Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gu
July 03, 2007 - July 19, 2007
and the pilots don't need proof of training. This in itself will pose a safety
issue for an airport. I'm sure we will be hearing more about this issue after
the deadline.
Ralph B
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=121964#121964
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Vaughn <knowvne(at)aol.com> |
How does some one determine if a field has received or is receiving
federal funding ?
Is there a list of fields some place for the public to review??
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Firefly
Per FAA Order 8700.1 Dated 2/9/1996, Chapter 62:
In short, if they received federal funds they are supposed to permit
Ultralight activity, but they can deny UL if mixing cannot be done
safely.
Advisory Circular 150/5190-5 of June 10, 2002 is specifically on
exclusions. I doubt LAX permits ULs, and rightfully so.
7. OPERATION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
FROM AIRPORTS.
A. Aeronautical Activity. Ultralight vehicle operators
usually require the approval of airport authorities before
conducting operations from an airport. Operation of
ultralight vehicles is considered an aeronautical activity
much the same as parachute jumping.
B. Use of Airports. Federally funded airports must
accommodate ultralight operations if this can be done safely.
This does not mean that airport authorities must allow
ultralights to operate from the runways; rather, the airport
should set aside a special location for ultralight operations.
It is acceptable for airport authorities to establish policies,
including reasonable training requirements, that they believe
are necessary to provide safe accommodations to ultralight
vehicles. If an airports authorities believe it is unsafe to
accommodate ultralights at the facility, they may request
Flight Standards input in the assessment of the safety of
proposed operations.
(1) When assessing the safety of ultralight vehicle
operations from airports, the inspector should bear in mind
the operating characteristics of ultralight vehicles, the lack
of pilot certification standards, and the fact that these vehicles
must yield right-of-way to aircraft under all circumstances.
If the safety of conventional aircraft operations
would be compromised, the inspector should give a negative
finding to the Airports Division. When possible, inspectors
should assist in developing alternative methods to accommodate
ultralight operations.
(2) Nonfederally funded airports are not required to
accommodate ultralight operations. The FAA has no
authority in these situations; however, inspectors should
encourage ultralight operators and airport management to
consider alternative methods.
-----------------------------------------
Ive always heard that if an airport recieves any form of assistance
from the gov. in the form of money, they can not disallow any one , who
is
legal, the priviledge of landing there! Is that the case or not???
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights. (If a
private airport, designated for public use, has never taken federal or
state funding, then they have the right to deny services, but how will
you know until you land there?) If a public airport owner can make a
case to the FAA to disallow certain aircraft for particular reasons,
then portions of or all services can be denied. That information, as
far as I understand it, is supposed to be published in the AFD
(Airport/Facility Directory) for public use airports, so, if you're
at all concerned, then refer to the AFD for the airport you're
interested in.
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Mark Vaughn wrote:
>
> How does some one determine if a field has received or is receiving
> federal funding ?
>
>
> Is there a list of fields some place for the public to review??
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com>
>
>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Firefly
>
>
> Per FAA Order 8700.1 Dated 2/9/1996, Chapter 62:
>
>
> In short, if they received federal funds they are supposed to permit
>
>
> Ultralight activity, but they can deny UL if mixing cannot be done
> safely.
>
>
> Advisory Circular 150/5190-5 of June 10, 2002 is specifically on
>
>
> exclusions. I doubt LAX permits ULs, and rightfully so.
>
>
> 7. OPERATION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
>
>
> FROM AIRPORTS.
>
>
> A. Aeronautical Activity. Ultralight vehicle operators
>
>
> usually require the approval of airport authorities before
>
>
> conducting operations from an airport. Operation of
>
>
> ultralight vehicles is considered an aeronautical activity
>
>
> much the same as parachute jumping.
>
>
> B. Use of Airports. Federally funded airports must
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations if this can be done safely.
>
>
> This does not mean that airport authorities must allow
>
>
> ultralights to operate from the runways; rather, the airport
>
>
> should set aside a special location for ultralight operations.
>
>
> It is acceptable for airport authorities to establish policies,
>
>
> including reasonable training requirements, that they believe
>
>
> are necessary to provide safe accommodations to ultralight
>
>
> vehicles. If an airport's authorities believe it is unsafe to
>
>
> accommodate ultralights at the facility, they may request
>
>
> Flight Standards' input in the assessment of the safety of
>
>
> proposed operations.
>
>
> (1) When assessing the safety of ultralight vehicle
>
>
> operations from airports, the inspector should bear in mind
>
>
> the operating characteristics of ultralight vehicles, the lack
>
>
> of pilot certification standards, and the fact that these vehicles
>
>
> must yield right-of-way to aircraft under all circumstances.
>
>
> If the safety of conventional aircraft operations
>
>
> would be compromised, the inspector should give a negative
>
>
> finding to the Airports Division. When possible, inspectors
>
>
> should assist in developing alternative methods to accommodate
>
>
> ultralight operations.
>
>
> (2) Nonfederally funded airports are not required to
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations. The FAA has no
>
>
> authority in these situations; however, inspectors should
>
>
> encourage ultralight operators and airport management to
>
>
> consider alternative methods.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
> Ive always heard that if an airport recieves any form of assistance
>
>
> from the gov. in the form of money, they can not disallow any one , who
> is
>
>
> legal, the priviledge of landing there! Is that the case or not???
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Noise canceling earbuds update |
Flew the MKIII for while this morning, tried out the noise canceling
earbuds, and there was a plus and a minus.
The plus was that they really do cancel out the noise. Turning the ANR
switch off and on shows that the ANR function removes the deeper rumble
of the prop, and part of the engine noise. It makes the engine noise
seem smaller and further away, if that makes any sense.
For comparison, tried various combinations, just the Flightcoms without
the earbuds, the earbuds without the Flightcoms, the earbuds with the
ANR turned off, etc., the earbuds knock out about as much noise as the
Flightcom headset, but each has a different quality. Once you put the
headsets over the ears with the earbuds in, it cuts down the total noise
a lot more, as you would expect. I think it is about the same effect you
would get if you put in a pair of tapered soft foam hearing protectors,
and then put on your headsets. Once you have both the earbuds and the
headsets on, turning on the ANR cuts the prop noise out of the mix, and
also makes the engine a bit quieter. And since I had my .mp3 player
along, plugging it in and adding some Moody Blues to the mix was also a
plus... The total amount of aircraft noise making it to my ears was low
enough that you could listen to music without having to turn it up much.
The minus was that I could not hear the tower, approach or ATIS. Didn't
have any friends to yak at, but I suspect that 122.75 wouldn't work
either. The earbuds did not allow what was coming out of the Flightcom
speakers to make it into my ears. So I think what I will do next is make
an adapter plug and jack so that I can unplug the headset/speaker side
of the Flightcoms, leave the mic plugged in, and plug the earbuds into
the aircraft jack where the Flightcoms normally go and try that. Use the
earbuds for aircraft radio audio and see what happens. If I can figure
out how to make it work at all, it ought to be quite good.
Whoops, better make that adapter with a Y-setup, or the mp3 player will
get left out. Can't be having that, ya know...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
AC 103-7 States, in part:
b. Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity.
( 1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to
control capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the capacity
if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.
. . . So carrying extra fuel is permitted, so long as it is not usable in flight.
As long as the extra fuel is not plumbed into the aircraft fuel system I think
you'll be OK.
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122009#122009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
| From: | Mark Vaughn <knowvne(at)aol.com> |
Interesting...
I would have never guess the AFD would have listed such info... I'll
take a look...
Thanks
Mark Vaughn
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:55 am
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Federal Funding
By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights. (If a
private airport, designated for public use, has never taken federal or
state funding, then they have the right to deny services, but how will
you know until you land there?) If a public airport owner can make a
case to the FAA to disallow certain aircraft for particular reasons,
then portions of or all services can be denied. That information, as
far as I understand it, is supposed to be published in the AFD
(Airport/Facility Directory) for public use airports, so, if you're
at all concerned, then refer to the AFD for the airport you're
interested in.
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Mark Vaughn wrote:
>
> How does some one determine if a field has received or is receiving
> federal funding ?
>
>
>
> Is there a list of fields some place for the public to review??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> From: Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com>
>
>
>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Firefly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per FAA Order 8700.1 Dated 2/9/1996, Chapter 62:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In short, if they received federal funds they are supposed to permit
>
>
>
> Ultralight activity, but they can deny UL if mixing cannot be done
> safely.
>
>
>
> Advisory Circular 150/5190-5 of June 10, 2002 is specifically on
>
>
>
> exclusions. I doubt LAX permits ULs, and rightfully so.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. OPERATION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
>
>
>
> FROM AIRPORTS.
>
>
>
> A. Aeronautical Activity. Ultralight vehicle operators
>
>
>
> usually require the approval of airport authorities before
>
>
>
> conducting operations from an airport. Operation of
>
>
>
> ultralight vehicles is considered an aeronautical activity
>
>
>
> much the same as parachute jumping.
>
>
>
> B. Use of Airports. Federally funded airports must
>
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations if this can be done safely.
>
>
>
> This does not mean that airport authorities must allow
>
>
>
> ultralights to operate from the runways; rather, the airport
>
>
>
> should set aside a special location for ultralight operations.
>
>
>
> It is acceptable for airport authorities to establish policies,
>
>
>
> including reasonable training requirements, that they believe
>
>
>
> are necessary to provide safe accommodations to ultralight
>
>
>
> vehicles. If an airport's authorities believe it is unsafe to
>
>
>
> accommodate ultralights at the facility, they may request
>
>
>
> Flight Standards' input in the assessment of the safety of
>
>
>
> proposed operations.
>
>
>
> (1) When assessing the safety of ultralight vehicle
>
>
>
> operations from airports, the inspector should bear in mind
>
>
>
> the operating characteristics of ultralight vehicles, the lack
>
>
>
> of pilot certification standards, and the fact that these vehicles
>
>
>
> must yield right-of-way to aircraft under all circumstances.
>
>
>
> If the safety of conventional aircraft operations
>
>
>
> would be compromised, the inspector should give a negative
>
>
>
> finding to the Airports Division. When possible, inspectors
>
>
>
> should assist in developing alternative methods to accommodate
>
>
>
> ultralight operations.
>
>
>
> (2) Nonfederally funded airports are not required to
>
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations. The FAA has no
>
>
>
> authority in these situations; however, inspectors should
>
>
>
> encourage ultralight operators and airport management to
>
>
>
> consider alternative methods.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ive always heard that if an airport recieves any form of
assistance
>
>
>
> from the gov. in the form of money, they can not disallow any one ,
who
> is
>
>
>
> legal, the priviledge of landing there! Is that the case or not???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
"By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights."
These rules were written before Sport Pilot and the FAA has ignored overweight
ultralights for many years. Everyone knows that an ultralight is a single seat
no more than 254 lbs empty weight, flies no faster than 63mph, and has a 5-gallon
fuel capacity.
Under the new rules, any aircraft (air vehicle) that doesn't meet this standard
should be registered with the FAA. This means all overweight fixed-wings, trikes,
and PPC's.
After the deadline, the FAA will be able to keep overweight unregistered ultralights
out of airports. Already we are seeing signs going up at our airports stating
this.
If your machine is overweight and not registered after the deadline, your flights
may be limited to private fields only.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122020#122020
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
valid FAR 103 ultralight."
BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
really curious!
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Ralph B wrote:
>
> "By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
> aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights."
>
> These rules were written before Sport Pilot and the FAA has ignored overweight
ultralights for many years. Everyone knows that an ultralight is a single seat
no more than 254 lbs empty weight, flies no faster than 63mph, and has a 5-gallon
fuel capacity.
>
> Under the new rules, any aircraft (air vehicle) that doesn't meet this standard
should be registered with the FAA. This means all overweight fixed-wings, trikes,
and PPC's.
>
> After the deadline, the FAA will be able to keep overweight unregistered ultralights
out of airports. Already we are seeing signs going up at our airports
stating this.
>
> If your machine is overweight and not registered after the deadline, your flights
may be limited to private fields only.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> 20 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122020#122020
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
Mark --
Below is a snapshot of a A/FD entry for an airport just south of me... note
the "no touch and go nighttime lngs"... that's a restriction that either
they asked the FAA for, or the FAA told them they had to abide by. I've
seen other A/FD entries for "No ultralight activities" but can't put my
finger on one right now.
