
Date: Feb 23, 2007
At least with certificated US made engines, it's a VERY rare occurrence . I've had two, in 4800 hours -- a Continental 0-300 that was 40 years old, swallowed a valve. Apparently the LL fuel can cause this. Got to an airport. Second was a very low-time Lycoming 0-380 A1A, an engine with a bulletproof reputation. Oil leak we couldn't duplicate on the ground. Make it to a nursery (trees, not kids) Any engine can quit. Do everything you can to avoid this (how obvious is that??) by following the manufacturer's instructions & using only best quality fluids. IMHO On Feb 23, 2007, at 12:29 PM, John H Murphy wrote: > > Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'881#96881 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Clyde Poser runs an Authorized Rotax repair station near Puyallup WA (he is also a DAR for trike/fixed wing LSA). He told me he has seen lots of used Rotaxes that the new owner was told were in great condition prior to purchase. The new owner buys them and they crap out shortly thereafter. If you can't buy new, his recommendation is to by a runout engine and have it rebuilt. That way you know what you have. John Jung wrote: > I have been flying Kolbs for the last 11 years with a 377 and then a 503. No engine outs. In the 8 years before that, I had two engine outs. Both with engines that someone else had rebuilt. I prefer engines that are either new, or that I have seen the inside of. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'935#96935 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
In a message dated 2/23/2007 5:02:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kinnepix(at)earthlink.net writes: At least with certificated US made engines, it's a VERY rare occurrence . I've had two, in 4800 hours -- a Continental 0-300 that was 40 years old, swallowed a valve. Apparently the LL fuel can cause this. Got to an airport. Second was a very low-time Lycoming 0-380 A1A, an engine with a bulletproof reputation. Oil leak we couldn't duplicate on the ground. Make it to a nursery (trees, not kids) Any engine can quit. Do everything you can to avoid this (how obvious is that??) by following the manufacturer's instructions & using only best quality fluids. IMHO On Feb 23, 2007, at 12:29 PM, John H Murphy wrote: (mailto:jhm9812(at)yahoo.com) > Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? I ost my 447 when a spark plug wire came off and I made a nonevent our of gliding back to the field. George Randolph Firestar driver from The Villages fl


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
>I want to know more about this: >"June 25, 2001 Flight 144 - 3 minutes, 57:36 tt. Tried the aluminum foil >and acrylic glue on the axles and it seemed to work" Scott, The wheel bearings that came with my FireFly kit were very low grade bearings. The bearing ID was much greater than the axle OD. This let the wheels kind of flop around. In an attempt to reduce this clearance I cut strips of aluminum foil and wrapped the axles at the bearing locations. It helped but was not a good solution. I found some bearings at: Wheel Bearing - Boca Bearing, RF1222-14PP, precision bearing with seals, $13.95 each, 1-800-332-3256, 7040 W. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 2304, Boca Raton, FL 33433, bearing@gate.net, http://www.bocabearings.com I replaced the original bearing with those listed above and I have had no further problems. These bearings have been in service since June 21, 2001 and have about 500 flights on them. The price listed above is the 2001 price. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
It wasn't until this afternoon when I found an old picture of the Kasperwing that I remembered two more. The little Zenoah G-25 blew out the plug that replaced the compression release. I was on base leg at the time and the landing was uneventful. Screwed a spark plug into the hole and continued flying until dark. Second time I was coming back to Arlington from a short cross country to Island Crossing and the fuel valve vibrated shut. Pulled the starter once to no effect and set up a landing to a very muddy farm field. Darn near had a shoe sucked off by the muck, but managed to pull the plane to a packed mud access road. Found the problem and used the nylon tie I just happen to have with me to tie the valve open. Now you have to picture an airplane that has no floor but a nice supine harness for a seat. I couldn't sit down or the wheels would begin to sink in the muck. I stood up inside the frame, rammed the throttle to the stop and waddled a few steps until the Kwing seemed determined to roll and fell into the harness. Fortunately that big wing liked to fly slow and we got out of the field with no troubles. Added "tie the fuel valve open" to the preflight check list. Rick On 2/23/07, GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/23/2007 5:02:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kinnepix(at)earthlink.net writes: > > At least with certificated US made engines, it's a VERY rare occurrence . > I've had two, in 4800 hours -- a Continental 0-300 that was 40 years old, > swallowed a valve. Apparently the LL fuel can