Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gn
February 10, 2007 - February 26, 2007
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestar - recommended propeller |
From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
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> |
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** |
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: endorsement to fly into Class B & C airspac |
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
|
| stupid me.... it the removal of the 11-Man ballot sorry
HUH???
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| 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> |
| Never heard of it and google hasn't either.
|
| john h
Well..................so much for back copy. ;-)
jrh
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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!"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Czygan <bczygan(at)yahoo.com> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Seeking feedback on Oregon-Texas-MV route |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
> 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 |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
----- 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> |
> 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) |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Transponder for separation |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | 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: | 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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??? |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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??? |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
| 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
| 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> |
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 |
(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> |
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> |
----- 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 |
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 |
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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
>>"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 |
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 |
http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?PHPSESSID=0f9b63483a3ce95ffae5410314279feb
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Gas Tank Study |
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> |
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 |
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 !
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
----- 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ultralight Callsign |
>
>
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ultralight Callsign |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ultralight Callsign |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
| 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> |
- 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 |
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.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Gas Tank Study |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
BTW, this is a C-54:
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
> 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Arizona Man <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | 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.......
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: HELP NEEDED IN IOWA/ Off TOPIC |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
....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 |
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 |
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
.... 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
--------
.
.
.
.
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
| 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? |
| 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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> |
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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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> |
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> |
... 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
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> |
| 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> |
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> |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Limited Range |
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> |
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 |
> 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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
>
>
> 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 |
>
> | 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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> |
<< 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Schnabel <tnfirestar2(at)yahoo.com> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: 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?
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Who has had an engine out in flight? |
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? |
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> |
thanks Mike
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Who has had an engine out in flight? |
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> |
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> |
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? |
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? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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...
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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: | "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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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... |
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... |
| 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
| 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 |
----- 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
|
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
| 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> |
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... |
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> |
| 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... |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
>
> Vic:
>
> Miss P'fer has them on all areas you mention.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
ditto my Mk-3.
Denny Rowe PA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
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> |
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 :) |
| 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