As I mentioned, if an airport owner can make a good case, the FAA will add
the restriction. Sometimes, the FAA sees an issue (like a noise sensitive
area) and will compel the airport to comply and will publish it in the A/FD,
as shown in this excerpt.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
| From: | Mark Vaughn <knowvne(at)aol.com> |
Hmmmmm
Does having to Relieve ones self in the worst way qualify as an
emergency??? hahahahahaha 8-)
Thanks for the example..
Mark Vaughn
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Federal Funding
Mark --
Below is a snapshot of a A/FD entry for an airport just south of me...
note the "no touch and go nighttime lngs"... that's a restriction that
either they asked the FAA for, or the FAA told them they had to abide
by. I've seen other A/FD entries for "No ultralight activities" but
can't put my finger on one right now.
As I mentioned, if an airport owner can make a good case, the FAA will
add the restriction. Sometimes, the FAA sees an issue (like a noise
sensitive area) and will compel the airport to comply and will publish
it in the A/FD, as shown in this excerpt.
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
Dennis,
Your welcome to use our MSN site for the pics. Just join and have at it. Pics load
really fast on this site.
and it's free!
http://groups.msn.com/login_info.msnw?referer=join&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups%2Emsn%2Ecom%2FAerialWorld%2F%5Fjoin%2Emsnw%3F&commname=Aerial%20World
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122031#122031
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb pre-flight check list |
yeah, I know...he's gonna spout some old GA stuff!
But regarding oil caps...I've had several GAs, both with small chains
on oil caps, and without The without one came off between JAX and
TPA. How did I know? Oil all over windscreen, oil temp increasing,
oil pressure heading for zero. Made straight in TPA honking 7700.
The fix; a pc of chain secured to lg screw-type hose clamp, other end
to small hole in edge of cap.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Okay guys, I can understand scribe lines and check list items, but even
these are subject to human error.
After several people were killed in Variezes and LongEZs when one or both
fuel caps went through the prop, the solution was to attach the caps in such
manner that even if the cap comes off it can only go a few inches before it
is restrained. Both the fuel cap and oil cap on Meadowlark have a cable
restraint. Just something to consider.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Warlick" <timwarlick(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Mark 3 classic landing speed |
To all,
I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e. 60
mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under power). I
have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full flaps, grass field
landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of you Mark 3 Classic
pilots use for a "normal" landing?
Tim Warlick
Mobile, AL
BMW R100 Powered
Kolb Mark 3 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> (John Hauck) I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably
> thinking, John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol'
> oil cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.)
Dennis:
You are correct.
Had you been flying with a Warp Drive Prop, you would still be flying your Magic
Bike.
Some years ago I put an 18 inch piece of 1.5 inch exhaust pipe through my Warp
Drive. Pipe hit the leading edge of one blade. Was climbing out at full throttle
when the pipe let go. Put a small ding in the leading edge and produced
a new vibration. Flew 10 miles to Wetumpka Airport. Landed, checked the prop,
and for other damage, got back in the mkIII and flew 11.2 sm to Gantt IAP.
Another short story on my first off field landing in Alaska, 1994. Cut more alder
brush with the Warp Drive than a John Deere A with a 6 foot bush hog. No
damage to the prop blades, although they did turn green. Alder is a plant similar
to mature cotton. Very hard stalk and branches about as big as you little
finger.
Don't know for sure, but I'd bet a months retirement pay you could have flown back
to Sandia East or Double Eagle with a Warp Drive with no problems.
Laminated and wooden props will not take the abuse a solid carbon fiber Warp Drive
Blade will and keep on flying. That is why I fly with nothing but Warp Drive.
john h
PS: Now is a good time to upgrade. Daryl will give you $100.00 trade in for your
old prop.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122073#122073
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Normal being a runway where length is not a factor -
Solo, approach at 55, full flaps, partial power until just before
touchdown.
With a passenger, approach at 60, full flaps, partial power until just
before touchdown.
Normal into my place, which is a 750 foot strip that has the touchdown
end 20' lower than the top of the strip, with 300' high power lines 2/10
of a mile out from touchdown, and a go-around is not a good option -
Engine at idle crossing the powerlines, full flaps, airspeed at 60 solo
or two up, aim at the grass 100' before the end of the runway. Round out
and goose the throttle when you get that far so you can make it to the
runway. (At this point you are flying sort of uphill) The goal is to
land and stop in the first 300', but usually I settle for not having
anything bent...
I always use full flaps for everything so that the airplane will always
behave the same every time.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Warlick
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
To all,
I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e. 60
mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under power). I
have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full flaps, grass field
landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of you Mark 3 Classic
pilots use for a "normal" landing?
Tim Warlick
Mobile, AL
BMW R100 Powered
Kolb Mark 3 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
valid FAR 103 ultralight."
BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
really curious!
-- Robert
Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took it on the
inside of the glass:
WARNING
Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a registration
number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement action.
An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant
Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less than 254
pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for
deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level
flight, and:
Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.
If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be operated in accordance
with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be subject to enforcement
actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for each operation of this
aircraft.
Tom Blue, Caretaker
Red Wing Regional Airport
Ralph B
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
This "caretaker" sounds fascist IMHO. This is what happens when folks don't
speak out.
The vast majority of airports are UL-friendly, or at least tolerant. I
operate out of PTK (Pontiac, MI, tower-controlled) in GA aircraft, and there
are several ultralights based there. The UL guys go out of their way to
comply, some even use radios!
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:35 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Federal Funding
>
> I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> valid FAR 103 ultralight."
>
> BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> really curious!
>
> -- Robert
>
> Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took it
> on the inside of the glass:
>
> WARNING
>
> Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a
> registration number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement
> action. An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
>
> Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single
> occupant
>
(Snip)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
At 07:27 PM 7/3/2007, you wrote:
>To all,
>
>I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
>paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e.
>60 mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under
>power). I have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full
>flaps, grass field landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of
>you Mark 3 Classic pilots use for a "normal" landing?
>
>Tim Warlick
What I do (especially on a short grass field) is to go ahead and lock my brakes
before I touch down. The tires will slide on the grass just fine.
On some fields you can't afford a "bounce" or for the plane to
"float" or a "go-a-round". The trick is that once the mains touch down there
is enough drag that the tail will stay up and the plane will quit
flying/floating even
at faster landing speeds. Don't worry, there is enough air on the tail
to keep you from nosing over, I promise.
It also works to stop floating on asphalt.
You'll need to learn to steer with you
brakes sooner or later anyway.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8022448200127542755&hl=en
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick2" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
I am new to this forum and will be picking up my plane kit this Thursday, July
5th. I am going to build the M3x and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are
working with me on the engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will
talk more on the engine situation as things progress.
My main concern for now is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of
plans early while they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will
be building, in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long
Ezy, which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was
a Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, that is if I can figure out the plans.
I have never seen such a poor excuse for plans as I have been given on this
aircraft. They are the most confusing piles of paper I have ever seen. They
leave me with a feeling of real concern as to weather the plans can be constructed
correctly or not. When I told Donnie about my concerns, he told me that
I would catch on. Really nice guy's there at Kolb and I sure don't want to
hurt ther feelings as they will bind over backwards to help anyone. Just what
am I missing here?
Thanks
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122093#122093
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
Interesting (if not a little disgusting)... but how, I wonder, does he
magically discern the weight of a single-seat UL, not to mention the
speed, etc...? And, does he not honor the FAA exemption for UL
trainers? There's no mention of that!
I'll bet his mistress is named Eva and he wears brown shirts, eh?
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Ralph B wrote:
>
> I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> valid FAR 103 ultralight."
>
> BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> really curious!
>
> -- Robert
>
> Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took it on
the inside of the glass:
>
> WARNING
>
> Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a registration
number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement action.
An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
>
> Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant
>
> Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
>
> Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
>
> If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less than 254
pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended
for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
>
> Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
>
> Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level
flight, and:
>
> Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.
>
> If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be operated in
accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be subject to enforcement
actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for each operation of
this aircraft.
>
> Tom Blue, Caretaker
> Red Wing Regional Airport
>
> Ralph B
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
I use full flap { flaps have been altered so do not probably give the
same effect as standard ones} approach speed of 55mph round out about 50
the air speed will drop off fast from that point and it will settle into
a 3 point landing nicely.
Landing roll within 200 ft { I have good brakes for short landings}
With two heavy bodies aboard I give the numbers all an extra 5 mph
.MK111 445 pounds emty and max take off of 1050 pounds . Here in
NewZealand it would appear our Ultralight rules are different than you
guys. With these weights I am still well within our limits.
Chears Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Warlick
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
To all,
I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e. 60
mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under power). I
have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full flaps, grass field
landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of you Mark 3 Classic
pilots use for a "normal" landing?
Tim Warlick
Mobile, AL
BMW R100 Powered
Kolb Mark 3 Classic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/07/2007 3:35 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
Robert, There is no such thing as an unlicensed ultralight trainer after Jan
31, 2008. After that you have to find a Sport Pilot CFI and a certificated
LSA. If it's in the aircraft's operating limitations, an E-LSA can be used
for training until Jan 31, 2010. After that it will be only S-LSA that can
be used for training.
Rick
On 7/3/07, Robert Laird wrote:
>
>
> Interesting (if not a little disgusting)... but how, I wonder, does he
> magically discern the weight of a single-seat UL, not to mention the
> speed, etc...? And, does he not honor the FAA exemption for UL
> trainers? There's no mention of that!
>
> I'll bet his mistress is named Eva and he wears brown shirts, eh?
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On 7/3/07, Ralph B wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> > have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> > any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> > valid FAR 103 ultralight."
> >
> > BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> > really curious!
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> > Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> > Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took
> it on the inside of the glass:
> >
> > WARNING
> >
> > Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a
> registration number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> > will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement
> action. An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
> >
> > Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
> single occupant
> >
> > Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
> >
> > Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
> >
> > If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less
> than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are
> intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
> >
> > Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
> >
> > Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power
> in level flight, and:
> >
> > Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated
> airspeed.
> >
> > If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be
> operated in accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be
> subject to enforcement actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for
> each operation of this aircraft.
> >
> > Tom Blue, Caretaker
> > Red Wing Regional Airport
> >
> > Ralph B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
In a message dated 7/3/2007 12:32:52 PM Central Standard Time,
ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes:
> After the deadline, the FAA will be able to keep overweight unregistered
> ultralights out of airports. Already we are seeing signs going up at our
> airports stating this.
>
> If your machine is overweight and not registered after the deadline, your
> flights may be limited to private fields only.
>
> Ralph
Ralph,
An aircraft that weighs more than 254 with a single seat is not an
overweight ultralight. It is an illegal aircraft , if you dont have a license
to fly and must be registered. On the other hand if the craft meets ALL
requirements for an ultralight then it should be legal as a true ultralight today
or
after the deadline. The FAA has had the authority ,all along, to keep (
overweight unregistered ultralights) from flying anywhere in the USA . It is
my understanding that FAR 103 will not change at all. I see " SPORT PILOT" as
the solution to force everyone to comply with the rules that have been in
place all along. Do the signs you are refering to address Legal Ultralights?
My original comment was pertaining to Legal Ultralights.
Ed Diebel
**************************************
See what's
free at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Oldman
.MK111 445 pounds emty and max take off of 1050 pounds
Chears Tony
Now thats a light Mk-3
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 470 pounds
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
Yup, well aware of that, but the sign exists now, so, I was just
wondering why the "caretaker" wasn't taking care of -current- UL
trainers.
On 7/3/07, Richard Girard wrote:
> Robert, There is no such thing as an unlicensed ultralight trainer after Jan
> 31, 2008. After that you have to find a Sport Pilot CFI and a certificated
> LSA. If it's in the aircraft's operating limitations, an E-LSA can be used
> for training until Jan 31, 2010. After that it will be only S-LSA that can
> be used for training.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On 7/3/07, Robert Laird wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting (if not a little disgusting)... but how, I wonder, does he
> > magically discern the weight of a single-seat UL, not to mention the
> > speed, etc...? And, does he not honor the FAA exemption for UL
> > trainers? There's no mention of that!
> >
> > I'll bet his mistress is named Eva and he wears brown shirts, eh?
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/07, Ralph B wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> > > have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> > > any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> > > valid FAR 103 ultralight."
> > >
> > > BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> > > really curious!