cause this. Got to an airport. > Second was a very low-time Lycoming 0-380 A1A, an engine with a > bulletproof reputation. Oil leak we couldn't duplicate on the ground. Make > it to a nursery (trees, not kids) > Any engine can quit. Do everything you can to avoid this (how obvious is > that??) by following the manufacturer's instructions & using only best > quality fluids. IMHO > > On Feb 23, 2007, at 12:29 PM, John H Murphy wrote: > > > Who has had an engine out in flight? Is it common or rare experience? > > I ost my 447 when a spark plug wire came off and I made a nonevent our of > gliding back to the field. > > George > Randolph > Firestar driver from The Villages fl > > > ------------------------------ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more > 326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com" href=" > target="_blank">*AOL.com*. > > * > > > * > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kolb Mark III Xtra Wings & fuselage for sale
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
wow Jack thats cheap! Someone surely will snap that up. Did you see the mark3 classic listed for 45K? -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'960#96960 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: prop hub extentions
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Hey gang, I seldom look at barnstormers but did today and noticed this photo of a prop hub extention. It is the same type I bought 3 of before learning that it's not the one of choice. It is tapered and uses the 1/2" bolts into the gearbox flange. and has no lugs on the prop side. After many phone calls and my good friend at TNK sending me the latest hub extentions they are selling, we wound up making our own. It uses the 912 lugs on the gearbox flange and the prop side and the 8mm bolts. I also learned that the tapered extention was used on earlier 2 cycle engines and 2 blade props. I have one of those if anyone needs one. The extention that TNK is sending out as of late is good with one exception. on the prop side the 912 lugs fit lose in the holes. Meaning that you would have to hold the back of the lug with vice grips or pliers. We made ours so it is the same press fit as the prop flange on the engine. Worked out real nice. We can offer the aboved extention if anyone wants one for $300.00 labor is 200.00 for machine work material is about 40 bucks. Is anyone running one of these tapered hubs without the lugs and have the warp hub mounted backwards useing the smaller bolt circle? If so do you think it is safe? Darryl at warp said he would rather not see the 68"+ 3 blade used in this configueration . for what is worth..... ps. I didnt try and use spell check or attach the photo to this post, the last time the bbs vaporized my message! so what you see is what you get sorry! -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'964#96964 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: prop hub extentions
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
here is the hub in question -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'967#96967 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p4200007_177.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: prop hub extentions
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
here is the one i found on barn stormers -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'970#96970 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/152111_p1010125_182.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/152111_p1010125_124.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
From: "rbhowell" <bhowell(at)teamft.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Hi all. I bought a '95 Firestar II (7 ribs) and got it a few weeks ago. I was practicing taxi and had moved up to crow hops when a gust lifted my left wing and forced me to "firewall the throttle". Well, I had to remember all I was told and to 'fly the plane to the runway'. Another thing... banking in a turn with only a lap belt is a sobering experience. I should mention here that I am severly handicapped as I am a Private Pilot ;) . Well I landed in a cross wind with out much incident ... the same with 6 other subsequent flights. However, that 7th flight... I was wearing Nike tennis shoes with a slightly concave heel. Well, on my last landing, my left foot got caught on the sheet metal and there I was with full left rudder deflection just as the plane settled on the runway during landing.... My first ground loop :( . Well, the damage is rather light. No structural but I damaged the windshield when I was trying to free my foot. The end of my aileron had fabric abrased (needs repair) and the tailwheel has has slid a bit off its axel. Has anybody else come across this type of problem? I plan to rivet a sheet metal piece to extend the floor. Is this a good idea? My kindest regards to all, Boatner Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'973#96973 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Boatner, I have size 15 feet and the footwell of a Mk3 is, well, challenging. On my first flights I managed to get caught up in the instrument wiring