> > >
> > > -- Robert
> > >
> > > Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> > > Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took
> it on the inside of the glass:
> > >
> > > WARNING
> > >
> > > Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a
> registration number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> > > will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement
> action. An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
> > >
> > > Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
> single occupant
> > >
> > > Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
> > >
> > > Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
> > >
> > > If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less
> than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are
> intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
> > >
> > > Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
> > >
> > > Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power
> in level flight, and:
> > >
> > > Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated
> airspeed.
> > >
> > > If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be
> operated in accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be
> subject to enforcement actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for
> each operation of this aircraft.
> > >
> > > Tom Blue, Caretaker
> > > Red Wing Regional Airport
> > >
> > > Ralph B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attachments:
> > >
> > >
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
> > "Ya'll drop on in"
> > takes on a whole new meaning
> > when you live at the airport.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi John,
I believe David Clark does make a hard helmet for their headsets. The helmet is
actually two parts, a soft helmet and a hard outer shell that fits over it.
Like all David Clark items, they are good and David Clark is not afraid to tell
you that (Price!)
For myself I took a standard ultralight type helmet and carefully recontoured the
interior to fit the Head Band of my D/C headset. Its not perfect but it fits
me and is comforting to know my noggin has a bit of protection should I have
a brief period of unwanted excitement.
There may be other solutions for your headset/helmet dilemma but, I wouldn't expect
them to be cheap.
Good Luck
Carlos G
AKA
BaronVonEvil :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122116#122116
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Only running a 503 so that has kept the weight down. Aircraft is used
mostly at sea level so performance is still good.
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Rowe
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Oldman
.MK111 445 pounds emty and max take off of 1050 pounds
Chears Tony
Now thats a light Mk-3
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 470 pounds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/07/2007 3:35 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Here in NewZealand it would appear our Ultralight rules are different
than you guys. With these weights I am still well within our limits. >>
Hi Tony,
it would be interesting to compare how your rules differ from the USA
and the UK rules. Where are you in Kiwiland?
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
Just make sure both of you tell the same story >>
Hi Paul,
I just love your American atitude to the rules. Here, in general, rules are
complied with and are considered to be there for a reason. In the States the
rules seem to be seen as something to be circumvented if at all possible.
Guess it is just an entirely different perspective.
Your argument about `Fat Ultralights` wouldn`t get off the ground here. You
either comply with the rules and you are a ultralight or you don`t and you
are not. If you are not then all the rest falls into place and the least of
your troubles will be that no insurance company would pay out in the case of
an accident.
Thats not to say that the rules don`t get bent a little here and there.....
I wish we had a little more of your attitude over here. We are really
turning into a `nanny State` and we shalll need a certificate and a crash
helmet to get out of bed soon
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
I just wanted to give the list a heads up on my newest creation or
recreation. My wife Bev and I have almost completed the restoration of an
original Kolb Twinstar with the drop down nose cone. It should be completed
and ready for sale within two weeks. This should give the new owner time to
get an n-number, register it and put the engine of his desire on it in
plenty of time for the inspection. (wouldnt the HKS be just about perfect
for this!) Everything has been checked and repainted (cables especially).
It had a 503 on it but we are selling it as 'parts'. I am just completing
the recovering of the wings with stits. It will have silver poly spray and
it is the certified cloth for durability (stright from Poly-fiber). The
wing is going to be painted insig. white unless someone steps up real quick
and wants something else. Being poly tone paint, you could repaint it with
any design you chose or stay with the beautiful dark blue fuse and white
wings and nose. Has new tires and outside brake drums. Just wanted to give
the heads up. A truely classic two seater. Ted Cowan, 334-480-0822. Will
send pics off list if you are REALLY interested. Going to go for about
$6,000 OBO.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
On the coast middle of the South Island { Timaru } a city of about 3500.
I operate from the local airport and fly mostly inaudio.The airport has
some commercial activity and also carries out flight training with the
local aero club and gliding club.No landing fees if you are a club
member,no tower. Nearest international airport 100 miles away at
Christchurch so we get pretty well left alone. Like most places there
are the people that would like to see Ultralights {microlights here } go
fly some other place.
We all live in hope that those that try and make it difficult { mostly
the rule makers} for us will wake up to the fact we ALL enjoy the same
passion and just want to fly.
It is pleasing to see that the number of Ultralight kickers are on the
decline .We have a great country that offers great views from the air.
Our rules are basic for now. Max weight 1234 lbs, only one pax, maintain
straight and level at 35 mph . Training to be carried out by RAANZ
approved instructor,{ Recreational aircraft association NewZealand }
different ratings for different control systems and a special rating for
pax with a minimum PIC time. Flight test every two years with medical
{much the same medical as you would need to drive a heavy truck } Rules
have started to become more structured and in line with GA aircraft in
that you now need a log book for daily flights one for the prop and
another for the engine. You can still carry out your own maintenance but
the aircraft needs a permit to fly inspection every 12 months .
We do have some no fly zones if flying inaudio.
The Kolb is a great aircraft ,its easy to manage has no vices, has great
visibility is excellent on short grass strips.I think that our MK111 is
the only one flying in NewZealand. There are a few MK2s.Also have a 7/8
scale Sopwith camel . The camel has a 503 in it but I have a 5 cyl
radial that fits into it. It has been flown on the radial some time ago.
The radial is a Webster Whirlwind. Hope I am not boring any one with
this chatter. I just love having my feet off the ground .Also ride a
1961 AJS and have recently restored a Triumph spitfire am now working on
a 1935 Morris sports car.Have too many hobbies and not enough time.Keep
it safe up there.
Cheers
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
Here in NewZealand it would appear our Ultralight rules are different
than you guys. With these weights I am still well within our limits. >>
Hi Tony,
it would be interesting to compare how your rules differ from the USA
and the UK rules. Where are you in Kiwiland?
Cheers
Pat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/07/2007 3:35 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flymichigan(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
I find all this talk about enforcement a little strange. The FAA has never seemed
to care about overweight ultralights and I have seen no evidence that they
will start after January. The only noise of enforcement that I have heard, has
come from people who have a financial interest in SP, and those pilots that
buy in to their rhetoric. I have spoken off the record with a two FAA officials,
and they have not received any mandate to step up enforcement.
Here's my take.......
If it looks like an ultrralight, has one seat, 5gal tank, and has a 447 or smaller,
the FAA will consider it an ultralight....That is, until you piss off the
neighbors, or have an accident that forces the FAA's hand. For instance, if
you have an engine out and land in a school yard full of kids, they are apt to
nail you to the wall.
I think sport pilot is a great solution for guys with two seats, but I intend to
keep flying my firestar 1 as an ultralight,
As far as the sign at your local airport, that sounds like a place that is already
hostile towards the kind of planes we fly, and they are looking for any excuse
to get rid of us. I avoid airports that are not ultralight friendly. If
they don't want me there, I don't want to be there.
Bryan Dever
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I have to agree with John H on the Warp drive, worst you would have had to do is
replace a blade after landing at your home field. If a powerfin stayed together,
the warp would have had a nick, thats it.
I started flying my MK III with a Kiev Prop, it is very smooth, beautiful, and
efficient, but it is so light it worries me every time I fly it. I finally just
coughed up the 1500 bucks and bought a new Warp Drive. The plane may be a
bit slower with it, im not sure, but I dont worry about my prop comming apart
at the slightest provocation anymore.
I read somewhere that if you have a pusher engine, something will eventually go
through the prop, its just a matter of when, not if... So I have a new condition
Kiev Prop 70 inch prop for sale if anyone is interested.
Mike Bigelow
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122205#122205
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
planecrazzzy wrote:
>
>
> I'm flying there Thursday morning to get my Transponder Cert.
>
> $75 for the Transponder & $75 for the Alt Encoder (cheapest I've Found)
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike & "Jaz" in MN - FSII / N381PM
> .
> .
> .
> .
Where did you find a transponder for 75 bucks ?
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122206#122206
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
Hi Guys,
I havent posted this to the list before i dont think. But I may have after I got
over the embarrasment maybe not. But for the Warp drive prop camp here is my
story. I built ms Dixie to "ready to cover" stage and ran the 912UL and John
H's prop that I bought from him/warp drive and one day on a engine start up test
my right wing front attach point pin fell out and the wing folded back into
the Warp drive prop. I failed to put the "saftey" clips in the attach pins thinking
NO WAY they would vibrate out sitting on the ground. WRONG. End result
was a damaged wing trailing edge and a wing that had to be repaired. the 912
had just barley made it to low idel maybe 600-1000 rpm when this happened. Now
how many have had a wing go into a spinning prop? it was way more than an oil
cap.
As for the Warp? one tiny nick in the leading edge and one tiny scratch in number
2 blade. Sent it to Warp and they replaced the nickle edge on the nicked blade
and polished the scratched blade, balanced it sent it back with a clean bill
of health. I cant speak for other props but i can for a Warp Drive!
If any want pics of the bent trailing edge where the 70"er hit the splice joint
in the TE ask back copy. It's quite impressive!
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122228#122228
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | neilsenrm(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
I have a Powerfin prop also. A few years ago I had a 9/16 * 3 inch bolt go thru
the prop in flight. As most good pilots do, I landed at the next available airstrip.
I found some damage but decided to try for home which was almost four
hunderd miles. I have heard of smaller items causing worse damage on Powerfin
props. I also saw all three blades wiped clean off at the hub after a solid strike
on a non Kolb fusalage(sp) boom tube.
As with everything aviation there are trade offs. The Powerfin prop will give more
thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less inertia and will break off if it srikes
something substatial instead of causing gearbox or engine problems. I think
even a warpdrive pilot would do a prcautionary landing after a propstrike.
How rugged do you want the prop to be? Can you live with the trade offs?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > (John Hauck) I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably
> > thinking, John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol'
> > oil cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.)
>
>
> Dennis:
>
> You are correct.
>
> Had you been flying with a Warp Drive Prop, you would still be flying your Magic
> Bike.
>
> Some years ago I put an 18 inch piece of 1.5 inch exhaust pipe through my Warp
> Drive. Pipe hit the leading edge of one blade. Was climbing out at full
> throttle when the pipe let go. Put a small ding in the leading edge and
> produced a new vibration. Flew 10 miles to Wetumpka Airport. Landed, checked
> the prop, and for other damage, got back in the mkIII and flew 11.2 sm to Gantt
> IAP.
>
> Another short story on my first off field landing in Alaska, 1994. Cut more
> alder brush with the Warp Drive than a John Deere A with a 6 foot bush hog. No
> damage to the prop blades, although they did turn green. Alder is a plant
> similar to mature cotton. Very hard stalk and branches about as big as you
> little finger.
>
> Don't know for sure, but I'd bet a months retirement pay you could have flown
> back to Sandia East or Double Eagle with a Warp Drive with no problems.
>
> Laminated and wooden props will not take the abuse a solid carbon fiber Warp
> Drive Blade will and keep on flying. That is why I fly with nothing but Warp
> Drive.
>
> john h
>
> PS: Now is a good time to upgrade. Daryl will give you $100.00 trade in for
> your old prop.
>
> --------
> John Hauck
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122073#122073
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have a Powerfin prop also. A few years ago I had a 9/16 * 3 inch bolt
go thru the prop in flight. As most good pilots do, I landed at the next
available airstrip. I found some damage but decided to try for home which was
almost four hunderd miles. I have heard of smaller items causing worse damage
on Powerfin props. I also saw all three blades wiped clean off at the
hub after a solid strike on a non Kolb fusalage(sp) boom tube.
As with everything aviation there are trade offs. The Powerfin prop will give
more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less inertia and will break off
if it srikes something substatial instead of causing gearbox or engine
problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a prcautionary landing after
a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to be? Can you live with the
trade offs?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
> --> Kolb-List message posted by:
"John Hauck"
>
>
> > (John Hauck)
I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably
> > thinking,
John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol'
> > oil
cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.)
>
>
>
Dennis:
>
> You are correct.
>
> Had you been flying
with a Warp Drive Prop, you would still be flying your Magic
> Bike.
>
> Some years ago I put an 18 inch piece of 1.5 inch exhaust
pipe through my Warp
> Drive. Pipe hit the leading edge of one blade. Was
climbing out at full
> throttle when the pipe let go. Put a small ding
in the leading edge and
> produced a new vi
bratio
n. Flew 10 miles to Wetumpka Airport. Landed, checked
> the prop, and for
other damage, got back in the mkIII and flew 11.2 sm to Gantt
> IAP.