and pull it loose from it's mounting on the back of the panel. I would never have thought it possible, but I did it somehow. Fortunately it was only a brief panic, I recovered to prang the main gear and had a nice visit with Mr. Press later that evening. For those of us who buy our Kolbs, rather than building, the process of learning and adapting to the plane and vice versa is just part of the little planes charm. Rick On 2/23/07, rbhowell wrote: > > > Hi all. I bought a '95 Firestar II (7 ribs) and got it a few weeks > ago. I was practicing taxi and had moved up to crow hops when a gust lifted > my left wing and forced me to "firewall the throttle". > > Well, I had to remember all I was told and to 'fly the plane to the > runway'. Another thing... banking in a turn with only a lap belt is a > sobering experience. I should mention here that I am severly handicapped as > I am a Private Pilot ;) . Well I landed in a cross wind with out much > incident ... the same with 6 other subsequent flights. However, that 7th > flight... > > I was wearing Nike tennis shoes with a slightly concave heel. Well, on my > last landing, my left foot got caught on the sheet metal and there I was > with full left rudder deflection just as the plane settled on the runway > during landing.... My first ground loop :( . > > Well, the damage is rather light. No structural but I damaged the > windshield when I was trying to free my foot. The end of my aileron had > fabric abrased (needs repair) and the tailwheel has has slid a bit off its > axel. > > Has anybody else come across this type of problem? I plan to rivet a > sheet metal piece to extend the floor. Is this a good idea? > > My kindest regards to all, > > Boatner > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'973#96973 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
I have 9 1/2 EEEEEEs...and I have to fly kinda toe-in on landings else I squash the heel brakes on FireFly. regards, Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
In a message dated 2/23/2007 8:31:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bhowell(at)teamft.com writes: I plan to rivet a sheet metal piece to extend the floor. Is this a good idea? Boatner, Yes, that is a good idea. I did it to my FireStar. Makes for smoother sliding of the shoe heel. Bill Varnes Original Kolb FireStar Audubon NJ Do Not Archive


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kolber newbie; crying out from the darkness... :)
From: "rbhowell" <bhowell(at)teamft.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
Kolbers, I admit it, I am a newbie... I have a few questions which beg your experience... The seat belt which came with my Firestar II is inadequate. I am looking at Microflight Restraining System's setup for the Firestar II. Price at aircraftspruce is $129.95 with 4 point harness. Is this good? Secondly, I am concerned about weight and balance. Currently I am at 267 lbs (and still dropping) I am 6"4". I am also considering the Ruggles Aircraft Scale system for tail-dragger for 275.00; any comment? Finally, I need to replace my short windshield. Can I go by Regal Plastics and buy the appropriate thickness of sheet Lexan and cut it using my existing windshield as a template? Is this smart? Can anybody recommend another place? Thanks, Boatner Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'991#96991 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
At 02:29 PM 2/23/2007, knowvne(at)aol.com wrote: > >Non event provided your not down wind of your LZ 8-) > >It's 6:1 glide don't get ya real far in a head wind ...8-( When you can land on a postage stamp you generally don't have to glide too far. > The only real thing ya got going for you is your Very Portable... I dunno, there's something to be said for being able to cruise along 10' high and 20mph, knowing that you can land anywhere, anytime... A bunch of the local GA and ultralight pilots in my area have now taken up PPG... in addition to, not instead of, their airplanes. Still can't wait to fly my Kolb, though! Spring's coming... -Dana -- -- But, Officer, a broadsword is hardly a concealed weapon! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
From: "rbhowell" <bhowell(at)teamft.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2007
It took me a while but I finally got it Larry.... I really laughed out loud. By the way, my feet are size 13 so, yes, I believe I also have good "under-standing". Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97001#97001 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Powered Parachute
Date: Feb 23, 2007
I've given long and serious thought to a PPC, but even tho' I could land almost anywhere in the event of an engine out, it'd be a helluva hike out in this country. The thought of buzzing along at 20 mph at low altitude in this canyon country sure is appealing, tho'. Gots another project to finish 1st, too............. :-) Lar. Do not Archive. Larry Bourne Santa Fe, NM www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Who has had an engine out in flight? > > At 02:29 PM 2/23/2007, knowvne(at)aol.com wrote: >> >>Non event provided your not down wind of your LZ 8-) >> >>It's 6:1 glide don't get ya real far in a head wind ...8-( > > When you can land on a postage stamp you generally don't have to glide too > far. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <thomriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: E-LSA airworthiness certificate question
Date: Feb 24, 2007
I have a few questions for your Kolbers who are flying with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate, not Experimental Amateur Built. 1) Did you have any trouble getting liability insurance for ELSA certificated aircraft? 2) Who did you get insurance with? 3) How much are you paying for liability only? I'm asking because I keep hearing that insurance for ELSAs is problematic but that may be just for hull insurance. I don't see how the liability insurance would/should be any different from Exp A/B. I am currently flying an SLSA Allegro but am thinking (dangerous, I know) of building something and want to know whether liability insurance is a factor if it has an ELSA certificate. Thom in Buffalo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: E-LSA airworthiness certificate question
Thom, I can't answer your insurance question, but I have one for you. What are you thinking of building? The reason I ask is that E-LSA as we know it today does not exist after Jan. 31, 2008 (14 CFR 21.191(i)1). After that E-LSA exists but the aircraft will be kits of existing S-LSA aircraft only, and they MUST be built EXACTLY as the certificated S-LSA. There will be no requirement for percentage of build as there is with EAB (the 51% rule). The manufacturer can leave one set screw out of a knob for the "builder" to install and it will still be an E-LSA. If you intend to build, you must have the airworthiness certificate and operating limitations by the Jan. 31, 2008 cutoff, not just the registratiion. Currently, the FAA is gauranteeing that those who submit their request for AC and op limits by Nov. 30, 2007 will get them. After that it's a crap shoot. Rick On 2/24/07, Thom Riddle wrote: > > > I have a few questions for your Kolbers who are flying with an E-LSA > airworthiness certificate, not Experimental Amateur Built. > > 1) Did you have any trouble getting liability insurance for ELSA > certificated aircraft? > 2) Who did you get insurance with? > 3) How much are you paying for liability only? > > I'm asking because I keep hearing that insurance for ELSAs is > problematic but that may be just for hull insurance. I don't see how > the liability insurance would/should be any different from Exp A/B. I > am currently flying an SLSA Allegro but am thinking (dangerous, I know) > of building something and want to know whether liability insurance is > a factor if it has an ELSA certificate. > > Thom in Buffalo > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
Subject: Re: Who has had an engine out in flight?
From: jam-n <jghunter(at)nol.net>
>Clyde Poser runs an Authorized Rotax repair station near Puyallup WA ------------------ ahh, the days of puyallup... and the Puyallup Drag Strip!! :)))))))))) even the dust in...was bearable. and the action... wow, ahh... the action!! ;) dont archive... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
From: Terry <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
rbhowell wrote: > >Hi all. I bought a '95 Firestar II (7 ribs) and got it a few weeks ago. I was practicing taxi and had moved up to crow hops when a gust lifted my left wing and forced me to "firewall the throttle". > >Well, I had to remember all I was told and to 'fly the plane to the runway'. Another thing... banking in a turn with only a lap belt is a sobering experience. I should mention here that I am severly handicapped as I am a Private Pilot ;) . Well I landed in a cross wind with out much incident ... the same with 6 other subsequent flights. However, that 7th flight... > >I was wearing Nike tennis shoes with a slightly concave heel. Well, on my last landing, my left foot got caught on the sheet metal and there I was with full left rudder deflection just as the plane settled on the runway during landing.... My first ground loop :( . > >Well, the damage is rather light. No structural but I damaged the windshield when I was trying to free my foot. The end of my aileron had fabric abrased (needs repair) and the tailwheel has has slid a bit off its axel. > >Has anybody else come across this type of problem? I plan to rivet a sheet metal piece to extend the floor. Is this a good idea? > >My kindest regards to all, > >Boatner > Most guys that have heel brakes find it necessary to extend the floor pan forward for exactly the reason you discovered the hard way. Any place you can get lexan will be fine as far as replacement is concerned for your windshield. Terry - FireFly #95 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Boatner, Just in case, cut your Lexan with an abrasive wheel, not a saw. I like the diamond wheels offered by Harbor Freight. When they're on sale, and that price recently doubled, they're still half the price of the large Dremel abrasive wheels and seem to last much longer. While you can get special drills for plastic from ACS, you can make your own