>
> Another short story on my first off field landing in Alaska,
1994. Cut more
> alder brush with the Warp Drive than a John Deere A with
a 6 foot bush hog. No
> damage to the prop blades, although they did
turn green. Alder is a plant
> similar to mature cotton. Very hard stalk
and branches about as big as you
> little finger.
>
>
Don't know for sure, but I'd bet a months retirement pay you could have flown
> back to Sandia East or Double Eagle with a Warp Drive with no problems.
>
> Laminated and wooden props will not take the abuse a solid
carbon fiber Warp
> Drive Blade will and keep on flying. That is why
I fly with nothing but Warp
> Drive.
>
> john h
>
> PS: Now is a good time to upgrade. Daryl wi
ll giv
= --&g
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builders Plans |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
Rick,
I commonly refer to my plans as the "Comic Book" they look cool but i feel your
pain! And wait till you get...refer to page so and so and it's blank! I think
the world of the Gang at TNK. I deal with customer service with a ton of vendors
and suppliers in my work and I can tell you this, You will not find better
people than Travis,Donnie and Brian anywhere!
Relax, note areas that you are not sure about and make refrance to what you are
missing and i can assure you they will have answers! Here is another tip. See
if you can find some older "blue prints" from the old kolb. They were very helpful
to me as to the "Concept" of Holmers design.
And be sure to worry the shit out of John Hauck and dont cry when he bites your
head off and hands it to you on a paper plate! hehe
Love you John! Welcome to the Club Rick you will do fine!
PS. are you building the "new" mark 3 X that they had at sun-n-fun? and are your
the guys that did the 300 mph pass over the TNK factory field in 2003/4?
take care
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122231#122231
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | neilsenrm(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Builders Plans |
Rick
Are you getting the MKIIIX with flaps or flaperons? Check the archives for considerable
discussion of the differences and advantages.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rick2" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
>
> I am new to this forum and will be picking up my plane kit this Thursday, July
> 5th. I am going to build the M3x and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are
> working with me on the engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will talk
> more on the engine situation as things progress.
>
> My main concern for now is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of
> plans early while they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will
> be building, in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long Ezy,
> which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was a
> Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, that is if I can figure out the plans.
> I have never seen such a poor excuse for plans as I have been given on this
> aircraft. They are the most confusing piles of paper I have ever seen. They
> leave me with a feeling of real concern as to weather the plans can be
> constructed correctly or not. When I told Donnie about my concerns, he told me
> that I would catch on. Really nice guy's there at Kolb and I sure don't want
to
> hurt ther feelings as they will bind over backwards to help anyone. Just what
am
> I missing here?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122093#122093
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rick
Are you getting the MKIIIX with flaps or flaperons? Check the archives for
considerable discussion of the differences and advantages.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rick2"
>
> I am new to this forum and will be picking
up my plane kit this Thursday, July
> 5th. I am going to build the M3x
and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are
> working with me on the
engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will talk
> more on the
engine situation as things progress.
>
> My main concern for now
is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of
> plans early while
they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will
> be building,
in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long Ezy,
>
which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was a
> Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, tha
t is i
ics Li
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | neilsenrm(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Noise canceling earbuds update |
Richard
I have been flying for about a year with Sony ear buds under my active noise canceling
headphones. I have a matched pair for my passenger who doesn't get active
noise canceling. I connect them to my intercom and disconnect the headphone
ear peices. That way I can hear music but the intercom cuts the music when there
is radio traffic and it adds a welcome additional level of noise reduction.
The ear buds have sound quality superior to the headphone speakers. Your active
ear buds may do a even better job at about the same price.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Flew the MKIII for while this morning, tried out the noise canceling earbuds, and
there was a plus and a minus.
The plus was that they really do cancel out the noise. Turning the ANR switch off
and on shows that the ANR function removes the deeper rumble of the prop, and
part of the engine noise. It makes the engine noise seem smaller and further
away, if that makes any sense.
For comparison, tried various combinations, just the Flightcoms without the earbuds,
the earbuds without the Flightcoms, the earbuds with the ANR turned off,
etc., the earbuds knock out about as much noise as the Flightcom headset, but
each has a different quality. Once you put the headsets over the ears with the
earbuds in, it cuts down the total noise a lot more, as you would expect. I
think it is about the same effect you would get if you put in a pair of tapered
soft foam hearing protectors, and then put on your headsets. Once you have both
the earbuds and the headsets on, turning on the ANR cuts the prop noise out
of the mix, and also makes the engine a bit quieter. And since I had my .mp3
player along, plugging it in and adding some Moody Blues to the mix was also
a plus... The total amount of aircraft noise making it to my ears was low enough
that you could listen to music without having to turn it up much.
The minus was that I could not hear the tower, approach or ATIS. Didn't have any
friends to yak at, but I suspect that 122.75 wouldn't work either. The earbuds
did not allow what was coming out of the Flightcom speakers to make it into
my ears. So I think what I will do next is make an adapter plug and jack so that
I can unplug the headset/speaker side of the Flightcoms, leave the mic plugged
in, and plug the earbuds into the aircraft jack where the Flightcoms normally
go and try that. Use the earbuds for aircraft radio audio and see what happens.
If I can figure out how to make it work at all, it ought to be quite good.
Whoops, better make that adapter with a Y-setup, or the mp3 player will get left
out. Can't be having that, ya know...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard
I have been flying for about a year with Sony ear buds under my active noise
canceling headphones. I have a matched pair for my passenger who doesn't get
active noise canceling. I connect them to my intercom and disconnect the headphone
ear peices. That way I can hear music but the intercom cuts the music when
there is radio traffic and it adds a welcome additional level of noise reduction.
The ear buds have sound quality superior to the headphone speakers. Your
active ear buds may do a even better job at about the same price.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
Flew the MKIII for while this morning, tried out the noise canceling earbuds,
and there was a plus and a minus.
The plus was that they really do cancel out the noise. Turning the ANR switch
off and on shows that the ANR function removes the deeper rumble of the prop,
and part of the engine noise. It makes the engine noise seem smaller
and further away, if that makes any sense.
For comparison, tried various combinations, just the Flightcoms without the
earbuds, the earbuds without the Flightcoms, the earbuds with the ANR turned
off, etc., the earbuds knock out about as much noise as the Flightcom headset,
but each has a different quality. Once you put the headsets over the ears
with the earbuds in, it cuts down the total noise a lot more, as you would
expect. I think it is about the same effect you would get if you put in a pair
of tapered soft foam hearing protectors, and then put on your headsets. Once
you have both the earbuds and the headsets on, turning on the ANR cuts the prop
noise out of the mix, and also makes the engine a bit quieter. And since I had
my .mp3 player along, plugging it in and adding some Moody Blues to the mix
was also a plus... The total amount of aircraft noise making it to my ears
was low enough that you could listen to music without having to turn it up
much.
The minus was that I could not hear the tower, approach or ATIS. Didn't
have any friends to yak at, but I suspect that 122.75 wouldn't work either.
The earbuds did not allow what was coming out of the Flightcom speakers to make
it into my ears. So I think what I will do next is make an adapter plug and
jack so that I can unplug the headset/speaker side of the Flightcoms, leave the
mic plugged in, and plug the earbuds into the aircraft jack where the
Flightcoms normally go and try that. Use the earbuds for aircraft radio audio and
see what happens. If I can figure out how to make it work at all, it
ought to be quite good.
Whoops, better make that adapter with a Y-setup, or the mp3 player will get
left out. Can't be having that, ya know...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ms Dixie update2 |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
Sheesh guys Ms. Dixie update1 post grew to 2600 views so lets start over ok?
Went to LUL this morning at 5:30am to beat the heat. After last sundays first test
flight to work on the 2 Major in-flight problems. 1. was RPM's on the EIS.
Sure enough the "tach R/PR" was factory set at 0 and is supposed to be set at
1 for the 912 4cyl. That would explain Charleys 85 mph indacated air speed at
1400 rpm LOL. Second was why the AIS was sitting on 60 mph after we got back
to the hangar and full stop. After she cooled off the ASI dropped to zero??????
Well found out what was causing that today.... When I got to the Hangar this
morning the ASI was reading 60 mph! Who had been flying our airplane? after
i pulled the nose cone i found the static port line to the static circut had been
kinked and collapsed due to the heat and the thinwall of the tubing as a result
of not enough radius. DOPE!
What a first test flight to lose RPM and ASI!!!
My only credit has to go to Charley!
Damn good seat of the pants flying!
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122245#122245
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p7040042_656.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Im still learning, but I have a MK - III Xtra with a 912 S. I used to approach
at 60 mph, idle power, and flare and bleed the last bit of speed. Since putting
VG's on, it is very confortable to approach at 50 and no need to goose the
power in the flare, it keeps flying until stalling at 28 indicated. I could
fly the approach at 40, aileron control is good right until the stall, but it
is just better to be carrying a little extra speed on approach for normal conditions.
For very short field, I would use flaps and drag it in at a very low speed, and
chop the power right at the runway, but I would NOT make this normal practice.
I would suggest that you learn to land without power, because one day that engine
will quit on you when you pull the power back, and you want to be high enough
to make the field when that happens. My technique is to stay high, and pull
the power to idle for a 60 MPH glide to the runway. That way if the motor
quits, it will still be a normal landing for me. No getting caught to low to
make the runway no matter what happens.
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122246#122246
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
HAHA Rick! Some of us don't need to cut pipe, weeds or cement blocks with their
props.
Some of
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122252#122252
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> The Powerfin prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less inertia
and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing gearbox
or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a prcautionary
landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to be? Can you live
with the trade offs?
>
> Rick Neilsen
>
Hi Rick:
Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive. Where did
you discover that info?
What is the major advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well within the
safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the circumstances.
During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are whether I
am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something to get me to a safe
landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground. I can always repair or
replace the mechanical stuff.
I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness and
its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many hours of very
realiable performance over some very long distances and over some mighty hostile
terrain and ice water.
Whether or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
Take care,
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122269#122269
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Tim W:
No such thing as "perfect landings". Survivable is more like it. ;-)
Approach speed really doesn't matter as long as you have enough that you do not
run out of inertia at the bottom when you do a "little" flare.
10 mph over stall works pretty good for me, but I can screw one up at any speed.
The main thing for me to remember is LOOK DOWN TOWARDS THE END OF THE RUNWAY AND
NOT AT THE GROUND TO SHOOT THE LANDING.
If it is a wheels landing, make sure you plant the nose and hold it down. If the
tail drops a little when the mains touch, it will balloon and get really interesting.
Full stall 3 point landing needs to be done with the mains a few inches off the
ground. When it stalls, it is going to drop. The lower the mains to the ground
when it drops the easier the landing.
I know, I know, you guys with VG's don't have to worry about dropping because the
VG's do not allow that type action. ;-)
If I get out there and play with the airplane, spend a lot of time doing "stuff",
different stuff, shoot a buncha landings, eventually, all this work will come
together and I'll start telling the airplane what to do instead of it telling
me what to do.
Also, I use my flaps all the time. Very seldom do I not use them for landing.
Occassionally, use them for getting out of rough, soft, short, high altitude
strips.
Take care,
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122271#122271
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
Alot of fellas are of course asking this same question, and as for your critera
of value, that of course depends soley on the target market you plan to sell
into.
I understand all the "positives" stated here for registering, and cannot argue
with a single one, that is if you intend to sell to a LICENSED pilot.
I also have been in this hobby since prior to part 103 and as a dealer for the
aircraft that spawned in the begining, the ability to fly one with no license,
not have to get inspections and pay all the expenses that go with a FAA registered
aircraft were the top of the sales pitch, and the Top of the buyers interests.
The Kolb FireFly is an aircraft that has been demonstrated that in CAN be built
Part 103 compliant, unlike alot of other single seaters that cannot be built
any other way than what we call a "Fat" today. I might project that those "other"
Fat's and obviously training exempted 2 seaters have been the ones living
on borrowed time for years and they probably need to get registered. Thay are
not the subject of this question. A Kolb FireFly is.
If a FireFly today weighs 275 lbs empty and has no N-number, it is illegal.
If a Firefly weighs 275 empty in 2009 and has no N-number, it is still illegal.