by grinding a small flat on the chisel edge of the drill bit. If you try to use a regular bit, it will most likely get sucked into the material and cause a crack. I've attached a drawing that explains, I hope. Rick On 2/24/07, Terry wrote: > > > rbhowell wrote: > > > > >Hi all. I bought a '95 Firestar II (7 ribs) and got it a few weeks > ago. I was practicing taxi and had moved up to crow hops when a gust lifted > my left wing and forced me to "firewall the throttle". > > > >Well, I had to remember all I was told and to 'fly the plane to the > runway'. Another thing... banking in a turn with only a lap belt is a > sobering experience. I should mention here that I am severly handicapped as > I am a Private Pilot ;) . Well I landed in a cross wind with out much > incident ... the same with 6 other subsequent flights. However, that 7th > flight... > > > >I was wearing Nike tennis shoes with a slightly concave heel. Well, on > my last landing, my left foot got caught on the sheet metal and there I was > with full left rudder deflection just as the plane settled on the runway > during landing.... My first ground loop :( . > > > >Well, the damage is rather light. No structural but I damaged the > windshield when I was trying to free my foot. The end of my aileron had > fabric abrased (needs repair) and the tailwheel has has slid a bit off its > axel. > > > >Has anybody else come across this type of problem? I plan to rivet a > sheet metal piece to extend the floor. Is this a good idea? > > > >My kindest regards to all, > > > >Boatner > > > Most guys that have heel brakes find it necessary to extend the floor > pan forward for exactly the reason you discovered the hard way. Any > place you can get lexan will be fine as far as replacement is concerned > for your windshield. > > Terry - FireFly #95 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: prop hub extentions
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2007
here is the one we made with the 912 lugs pressed in -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97117#97117 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p2240041_112.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/p2240039_115.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/p2240038_745.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kolb Mark III Xtra Wings & fuselage for sal
From: "blackbird" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2007
In Experimental Amateur - built........51% of the building rule still applies..... Nothing has changed for this class of aircraft.....including if you can prove you built it.......you can perform the annual as builder of aircraft...and maintain it................photos , documentation....etc......... WT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97142#97142 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb Mark III Xtra Wings & fuselage for sal
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can only do the annuals if you have a repairman certificate for the aircraft you built and you must request the certificate at the time you recieve your airworthiness certificate and op limitations. It isn't issued automatically and without it you can't sign off your annuals. Rick On 2/24/07, blackbird wrote: > > > In Experimental Amateur - built........51% of the building rule still > applies..... > > > Nothing has changed for this class of aircraft.....including if you can > prove you built it.......you can perform the annual as builder of > aircraft...and maintain it................photos , > documentation....etc......... > > > WT > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97142#97142 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
From: "rbhowell" <bhowell(at)teamft.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2007
Rick, I have a die grinder... is that what you are talking about using to cut Lexan? This will be the first time I've ever handled Lexan. I also have a Dremel. Are you saying to slightly grind the sharp point of a drill bit to drill holes for attachment? Any advice you have to help me keep from buying several sheets is appreciated!!!! Thanks, Boatner Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97151#97151 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Boatner, I use a Dremel, but a die grinder should work just fine, too. I like the smaller diameter cut off wheels, they make a nicer inside radius than bigger wheels do. As for the drills, the idea is to grind a small flat to make the drill scrape away the material rather than cut it away. This is a standard prep for drilling any soft material like plastic, brass or lead. It takes just a second to do with a bench grinder, but you could do it with a Dremel, too. All you need is a small flat to keep the drill from being sucked into the material without actually cutting which will cause a star crack every time. Rick On 2/24/07, rbhowell wrote: > > > Rick, > > I have a die grinder... is that what you are talking about using to cut > Lexan? This will be the first time I've ever handled Lexan. I also have a > Dremel. > > Are you saying to slightly grind the sharp point of a drill bit to drill > holes for attachment? Any advice you have to help me keep from buying > several sheets is appreciated!!!! > > Thanks, > > Boatner > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97151#97151 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2007