It will violate the exact same rule. It will not be breaking a "NEW" rule. (
discounting the float and chute rules, of course)
Here are the questions I think need to be answered accurately before a conclusion
can be drawn about weather or not we will increase the value of our ultralites
by 600 bucks by transitioning them to E-LSA, or will they suddenly be a worthless
pile of tube and fabric.
Will the market for 103 eligible aircraft cease to exist after 2008?
There are No changes to part 103 and Part 103 eligible air vehicles are defined
as NOT regulated.
(Remember that the entire meaning of part 103 is the description of what the FAA
defines as NOT an aircraft, but an unregulated air vehicle)
Are most participants in 103 craft today flying them because they just like 254
lb aircraft, or because they dont want to get a pilot license and keep it up.?
How much of the potential market will want to buy an aircraft that is regulated
by the FAA, and requires all the yearly expense's that will allow them to keep
flying?
Will the FAA suddenly begin to start sending officers into the feild with scales
to determine what a aircraft weighs?
Will the FAA begin to train representatives on the details of all the single seat
craft marketed in the past as "ultralites"...hmmm..25 years or so back, that
could in fact be built under 254 lbs empty, and teach the reps which ones really
didnt have a chance? So they can identify them by sight, and not with a
set of scales.
Some of these questions can be answered pretty obviously, but others cannot. Particularly
the questions about how the target market will split.
Those are really the keys to the answer, and I wish I knew for sure.
I would say this in retrospect. Register it or not, the Financial Hit a builder
of a FireFly might or might not take will be likely alot less than the cost of
building...less the resale value of any Experimental, Ultralite, HotRod, race
car or other Homebuilt toy. So dont fret on it too much!
--------
Don G.
Central Illinois
Kitfox IV Speedster
Luscombe 8A
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122279#122279
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Perhaps the MKIII Xtra has different elevators and stabilizers than the
MKIII Classic that give it more control authority, don't know, but here's
what I do know - If I am carrying a full size passenger in my MKIII Classic
and shoot the approach at 45 or less, I better not have any flaps down,
because there is not enough control authority at that speed to flare. Guess
how I know this? Adding back stick just before touchdown changes nothing.
Navy carrier arrival, big time. Solo is ok, two up, make the approach at 60.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed
>
> Im still learning, but I have a MK - III Xtra with a 912 S. I used to
> approach at 60 mph, idle power, and flare and bleed the last bit of speed.
> Since putting VG's on, it is very confortable to approach at 50 and no
> need to goose the power in the flare, it keeps flying until stalling at 28
> indicated. I could fly the approach at 40, aileron control is good right
> until the stall, but it is just better to be carrying a little extra speed
> on approach for normal conditions.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | neilsenrm(at)comcast.net |
John
Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft told me he did a test of Warpdrive, Ivo and
Powerfin props a few years ago. He tried to make it as close to a apples to
apples test as he could. The report I got was that Powerfin produced the most
thrust followed by Warpdrive then by a larger margin Ivo. He also found that
Warpdrive had the most inerita by a wide margin then Ivo then fairly close was
Powerfin. Again I'm only telling you what I was told from what I consider a reliable
source. I don't have any more details than this.
Like you I have only flown one of these props and the Powerfin has server me well.
It also has taken some abuse and got me home. I origionally selected the Powerfin
prop because it had good thrust performance and maybe more importantly
its low inerita. My old VW redrive was incompatible with heavy props. The new
redrive appears to tolerate heaver props. Not everyone has the same engine/gearbox
as you so others might want or need a lighter prop or more thrust. I'm not
tring to talk you into changing props or anyone else. I'm just trying to provide
a balance to the prop selection process.
I did fly a wood prop on my direct drive VW powered MKIIIC and turned one prop
into tooth picks when the prop struck a tree branch were it was about 1/8 inch
dia. For that reason I will never own a pusher with a wood prop.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > The Powerfin prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less
> inertia and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing
> gearbox or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a
> prcautionary landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to be?
> Can you live with the trade offs?
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> >
>
>
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive. Where did
> you discover that info?
>
> What is the major advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well within the
> safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
>
> I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the
> circumstances. During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are
> whether I am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something to get
me
> to a safe landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground. I can always
> repair or replace the mechanical stuff.
>
> I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness and
> its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many hours of very
> realiable performance over some very long distances and over some mighty hostile
> terrain and ice water.
>
> Whether or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
> care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> --------
> John Hauck
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122269#122269
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John
Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft told me he did a test of Warpdrive,
Ivo and Powerfin props a few years ago. He tried to make it as close to a apples
to apples test as he could. The report I got was that Powerfin produced the
most thrust followed by Warpdrive then by a larger margin Ivo. He also found
that Warpdrive had the most inerita by a wide margin then Ivo then fairly close
was Powerfin. Again I'm only telling you what I was told from what I consider
a reliable source. I don't have any more details than this.
Like you I have only flown one of these props and the Powerfin has server
me well. It also has taken some abuse and got me home. I origionally selected
the Powerfin prop because it had good thrust performance and maybe more importantly
its low inerita. My old VW redrive was incompatible with heavy props. The
new redrive appears to tolerate heaver props. Not everyone has the same engine/gearbox
as you so others might want or need a lighter prop or more thrust.
I'm not tring to talk you into changing props or anyone else. I'm just trying
to provide a balance to the prop selection process.
I did fly a wood prop on my direct drive VW powered MKIIIC and turned
one prop into tooth picks when the prop struck a tree branch were it was
about 1/8 inch dia. For that reason I will never own a pusher with a wood prop.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
> --> Kolb-List message posted by:
"John Hauck"
>
>
> > The Powerfin
prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less
> inertia
and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing
>
gearbox or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a
>
prcautionary landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop
to be?
> Can you live with the trade offs?
> >
> >
Rick Neilsen
> >
>
>
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive.
Where did
> you discover that info?
>
> What is the major
advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well w
ithin
the
> safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
>
>
I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the
>
circumstances. During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are
> whether I am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something
to get me
> to a safe landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground.
I can always
> repair or replace the mechanical stuff.
>
>
I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness
and
> its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many
hours of very
> realiable performance over some very long distances and
over some mighty hostile
> terrain and ice water.
>
> Whether
or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
> care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> --------
>
=====
===============
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Prop Comparison |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Just FWIW,
I've flown all these props and my general finding about them is about the same
- powerfin F model gives the best thrust, warp drive really close, IVO behind
the others.
Not rocket science on why, either. The Powerfin F model has the most blade area
for a given length, but is also thicker. So, that blade will generate more lift,
but at a lower AOA. This makes it not so good on a faster plane, since it
"unloads" more at higher airspeeds.
This was definitely true on my FS II, my powerfin 68" 3 blade outclimbed the warp
drive 68" by a small bit, but unloaded pretty good in the air. The warp drive,
though, gives the best overall performance, good thrust but doesn't unload
as bad in the air.
It has a little less blade area, so blades run at a little higher AOA..
The IVO gives slightly less thrust than the other two, but works great in 2 blades
on a fast plane (60mph or more). I'm not 100% sure why this is, though I suspect
the blades change pitch in the air, maybe increase in pitch a little once
you get up to speed.
I have the adjustable pitch medium IVO on my titan and, well, that's the best thing
since sliced bread for me prop-wise ;)...
But the warp drive is the best prop overall on my FS II....
As for MOI, the warp drive is the highest, followed by the IVO and the powerfin
is the lightest. The 912 gearbox, though, supports a pretty high MOI, if I recall
my reading in the manuals correctly. I saw a figure around 10,000 kg/in I
think... almost twice the figure for the 2-stroke C box.... So you can spin quite
a monster on the 912...
The main advantage to lower MOI is throttle response. It's quick in any event on
the 912, but a low MOI prop like the powerfin vs a heavy one like the warp drive
makes a BIG difference here on a 2-stroke...
LS
[quote="neilsenrm(at)comcast.net"]John
Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft told me he did a test of Warpdrive, Ivo
and Powerfin props a few years ago. He tried to make it as close to a apples to
apples test as he could. The report I got was that Powerfin produced the most
thrust followed by Warpdrive then by a larger margin Ivo. He also found that
Warpdrive had the most inerita by a wide margin then Ivo then fairly close was
Powerfin. Again I'm only telling you what I was told from what I consider a
reliable source. I don't have any more details than this.
Like you I have only flown one of these props and the Powerfin has server me well.
It also has taken some abuse and got me home. I origionally selected the
Powerfin prop because it had good thrust performance and maybe more importantly
its low inerita. My old VW redrive was incompatible with heavy props. The new
redrive appears to tolerate heaver props. Not everyone has the same engine/gearbox
as you so others might want or need a lighter prop or more thrust. I'm
not tring to talk you into changing props or anyone else. I'm just trying to provide
a balance to the prop selection process.
I did fly a wood prop on my direct drive VW powered MKIIIC and turned one prop
into tooth picks when the prop struck a tree branch were it was about 1/8 inch
dia. For that reason I will never own a pusher with a wood prop.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
[quote]-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Hauck"
>
>
> > The Powerfin prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less
> inertia and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing
> gearbox or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a
> prcautionary landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to
be?
> Can you live with the trade offs?
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> >
>
>
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive. Where did
> you discover that info?
>
> What is the major advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well w ithin
the
> safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
>
> I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the
> circumstances. During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are
> whether I am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something to get
me
> to a safe landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground. I can always
> repair or replace the mechanical stuff.
>
> I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness
and
> its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many hours of very
> realiable performance over some very long distances and over some mighty hostile
> terrain and ice water.
>
> Whether or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
> care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> -------- > ====== ===============
>
>
> [b]
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122309#122309
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Hi Tony,
sounds as though you are a busy guy. An AJS and a Triumph. REAL
motorbikes. Good on ya.
I flew a Blanik out of Auckland and a K13 from Matamata in Jan and Feb
1975. Only got a scrape along the ridge at Matamata as a check flight
because with immaculate timing I arrived just as the Nationals , or
maybe the World Champs, I forget, were starting. No one really wanted to
get involved in anything but the competitions. Understandable. According
to my log book I was charged $3 plus 7c a minute. No idea why I made a
note of that. Its the only reference to cost in my log books.
I have flown a Harvard (T6) out of Hood and flown with Captain Ladd out
to Kowai (sp) Island from Auckland. Do you remember Captain Ladd? He ran
amphibian charters. "A shower of Spray and we are away" One super
evening a guy who was operating an amphibian off the beach in the Bay of
Islands took Wendy and I on an hours trip around the Bay. He let me pole
it around and fly an approach down to wave top height before taking
over just as we touched the surface. Great memories! The plane was
supposedly the one which flew under the Auckland Bridge, the one with
the Nippon Clip-on. The pilot argued that it was an extended take off
run and got away with it. Just missed the Wings over Wanaka, twice,
which shows very poor planning but did get a look at the maintenance
hangars where they were working on the planes for W over W the
following week.
Not likely to get to NZ again. I like long distance flying less and less
as I get older and my old diving buddy who I visit in Auckland is
getting a bit long in the tooth as well but there is a Rotary exchange
trip scheduled for 2009 and you never know.
I really envy you flying in NZ. Must be one of the best places to fly in
the world and everything so close together. Ski in the morning, surf in
the arvo and fly in the evening. What could be better?
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Yep you are onto it. We do have a bit of fickle weather from time to
time that keeps you on your toes.If you find your way over here again
please make contact. Irrespective of the time of year there is always
something to do. I have only missed one W over W myself. It takes place
over Easter and Easter also happens to be about the last good boating
weather over here.I happen to camp about 1 hours drive from Wanaka so
its a no brainer really.Also about 10 miutes from Omarama I think the
World gliding champs are there again this year. Sounds like you have
far more experience at this aviating than me. The T6 or Harvard as we
know it would have been a fun thing . Ultralights are where I started
and apart from poling around a bit in some home builts and cubs that's
what I have stuck too.Already have too many other things on the go.I do
have plans to travel to the UK just not sure when, I would like to see
some maritime history as well as some aviation history. That is the one
thing we do not have a lot of {Old history} I do assist in some
mechanical work for the local aviation heritage people from time to
time.They have some Richard Pierce replicas and engines ,a collection of
early ultralights, a Tiger moth and a Chipmunk on display.The debate
still go's on as to if he flew before the Right Bros.I did go to Oshkosh
in 94 ,now that's a must ,great experience. As for the long in the tooth
bit the guy that keeps me honest in the air is about 76 and still
training pilots, he also has family in LA so spends some time over
there. I hope to have as much go at that age.{ not far away } But I
understand where you are coming from its no fun sitting in the back of
one of those people movers. The only view is the one straight ahead.Bay
of Islands is a great place, just completed a tour of the North Island,
would loved to have had some wings with me. The Boss said it was her
turn to decide on the holiday so just get over it and follow along.
Cheers and keep it safe up there
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
Hi Tony,
sounds as though you are a busy guy. An AJS and a Triumph. REAL
motorbikes. Good on ya.
I flew a Blanik out of Auckland and a K13 from Matamata in Jan and Feb
1975. Only got a scrape along the ridge at Matamata as a check flight
because with immaculate timing I arrived just as the Nationals , or
maybe the World Champs, I forget, were starting. No one really wanted to
get involved in anything but the competitions. Understandable. According
to my log book I was charged $3 plus 7c a minute. No idea why I made a
note of that. Its the only reference to cost in my log books.
I have flown a Harvard (T6) out of Hood and flown with Captain Ladd
out to Kowai (sp) Island from Auckland. Do you remember Captain Ladd? He
ran amphibian charters. "A shower of Spray and we are away" One super
evening a guy who was operating an amphibian off the beach in the Bay of
Islands took Wendy and I on an hours trip around the Bay. He let me pole
it around and fly an approach down to wave top height before taking
over just as we touched the surface. Great memories! The plane was
supposedly the one which flew under the Auckland Bridge, the one with
the Nippon Clip-on. The pilot argued that it was an extended take off
run and got away with it. Just missed the Wings over Wanaka, twice,
which shows very poor planning but did get a look at the maintenance
hangars where they were working on the planes for W over W the
following week.
Not likely to get to NZ again. I like long distance flying less and
less as I get older and my old diving buddy who I visit in Auckland is
getting a bit long in the tooth as well but there is a Rotary exchange
trip scheduled for 2009 and you never know.
I really envy you flying in NZ. Must be one of the best places to fly
in the world and everything so close together. Ski in the morning, surf
in the arvo and fly in the evening. What could be better?
Cheers
Pat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
3/07/2007 10:02 a.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Sounds like you have far more experience at this aviating than me. >>
Hi Tony,
probably not. Only licenced for gliders and ultralights but I have found
most pilots will let you fly if you have any idea at all.
I got a ride in a Jet Provost that way. The pilot asked if I flew and
when I said only microlights he said `Take her out then` and apart from
raising and lowering the undercarriage he didn`t touch the controls
until we parked it. Same with a P-51 in Kissimmee, except that the pilot
did the takeoff and took the controls for a take off after I had landed
it and he changed it to a touch and go.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)commspeed.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Regulations |
Richard Girard, et al;
About the best description and explanation of the situation
that I've ever heard. Thank you.
Would hope that this gets plastered everywhere ANY pilot
might see it, regardless of the rating or category.
Been flying since 1974. Never held a PPL. Began flying
UL's in 1984 (as my USUA affirmation will attest) and will
continue to fly UL's 'til I can no longer do so, safely.
Again, thanks for one of the best, informative, very easily
understood, explanations of the frivolous, dangerous and
damaging activities (not to mention illegal) that affect all
of the aviation world. Your 'prime example' of the fellow
in Seattle was all too easily recognized.
About the best commentary I've ever seen, on ANY of the
dozen lists, that I lurk/monitor.
Blue Skies,
George Bass
USUA 80399
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly |
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 08:02:54 -0500
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
.....................
"WE HAVE A LIST OF THOSE PLACES AND WE WILL BE THERE THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY 1ST,
2008".
So much for the theory of what will they do, show up with scales? They don't have
to, they can simply seize suspected aircraft and it will be up to the owner
to bring the scales and prove them wrong. Don't even bother if the aircraft has
a second seat.
.....................
Rick and FireFlyers,
The following document has been declared as sufficient proof that your FireFly
is an ultra light vehicle:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
I carry a copy to all fly-ins. The front page was signed by an A&E and each page
carries his initials.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
At 11:55 AM 7/3/2007, Robert Laird wrote:
>
>By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
>aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights. (If a
>private airport, designated for public use, has never taken federal or
>state funding, then they have the right to deny services...
That's where the issue may arise. Many airports are "privately owned for
public use", and if these have received no federal funding they can deny
landing to anybody, not just ultralights. The airport I used to call home
(N04, now sadly closed) was such an airport. It was ultralight friendly,
actually friendly to any aircraft that could deal with its 1800' strip, but
required prior permission (which was always granted) from ALL transient
aircraft.
Many small airports were originally WWII training or auxiliary
fields. That qualifies as "receiving federal funding" even if the original
acquisition was the only dealing with the feds.
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
At 11:15 AM 7/4/2007, flymichigan(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>I find all this talk about enforcement a little strange. The FAA has
>never seemed to care about overweight ultralights and I have seen no
>evidence that they will start after January...I have spoken off the record
>with a two FAA officials, and they have not received any mandate to step
>up enforcement...
Depends on who you talk to. I have heard (secondhand, but from a reliable
source) is that the FAA plans to small airports where there has
traditionally been lots of ultralight activity and/or complaints and ramp
check everything in sight. Not everywhere, they don't have the manpower,
but scattered pot shots to make a few examples.
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Legal FireFly??or not?? |
Jimmy,
Back to your question about the worth of a "fat" firefly.
What would it cost to bring it back under 103 compliance?..add that to the equasion.
More than registering it?
this is what I think...not what I know..just what I think...maybeee...
A legal 103 FireFly might have more value than a non-registered "fat" one.
A 503 Firestar that never had a chance of making 254 lbs unless you left the wing
off...will be worth more legal as an E-LSA than not.
Same with Challengers and 503 Titan I's and so on.
There is no "NEW " rule that makes all fat ultralites now illegal,,,they always
were. They were all required to be registered as an Experimental before...now
there is just a new rule that allows them to be easily "transitioned" to a E-LSA.
This is the "manna from above" as just someone mentioned.
No hassle...no documentation...dont even have to be the original builder.
This is a good thing....make that a GREAT thing. For all those birds that have
no chance of making 103.
You just need to decide if that FireFly will appeal in the resale market to licensed
sport pilots...or non-licensed Ultralite pilots.
I am thinking it would be more appealing..therefore worth more...to ultralite pilots.
I certainly dont know this for sure....I just think maybee!!!!!!
IN fact...all legal 103 craft might just get a boost in the market appeal...
maybeeee!
--------
Don G.
Central Illinois
Kitfox IV Speedster
Luscombe 8A
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122436#122436
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flymichigan(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 07:33 PM 6/30/2007, grabo172 wrote:
>
>Just saw this on TNK website! Any idea on a price?
>
>http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/index.html
Looks just like every other updated Cessna 150 clone in the LSA rush...
you'd think an offering from Kolb would be, well, more "Kolb-ish".
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builders Plans |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
Rick
This M3X will have the flaps. I will look in the archives, if I can figure
out how to get there.
Rick
[quote="neilsenrm(at)comcast.net"]Rick
Are you getting the MKIIIX with flaps or flaperons? Check the archives for considerable
discussion of the differences and advantages.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
[quote]-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rick2"
I am new to this forum and will be picking up my plane kit this Thursday, July
5th. I am going to build the M3x and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are
working with me on the engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will talk
more on the engine situation as things progress.
My main concern for now is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of
plans early while they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will
be building, in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long Ezy,
which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was a
Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, tha t is i ics Li
> [b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122458#122458
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
In a message dated 7/3/2007 12:32:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jim@tru-cast.com writes:
( 1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to control
capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the capacity
if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.
. . . So carrying extra fuel is permitted, so long as it is not usable in
flight. As long as the extra fuel is not plumbed into the aircraft fuel system
I
think you'll be OK.
Oh, if it were only so......
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
Kill one, send message to thousands.
Old Chines proverb
Rick
On 7/5/07, HShack(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/3/2007 12:32:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jim@tru-cast.com writes:
>
> ( 1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to
> control capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the
> capacity if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.
>
> . . . So carrying extra fuel is permitted, so long as it is not usable in
> flight. As long as the extra fuel is not plumbed into the aircraft fuel
> system I think you'll be OK.
>
>
> Oh, if it were only so......
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS II
> SC
>
>
> ------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly |
At 10:57 PM 7/5/2007, R. Hankins wrote:
>I believe that Sport Pilot was more a response to EAA pressure to allow
>thousands of aging pilots to fly without a medical, than an effort at
>public protection...
There was also pressure on FAA to end "rulemaking by exemption", which was
what the BFI program was.
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builders Plans |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
Thanks everyone for the feed back on the plans. Donnie and Travis are pretty upset
about them also. I can see why there upset sence it's out of there hands
and can't change them thereselves. They work so hard with everyone and will
go out of there way to make the customer happy but yet here's something out of
there control. I know most of you don't live close enough to the factory to
visit and get to know them but even when you talk with them at the fly-in's you
leave with a good feeling about the plane and Kolb Factory.
I've got my kit now and kinda figured out the plans so I'm ready to start.
I really don't exspect any problems but I know if I have questions or get confused,
I have this forum and the guy's at Kolb. :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122491#122491
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Morgan" <morganguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Legal FireFly??or not?? |
Howdy Fellas,
If you're selling the Firefly, you can always put the OEM items back on I.e.
small tires, minimal instrument panel, etc. Get it legal and include the
"extras" with the sale. A firefly built by the books, with attention to the
paint especially, should easily fall within limits.
Best Regards,
Guy Morgan
Evergreen Helicopters
2001 Terminal Dr.
Galveston, TX 77554
work: (409) 740-0231
cell: (409) 692-2864
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don G" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Legal FireFly??or not??
>
> Jimmy,
> Back to your question about the worth of a "fat" firefly.
>
> What would it cost to bring it back under 103 compliance?..add that to the
> equasion. More than registering it?
>
> this is what I think...not what I know..just what I think...maybeee...
>
> A legal 103 FireFly might have more value than a non-registered "fat" one.
>
> A 503 Firestar that never had a chance of making 254 lbs unless you left
> the wing off...will be worth more legal as an E-LSA than not.
> Same with Challengers and 503 Titan I's and so on.
>
> There is no "NEW " rule that makes all fat ultralites now illegal,,,they
> always were. They were all required to be registered as an Experimental
> before...now there is just a new rule that allows them to be easily
> "transitioned" to a E-LSA.
> This is the "manna from above" as just someone mentioned.
> No hassle...no documentation...dont even have to be the original builder.
> This is a good thing....make that a GREAT thing. For all those birds that
> have no chance of making 103.
>
> You just need to decide if that FireFly will appeal in the resale market
> to licensed sport pilots...or non-licensed Ultralite pilots.
>
> I am thinking it would be more appealing..therefore worth more...to
> ultralite pilots.
> I certainly dont know this for sure....I just think maybee!!!!!!
>
> IN fact...all legal 103 craft might just get a boost in the market
> appeal...
> maybeeee!
>
> --------
> Don G.
> Central Illinois
> Kitfox IV Speedster
> Luscombe 8A
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122436#122436
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builders Plans |
| From: | "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net> |
I couldn't agree with you more.
I ordered a Mark III but changed it to the "Xtra" when that design came out. I
have the old plans and manual, the later manual and the latest plans.
I also have found that the plans have gone downhill. The plans were redone but
not improved, they have in fact gone the other way. They have many more mistakes
and good tips that were in the previous plans and manuals have been left
out. I have also talked the TNK guys about this and apparently it is out of their
hands. It's a shame because the original plans and manual were in general
very good in my opinion.
The good thing is that the guys on the list are very helpful and you couldn't ask
for better people to work with than Travis and Donnie at TNK.
Rex Rodebush (42 years of mechanical design)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122506#122506
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Federal Regulations, WAS Kolb Firefly |
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
Having followed and been significantly affected by, "Sport" issues, the most gifted
presenter in the world would have a hard time convincing me that the real
truth was anything other than the medical AND carrying a passenger.
Issues like ".... public protection...." and "....rule making by exemption...."
were positions that could be put out for public consumption, but not, IMO,
sound arguments for the way it all came down.
DL as a validation of the medical requirements to operate anything????????? For
those of you who don't know...... I live in Florida!
My 2 cents worth! (Which is about all that was left after I jumped through the
hoops!)