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
From: Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Guys If you are using .0625 lexan, it cuts just fine with a set of straight jaw tin shears.. the bigger the better.. I use a std bench grinder to taper and deburr.. Works for me... Herb writes: > > Rick, > > I have a die grinder... is that what you are talking about using to > cut Lexan? This will be the first time I've ever handled Lexan. I > also have a Dremel. > > Are you saying to slightly grind the sharp point of a drill bit to > drill holes for attachment? Any advice you have to help me keep > from buying several sheets is appreciated!!!! > > Thanks, > > Boatner > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97151#97151 > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Date: Feb 24, 2007
All I've ever used to cut lexan is a pair of tin snips, then smooth the edges with a small Stanley Sur-form plane. The small curved one works very well. Set it up to cut on the pull stroke. Lexan is very tough and very different from plexiglass, which will crack at a hard look. For a drill bit, if you have the knowledge and skill, grind your own..........I bought a special bit from Aircraft Spruce, but I'd imagine the local Ace Hardware and Aircraft Supply would either have one, or could order one for you. Lar. Larry Bourne Santa Fe, NM www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "rbhowell" <bhowell(at)teamft.com> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:09 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber... > > Rick, > > I have a die grinder... is that what you are talking about using to cut > Lexan? This will be the first time I've ever handled Lexan. I also have > a Dremel. > > Are you saying to slightly grind the sharp point of a drill bit to drill > holes for attachment? Any advice you have to help me keep from buying > several sheets is appreciated!!!! > > Thanks, > > Boatner > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97151#97151 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Date: Feb 24, 2007
| All I've ever used to cut lexan is a pair of tin snips, | | For a drill bit, if you have the knowledge and skill, grind your | own..........I bought a special bit from Aircraft Spruce, Lar. Larry: I also have always cut Lexan with aviation sheet metal snips, and hand sand the edges nice and smooth as I can, before I get tired and go do something else. Unlike a lot of you all, I us "normal" HS drill bits, 1/8" for 1/8" pop rivets, and 3/16" for No 10 screws. All the above works well for me, but am willing to try anything that will make the job easier and produce better quality work. In about a week I will start replacing all the Lexan in my mkIII, do some more stuff that has been put on the waiting list for the last 6 years, then mount the new 912ULS. The wings are off the aircraft and it is ready to come home for the first time in six years. By bringing it home, putting it into my basement (shoe box), I can get a lot more work done in a shorter period of time, since all my machines and tools are at home and not at the airstrip. Plus I can work at night and whenever I feel like it. No lights at the airstrip, and the front of the hanger is open. Does not make for a friendly work environment. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb Mark III Xtra Wings & fuselage for sal/Repairman's
Certificate
Date: Feb 24, 2007
| It isn't issued automatically and without it you can't sign | off your annuals. | | Rick Rick: Never heard of an inspector not automatically filling out submitting the Repairman's Certificate for the experimental aircraft he is inspecting.. Doesn't mean much though cause I haven't been around more that a couple dozen friends that went through the process. Best make sure your inspector does and knows your wishes. I mean, who would not want to be the the guy to sigh off on his aircraft, no matter who owns it. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: 182 short field landing Video
Date: Feb 24, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 182 short field landing Video | | | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYiTdiiiCXY | | | Bill V: | | Skookumchuck, BC, Canada, has a very neat airstrip. That was an | interesting landing and approach. | | I flew right over Skookumchuck a couple years ago and did not know it. | It was right on my route of flight from Cranbrook, BC, where I entered | Canada, and up the trench following the Kootenay River, to Prince | George, BC. I'll see if I can find a few appropriate photos of that | area. I flew pretty high in that area because lack of safe forced | landing areas, and lots of ice water. | | john h | mkIII | | DO NOT ARCHVIVE | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2007
From: "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: prop hub extentions