George Alexander
Sport Pilot
N709FS
d-m-hague(at)comcast.net wrote:
> At 10:57 PM 7/5/2007, R. Hankins wrote:
>
>
> > I believe that Sport Pilot was more a response to EAA pressure to allow
> > thousands of aging pilots to fly without a medical, than an effort at
> > public protection...
> >
> >
>
> There was also pressure on FAA to end "rulemaking by exemption", which was
> what the BFI program was.
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> --
> The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
--------
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122508#122508
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "davenagy" <dcnagy(at)gmail.com> |
A few years ago I bought an Un-registered Twinstar. To make it legal I got it inspected
and N numbered as an Exp. Amatuer Built with the actual builder listed
on the documents. Now with the Exp LSA option available, I wondering if there
is any way to change the registration to Exp LSA so that I would be able to
perform the annuals?
Dave Nagy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122561#122561
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E LSA vs E AB |
Dave, The grandfathering rules in FAR 21.191 specifically states that the
aircraft must not have been previously certificated.
Rick
On 7/6/07, davenagy wrote:
>
>
> A few years ago I bought an Un-registered Twinstar. To make it legal I got
> it inspected and N numbered as an Exp. Amatuer Built with the actual builder
> listed on the documents. Now with the Exp LSA option available, I wondering
> if there is any way to change the registration to Exp LSA so that I would be
> able to perform the annuals?
>
> Dave Nagy
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122561#122561
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | fuel problem I think? |
Hello gang,
Looking for information and advice. We have a firestar ll with a 503 rotax,
dual ignition, dual carbs, pull start, no battery, Grandson experienced a
engine problem which is described as engine rpm=99s dropped off , engi
ne was not
running rough nor sounded or felt rough when rpm dropped, engine rpms came
right back up without engine stopping. He had been airborne about 5 minutes
when
this happened, He came back in and landed and the engine ran ok after the
problem. We checked things over, pulled the carb bowls and things looked o
k.
He took off and flew about a hour with no engine problem. I later flew abou
t
a hour with no problem. A few days later I decided to take a little pitch o
ut
of prop to gain more rpm=99s on take off and after warming up engine
and
testing mags I took off to experience the same problem he had, but i was at
about
300=99 , Rpm=99s dropped a lot to the point I thought it was go
ing to quit. It
did this about 3 times before I got in back on the runway. It acted to me l
ike
the engine was running out of fuel and then would get enough fuel to run ok
.
I checked everything out found nothing wrong and decided to take off again.
Engine again had same problemJust like prior takeoff. This convince
d me to
put it in the hangar and fix the problem. The fuel system is described as
follows. I have all nearly new gas lines, plastic, and recommended type, he
avy
type pulse line. Pulse pump was rebuilt about 40 hours ago, , gascolater sc
reen
is clean , fuel filter with about 20 hours. Primer bulb was new this
spring and has bypass , also a primer in the system. Fuel comes out of the
bottom
of 2 5gal tanks. Tank filler caps are vented. We are fussy about our fuel
and it goes thru a mr funnel when filling the tanks. Carbs rebuilt about 30
hours ago. I have found nothing wrong from inspection except the pulse pum
p
has no weep hole as recommended, also pulse line does not go below pump to
form trap as recommended. So we are going to put on new pump with weep hole
and
correct the pulse line, new fuel filter and test fly it. I wonder about
this also: the pulse pump is about 31=9D about the bottom of the tank
s and the
length of pulse line is 12=9D long. Pump specs call for maximum ris
e of 39=9D.So
we are close to the maximumI am considering a electric fuel pump r
unning
off the engine electrity, not battery and being plumbed in series, not
parallel. I know that some recommend the electric pump be installed in para
llel, but
this is a lot more complicated and messy.and is it really necessar
y?? Sorry
for such a long post.but thanks for your thoughts and input
will let you
know what happens.
Jim Swan firestar ll 503 michigan
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E LSA vs E AB |
| From: | "davenagy" <dcnagy(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Rick!
Now I know at least I didn't miss the chance!
Dave Nagy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122579#122579
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Jim, ask yourself, What changed with the plane since your last
uneventful flights, did you add fuel? if so, check the source/Quality.
In other words, I think that your plan you mentioned in the post is the
correct course of action.. Can you extend the fuel hose from the carb, ,
route the hose extension from there back to a fuel can on the ground
under the plane & see if you can get the fuel to siphon back close to
the ground? If so, it's probably not the fuel system/& or clogged
filter.
How about the jetting, ? small piece of dirt that gets released when
RPMs/suction drop? & so on. Like I said, I think you`re on the right
track already. Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Arksey(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 7:32 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: fuel problem I think?
Hello gang,
Looking for information and advice. We have a firestar ll with a
503 rotax, dual ignition, dual carbs, pull start, no battery, Grandson
experienced a engine problem which is described as engine rpm=99s
dropped off , engine was not running rough nor sounded or felt rough
when rpm dropped, engine rpms came right back up without engine
stopping. He had been airborne about 5 minutes when this happened, He
came back in and landed and the engine ran ok after the problem. We
checked things over, pulled the carb bowls and things looked ok. He took
off and flew about a hour with no engine problem. I later flew about a
hour with no problem. A few days later I decided to take a little pitch
out of prop to gain more rpm=99s on take off and after warming up
engine and testing mags I took off to experience the same problem he
had, but i was at about 300=99 , Rpm=99s dropped a lot to
the point I thought it was going to quit. It did this about 3 times
before I got in back on the runway. It acted to me like the engine was
running out of fuel and then would get enough fuel to run ok. I checked
everything out found nothing wrong and decided to take off again. Engine
again had same problemJust like prior takeoff. This convinced
me to put it in the hangar and fix the problem. The fuel system is
described as follows. I have all nearly new gas lines, plastic, and
recommended type, heavy type pulse line. Pulse pump was rebuilt about 40
hours ago, , gascolater screen is clean , fuel filter with about 20
hours. Primer bulb was new this spring and has bypass , also a primer in
the system. Fuel comes out of the bottom of 2 5gal tanks. Tank filler
caps are vented. We are fussy about our fuel and it goes thru a mr
funnel when filling the tanks. Carbs rebuilt about 30 hours ago. I have
found nothing wrong from inspection except the pulse pump has no weep
hole as recommended, also pulse line does not go below pump to form trap
as recommended. So we are going to put on new pump with weep hole and
correct the pulse line, new fuel filter and test fly it. I wonder
about this also: the pulse pump is about 31=9D about the bottom of
the tanks and the length of pulse line is 12=9D long. Pump specs
call for maximum rise of 39=9D.So we are close to the
maximumI am considering a electric fuel pump running off the
engine electrity, not battery and being plumbed in series, not parallel.
I know that some recommend the electric pump be installed in parallel,
but this is a lot more complicated and messy.and is it really
necessary?? Sorry for such a long post.but thanks for your
thoughts and inputwill let you know what happens.
Jim Swan firestar ll 503 michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "beauford T" <beauford173(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Jim:
Whatever else you check, if it were mine, I'd sure be wanting to yank
the exhaust manifold off and look at the pistons and rings for signs of
scuffing and possible near-seizure... Had similar symptoms with my Nazi
447once... was carboned-up rings which caused it to almost seize. It
bogged down, then recovered for a while and ran normally... I flew on
home and cleaned the fuel system...Started it cold and it ran OK... on
takeoff it bogged again... I looked into the exhaust ports and
instantly saw the problem. I was lucky -- got off with new pistons and
a carbuerator choke piston... Could have easily cost me my fanny.
Just a thought....Worth what ye paid fer it...
Beauford
Firefly 076 / N173BW
Brandon, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Arksey(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: fuel problem I think?
Hello gang,
Looking for information and advice. We have a firestar ll with a
503 rotax, dual ignition, dual carbs, pull start, no battery, Grandson
experienced a engine problem which is described as engine rpm=99s
dropped off , engine was not running rough nor sounded or felt rough
when rpm dropped, engine rpms came right back up without engine
stopping. He had been airborne about 5 minutes when this happened, He
came back in and landed and the engine ran ok after the problem. We
checked things over, pulled the carb bowls and things looked ok. He took
off and flew about a hour with no engine problem. I later flew about a
hour with no problem. A few days later I decided to take a little pitch
out of prop to gain more rpm=99s on take off and after warming up
engine and testing mags I took off to experience the same problem he
had, but i was at about 300=99 , Rpm=99s dropped a lot to
the point I thought it was going to quit. It did this about 3 times
before I got in back on the runway. It acted to me like the engine was
running out of fuel and then would get enough fuel to run ok. I checked
everything out found nothing wrong and decided to take off again. Engine
again had same problemJust like prior takeoff. This convinced
me to put it in the hangar and fix the problem. The fuel system is
described as follows. I have all nearly new gas lines, plastic, and
recommended type, heavy type pulse line. Pulse pump was rebuilt about 40
hours ago, , gascolater screen is clean , fuel filter with about 20
hours. Primer bulb was new this spring and has bypass , also a primer in
the system. Fuel comes out of the bottom of 2 5gal tanks. Tank filler
caps are vented. We are fussy about our fuel and it goes thru a mr
funnel when filling the tanks. Carbs rebuilt about 30 hours ago. I have
found nothing wrong from inspection except the pulse pump has no weep
hole as recommended, also pulse line does not go below pump to form trap
as recommended. So we are going to put on new pump with weep hole and
correct the pulse line, new fuel filter and test fly it. I wonder
about this also: the pulse pump is about 31=9D about the bottom of
the tanks and the length of pulse line is 12=9D long. Pump specs
call for maximum rise of 39=9D.So we are close to the
maximumI am considering a electric fuel pump running off the
engine electrity, not battery and being plumbed in series, not parallel.
I know that some recommend the electric pump be installed in parallel,
but this is a lot more complicated and messy.and is it really
necessary?? Sorry for such a long post.but thanks for your
thoughts and inputwill let you know what happens.
Jim Swan firestar ll 503 michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Hi mike,
thanks for your suggestion of carb ice...but conditons were not
conducive for carb ice at time......but yes it is possible....thanks Mike....
jim swan firestar ll michigan
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Hi JIm,
thanks...yur idea about siphon fuel back to a can is a good way to check
resistance in fuel line....thanks....
jim swan firestar ll 503 michigan
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | New FireFly Tail Wheel Spring System |
Kolbers, and FireFlyers,
I really wanted to get away from the tension spring and to use a clevis
spring. I could not find small light weight clevis springs. After several
iterations, I have a new system that uses compression springs in a way that
is equivalent to clevis springs. The new system can be seen at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly133.html
I believe the FireFly responds better to rudder pedal input than before,
especially in grass. Shaved off 1.5 ounces. While I was at it I bushed the
holes through which the hinge pin bolt passes.
I hope you have a good 7/7/07.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Hi Beauford.
thanks.... will check pistons...good thought.....jim swan firestar ll 503
michigan
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New FireFly Tail Wheel Spring System |
In a message dated 7/6/2007 10:12:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net writes:
I hope you have a good 7/7/07
Jack,
Make that 07/07/07
BV
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
In a message dated 7/6/2007 11:02:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ElleryWeld(at)aol.com writes:
you might try is pulling the slides out of your carbs and raising the needle
one notch, usually I do this in the spring of the year
Ellery,
Do you mean raise the needle, by lowering the clip in the groove?
If so, that would allow more fuel mix (richer). I thought it was better to
lean out for the summer because there's less air due to humidity.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Check the squeeze bulb.
Larry C
----- Original Message -----
From: Arksey(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel problem I think?
Hi JIm,
thanks...yur idea about siphon fuel back to a can is a good way to
check resistance in fuel line....thanks....
jim swan firestar ll 503 michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Have had similar problem , the problem was the air filter. Take the air
filter off and see if RPMs come back to normal. If they do give the
filter a good clean . The method I use is hot soapy water and then dry
out .I find this needs done about every 25 to 30 hours to prevent
occurrence If its fuel starvation that will not help but pulling the
chock on when the problem occurs will or should momentarily rectify the
problem and point you in the right direction.
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Arksey(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: fuel problem I think?