Now thats a nice ah! Vic Extra 912 Maine Archive this hall monitors ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber.../Working With Lexan
Date: Feb 25, 2007
Morning Gang: Lexan is very similar to steel and aluminum when it comes to cracks that are encouraged by not deburring holes and edges. A sharp edge will be much more prone to crack that a nice smoothe edge. As far as using "special" drill bits to drill Lexan, I don't. Like I said last night, I have had very good results with my airplanes using HS drill bits and deburring the holes. Some say us an oversize bit for rivet holes to prevent cracking. I don't do that either, but I am sure it will work. For the ppc, ppg, pg, etc., Kolb pilots, today will be an excellent day for exciting flight at hauck's holler, alabama. Wind advisory calls for 15-25 this afternoon, and it still a few days before March.......... john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: prop hub extentions
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2007
Mike, I used 6061. Here is a before shot. -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97201#97201 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p4200008_273.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber.../Working With Lexan
Date: Feb 25, 2007
| Surface winds were 25 mph....we were getting gusts over 30.... | | It was nice to get my little Firestar back on the ground that day... | | Gotta Fly... | Mike & "Jaz" in MN ( Jaz was flying that day too ) Mike: Every Kolber should experience flying in those conditions, at least once. The best feeling in the world is getting back on the ground successfully. Then..............you have to figure out how to get out of the aircraft and get it tied down before you get blown away. The Kolb will fly in those conditions, although it is very uncomfortable for the new guy and the experienced. I find it best to let the Kolb fly and not try to over power the wind. Most difficult part of getting back on the ground is timing the gusts, up and down drafts, at touch down. I landed at Canyon City, Colorado, a couple years ago. Wind was blowing across the runway at 38 mph. Was difficult making an orbit around the airport to make plans for how I was going to attack this problem. Landing any other direction, other than directly into the wind, was completely out of the question. I did a near zero ground roll landing between the runway and the taxiway to a tiny gravel patch. Luckily, John W had already landed there about 4 hours earlier when the wind was a mere breeze at 21 mph. ;-) He ran out and helped me taxi the aircraft to the pump. We were going to refuel to be ready to take off in the morning, but whenI got out the mkIII levitated with three of us trying to hold her down. hehehe Scared crap out of me. We tied down and got gas the next day. The little Kolb aircraft are very capable, limited primarily by the pilot. The more flight time, the more experimenting with what the Kolb will do, the better the pilot. It is nice to feel comfortable with the stuff hits the fan. When I start flying again, after a 6 month lay off, I will be uncomfortable with turbulence until I get used to it again. On a cross country flight, a long one, it takes about a day to get comfortable. After that, most of the really rough stuff is routine. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
From: "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2007
Mr. Hauk is correct. Lexan (polycarbonate) can be drilled with normal drill bits. It is Plexi-glass (acrylic) that is prone to cracking and splitting around the holes during the drilling process. You can cut Lexan with a saw as well. The thin stuff used for winshields can also be cut with a good pair of aviation snips. Make sure to de-burr all holes and clean up all cut edges with a file or a sanding block. It is a good idea to drill holes oversize to account for thermal expansion. This is more important when riveting to steel than to aluminum. Enjoy your new Kolb! -------- Roger in Oregon 1992 KXP 503 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97291#97291 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYMICHIGAN(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Date: Feb 26, 2007
I know it doesn't sound very manly, but I used a good pair of regular houshold sissors to cut 1/16" lexan with great results. Bryan Dever ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Cutting Lexan
Date: Feb 25, 2007
| I know it doesn't sound very manly, but I used a good pair of regular houshold sissors to cut 1/16" lexan with great results. | | Bryan Dever Bryan: I cut it with whatever does the job the easiest and the quickest. A husky pair of sissors ought to do a good job. I've tried a jig saw with poor results. A band saw does a good job, depending on the blade. Aviation snips on 1/8" will wear you out, but it can be done. Large straight tin snips work better on 1/8". There are some tin snips that have a large flat blade that work well because you can keep the snips straight and not bound up. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Stonex" <cstonex(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Hello from a brand new Kolber...
Date: Feb 25, 2007
Bryan ...what is unmanly about that?? I thought you were going to say you went flyin' in your mothers underware or sumptin like that. Scared me! Chuck I know it doesn't sound very manly, but I used a good pair of regular houshold sissors to cut 1/16" lexan with great results. Bryan Dever _________________________________________________________________ Dont miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: October in Alabama
From: "ropermike" <ropermike2002(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2007
Hey guys! Its been a while since I contributed but I have some video of James Tripp flying over Ms and Alabama. Check it out at I enjoyed meeting you and a few other guys at the SMLA flyin, even though I missed the biggest part of the flying on Sat......Mike H[/url] -------- The next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing!...Mike Hillger Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97333#97333 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 25, 2007
Subject: ski flying
can someone direct me to a set of wheel penetrating ski plans? a site to download from or something. I saw a set go for moor than $600 on ebay last month . I want to build a set for next year mal


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: End User <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Cutting Lexan
Date: Feb 26, 2007
John and all, (yeah, I'm still alive :) correct about using a standard drill bit with lexan, no prob. If you use an electric jigsaw that has the orbital action it will cut 1/8" fine. I wouldn't know about the thinner stuff but maybe if you backed it up with thin plywood to keep it from flopping around. Be sure to put wide masking tape on the cutting area to save from scratches. Clean up the cut edge with a mill file. I just bought a cheapo electric planer at harbor freight and I'll bet it would do a dandy job of edge smoothing set at minimum. BB, looking out the window at a 7' long icicle ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2007
From: "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Finishing tapes
Show of hands Please, How many Kolb coverors put tapes on all the smaller ribs ? Elevators, rudder and ailerons. Vic Extra 912 Maine ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Finishing tapes
Date: Feb 26, 2007
How many Kolb coverors put tapes on all the smaller ribs ? Elevators, rudder and ailerons. Vic Vic: Miss P'fer has them on all areas you mention. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Finishing tapes
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 26, 2007
Same here Vic. Everywhere the tubing touches the fabric -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97473#97473 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Original Mark III Stabilizers
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com>
Date: Feb 26, 2007
Lisa, Does David Key have a website or picture page? That was one nice looking kolb you were building. I would love to see it today. Has he finished it? -------- Paul Petty Kolbra #12 Ms Dixie painting and reassembly Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97480#97480 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Finishing tapes
Date: Feb 26, 2007
From: "Gherkins Tim-rp3420" <rp3420(at)freescale.com>
Vic, My Firestar II & uncle Craigs MkIII Xtra recieved tape on all areas you mentioned. We used 1" tape on the false ribs and areas of the fuse, 2" or 2.5"" tape on the main ribs, 3-4" tape on the leading trailing edges. Check out our website and you should be able to see these details. www.milows.com Tim and uncle Craig Firestar and Xtra- "Iditarods" ________________________________ From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic Peters Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Finishing tapes Show of hands Please, How many Kolb coverors put tapes on all the smaller ribs ? Elevators, rudder and ailerons. Vic Extra 912 Maine ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Finishing tapes
Date: Feb 26, 2007
> > Vic: > > Miss P'fer has them on all areas you mention. > > john h > mkIII > > ditto my Mk-3. Denny Rowe PA ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: cuyunna
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Date: Feb 26, 2007
Contact me off list Ted Richard Pike richard(at)bcchapel.org Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97512#97512 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Monument Valley - Excellent Videos :)
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 26, 2007
Here are two very good short videos about flying in Monument Valley. They were shot from an Ultralight Trike, but they are the best I have ever seen. Part 1 http://www.emuvideo.com/videos.php?page=trikemv1 Part 2 http://www.emuvideo.com/videos.php?page=trikemv2 JettPilot -------- "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=97542#97542 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Monument Valley - Excellent Videos :)
Date: Feb 26, 2007
| Here are two very good short videos about flying in Monument Valley. | JettPilot Thanks Mike: Nice video clips. The shots of short final and touch down on the pavement were very


February 10, 2007 - February 26, 2007

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gn