Hello gang,
Looking for information and advice. We have a firestar ll with a
503 rotax, dual ignition, dual carbs, pull start, no battery, Grandson
experienced a engine problem which is described as engine rpm=99s
dropped off , engine was not running rough nor sounded or felt rough
when rpm dropped, engine rpms came right back up without engine
stopping. He had been airborne about 5 minutes when this happened, He
came back in and landed and the engine ran ok after the problem. We
checked things over, pulled the carb bowls and things looked ok. He took
off and flew about a hour with no engine problem. I later flew about a
hour with no problem. A few days later I decided to take a little pitch
out of prop to gain more rpm=99s on take off and after warming up
engine and testing mags I took off to experience the same problem he
had, but i was at about 300=99 , Rpm=99s dropped a lot to
the point I thought it was going to quit. It did this about 3 times
before I got in back on the runway. It acted to me like the engine was
running out of fuel and then would get enough fuel to run ok. I checked
everything out found nothing wrong and decided to take off again. Engine
again had same problemJust like prior takeoff. This convinced
me to put it in the hangar and fix the problem. The fuel system is
described as follows. I have all nearly new gas lines, plastic, and
recommended type, heavy type pulse line. Pulse pump was rebuilt about 40
hours ago, , gascolater screen is clean , fuel filter with about 20
hours. Primer bulb was new this spring and has bypass , also a primer in
the system. Fuel comes out of the bottom of 2 5gal tanks. Tank filler
caps are vented. We are fussy about our fuel and it goes thru a mr
funnel when filling the tanks. Carbs rebuilt about 30 hours ago. I have
found nothing wrong from inspection except the pulse pump has no weep
hole as recommended, also pulse line does not go below pump to form trap
as recommended. So we are going to put on new pump with weep hole and
correct the pulse line, new fuel filter and test fly it. I wonder
about this also: the pulse pump is about 31=9D about the bottom of
the tanks and the length of pulse line is 12=9D long. Pump specs
call for maximum rise of 39=9D.So we are close to the
maximumI am considering a electric fuel pump running off the
engine electrity, not battery and being plumbed in series, not parallel.
I know that some recommend the electric pump be installed in parallel,
but this is a lot more complicated and messy.and is it really
necessary?? Sorry for such a long post.but thanks for your
thoughts and inputwill let you know what happens.
Jim Swan firestar ll 503 michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
6/07/2007 6:36 a.m.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel problem I think? |
Looking for information and advice>>
Whats the weather like? Carb ice?
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPERIMENTAL |
I want to answer the fellow who wondered if he could reregister his
experimental twinstar into the experimental light sport catagory. Not
according to the rules. I want to say though that the new rules are making
us better liars. I dont see why you couldnt just take your n-numbers off,
remove the old id plate and serial number and redo the entire thing. you
could litterly make up a new serial number, pretend it is a different plane
and go through the hoops. I would advise you to get a different DAR though!
Not like it is etched in stone. dont know why anyone would want to go
through all the trouble but there you have it. lie like hell. (Of course,
I wouldnt tell anyone and of course, I wouldnt do it myself. yeah, right.)
Ted Cowan, Alabama.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EXPERIMENTAL |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
Yep. Definitely would work.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122633#122633
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Myers" <gmyers(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | fuel problem I think? |
I had the same problem with a 503 on a quicksilver a couple years ago
that I got a good deal on. Tried 3 different carbs, dozens of settings,
3 different fuel pumps, all new fuel lines & filter and a thunderbird
dance. It would give 6000 rpms for 2 to 5 minutes then cut back to 1500
to 2000 for about the same. I could stay up with good thermals but not
for too long otherwise. Finally pulled the jugs off. The rings were
stuck just a little (if there is such a thing) and there were a couple
light scuff marks on both pistons. Also the crosshatching on the
cylinder walls was negligible to nonexistent. I purchased the next sized
up pistons & rings online, had a local machine shop bore the walls to
spec & it flew like a new one until I sold it 200 hours later. I assumed
then, & still do, that it was partially seizing until it cooled a little
then was good to go until it heated up again. I put about 6 or 8 hours &
several =98exciting=99 flights on it that way.
George
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Arksey(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: fuel problem I think?
Hello gang,
Looking for information and advice. We have a firestar ll with a 503
rotax, dual ignition, dual carbs, pull start, no battery, Grandson
experienced a engine problem which is described as engine rpm=99s
dropped off , engine was plumbed in series, not parallel. I know that
some recommend the electric pump be installed in parallel, but this is a
lot more complicated and messy.and is it really necessary??
Sorry for such a long post.but thanks for your thoughts and
inputwill let you know what happens.
Jim Swan firestar ll 503 michigan
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Nelson" <geezer.nelson(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPERIMENTAL |
I'm getting my Experimental-Amateur Built Minimax ready to sell, and I
considered this option. The FAA told me that I could not re-register
the airplane. I know it would bring a better price if it was E-LSA
because the new owner could attend a mechanic's class and sign off on
all of his work.
Unfortunately, I am sure the FAA would look at my file history and
know what I had done. I'll be losing money on Ebay real soon.
Rick Nelson
On 7/7/07, tc1917 wrote:
>
> I want to answer the fellow who wondered if he could reregister his
> experimental twinstar into the experimental light sport catagory. Not
> according to the rules. I want to say though that the new rules are making
> us better liars. I dont see why you couldnt just take your n-numbers off,
> remove the old id plate and serial number and redo the entire thing. you
> could litterly make up a new serial number, pretend it is a different plane
> and go through the hoops. I would advise you to get a different DAR though!
> Not like it is etched in stone. dont know why anyone would want to go
> through all the trouble but there you have it. lie like hell. (Of course,
> I wouldnt tell anyone and of course, I wouldnt do it myself. yeah, right.)
> Ted Cowan, Alabama.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 7/4/2007 6:40:18 PM Central Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
> I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its
> toughness and its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many
hours of
> very realiable performance over some very long distances and over some
> mighty hostile terrain and ice water.
>
> Hi John H.,
>
> I am in need of a prop , as one of the cams broke on my Ivo . I am sold
> on the Warp, but I am concerned that it weighs more than the folks from Rotax
> recommend. Did you ever run a warp on any B-box 447? I dont want another
> Ivo, but I dont want to overstress the B -box, either.
Ed Diebel
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
I'm not John, but try a two blade 64" Warp, (or be really conservative
and use a 62" two blade Warp) and use only Mobil One synthetic in your
gearbox, and you'll probably get by without hurting the gearbox, and
you'll probably be very satisfied. I got a couple hundred hours out of
my B box with a Warp 66" two blade, but that was with ordinary gearbox
lube. A shorter prop and better lube and you ought to do OK.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:Warp Drive
In a message dated 7/4/2007 6:40:18 PM Central Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its
toughness and its performance. I can back that statement up with many,
many hours of very realiable performance over some very long distances
and over some mighty hostile terrain and ice water.
Hi John H.,
I am in need of a prop , as one of the cams broke on my Ivo . I
am sold on the Warp, but I am concerned that it weighs more than the
folks from Rotax recommend. Did you ever run a warp on any B-box 447?
I dont want another Ivo, but I dont want to overstress the B -box,
either.
Ed Diebel
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Ed,
I may be more than you want to spend but you could always upgrade to a C
box. Since it is a stronger box and includes a rubber damper bushing you will
end up with a very smooth and reliable alternative. My feeling is that by going
to the Warp to avoid prop damage during a strike you may be shifting the
weakest link job to the gear box.
Steve
FF 007
C box on the shelf next to a 2 blade warp waiting for a spare weekend
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
I went to the hanger yesterday to get some empty fuel containers as we
were going to town and I want a bit more fuel on hand. I have a clear
tank that I use to mix the gas and oil, so I poured out one of the 5 gal
containers that I had filled up about 10 days before into the clear
container. I was very surprised to see that it was about the same color
as it would be when I had mixed in the oil. I got it just over the
border in Nev and it has been sealed in the plastic container sitting in
the dark in the hanger. I am not intending to put it in my plane just
because the color is so strange. It is too darned hot to be walking back
home from the places that I fly. I'll burn it in the lawn mower or the
quad. I know that we have someone on the list that works with gas
distributors, just can't remember who. I have noticed that there is
quite a varying color range in gas purchased in different places. My
question is- does the color have any impact on the suitability of fuel,
and would storing it in individual containers at OAT have an adverse
effect, and if so how long would it take to not be usable. I might add
that the stuff smells ok.
Thanks for the help
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 7/8/2007 12:29:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com writes:
What's the "Ballpark" price for the Box , Hub, and Prop...?
.
.
.
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN
.
Mike, $1314.00 for the C box at Airwolf. GULP! but a new B box is
worth $810.00 and you can sell your B box.
The best time to do this is when you buy a new 447 and opt for the C. Only a
few hundred dollars at that point.
Bryan M has installed a few of these configurations on Fireflys and they are
very smooth.
steve
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 7/7/2007 11:25:52 PM Central Standard Time,
richard(at)bcchapel.org writes:
>
> I'm not John, but try a two blade 64" Warp, (or be really conservative and
> use a 62" two blade Warp) and use only Mobil One synthetic in your gearbox,
> and you'll probably get by without hurting the gearbox, and you'll probably be
> very satisfied. I got a couple hundred hours out of my B box with a Warp 66"
> two blade, but that was with ordinary gearbox lube. A shorter prop and better
> lube and you ought to do OK.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
Richard,
What tipped you off there was a problem with your B Box at 200 hrs?
What is the normal life expectancy of a B Box? And lastly, is it likely to
cause a forced landing if the gear box fails? I dont recall of any post on the
list involving failed gear boxes. I have ran Mobil 1 Synthetic since day one.
Ed Diebel
**************************************
See what's
free at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N111KX (Kip)" <n111kx(at)mindspring.com> |
I wish that they would bring back the REAL Kolb Flyer.... [Crying or Very sad]
Kip
--------
Kip
Firestar II (born September 2000)
Atlanta, GA
N111KX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122771#122771
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolmbru(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | arlington any one |
my buddy is driving to Arlington from Florida you cant miss him he is a
ultralight hippy with long red hair and the biggest handlebar mustache you have
ever seen. he is traveling with a beautiful blond, when you see him please
tell him, Malcolm will see him in Oshkosh mal Michigan
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
The bearings spinning in the races and on the shaft was a dead
giveaway... before that it had a lot of metal mung around the magnet on
the previous two gearbox oil changes, so pulled it apart to see what it
was doing. Sent it to CPS, they said it was cheaper to buy a new one
than fix it. This was 12 years ago, I was using a 66" two blade Warp on
a 532. Since then I have used only Mobil One synthetic and the oil comes
out clean, almost no mung on the plug magnet using a 68" two blade Ivo,
B box. I think the Mobil One is the ticket. Thanks to John H for the
heads-up on that one.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:Warp Drive
In a message dated 7/7/2007 11:25:52 PM Central Standard Time,
richard(at)bcchapel.org writes:
I'm not John, but try a two blade 64" Warp, (or be really
conservative and use a 62" two blade Warp) and use only Mobil One
synthetic in your gearbox, and you'll probably get by without hurting
the gearbox, and you'll probably be very satisfied. I got a couple
hundred hours out of my B box with a Warp 66" two blade, but that was
with ordinary gearbox lube. A shorter prop and better lube and you ought
to do OK.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Richard,
What tipped you off there was a problem with your B Box at 200
hrs? What is the normal life expectancy of a B Box? And lastly, is it
likely to cause a forced landing if the gear box fails? I dont recall
of any post on the list involving failed gear boxes. I have ran Mobil 1
Synthetic since day one.
Ed Diebel
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey Group,
Are there any of you flying with any of the EFIS units? I have two
Dynon D10A units. One will be installed in my Kolb MkIII, and the other
will be as a back-up to my Blue Mountain Avionics EFISOne in my GlaStar.
Up to this point my only experience is playing with them on the kitchen
table. They sure do look cool, and show virtually instanteous response to
movement.
For the Kolb, I'm going to have the Dynon D10A EFIS, built-in Garmin 296
GPS, Icom A200 NavCom, and King transponder. For my engine "steam gages",
they are in an overhead panel, you just look up to see them. (overhead
panel includes gages, ignition switch, clock, intercom and light, and
switches to various things)
I was curious about anyone else's experience with any EFIS units, 'cause
you don't seem to hear much from this group on any of the avionics in their
planes.
Mike in SW Utah
_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Overhead Panel |
Sure, I'd be happy to. My feeling was that the area the above your
head was blocked by the bottom side of the leading edge of the wing, anyway,
so why not make it a place for things you would want fairly close.
Funny thing about that "close" business, tho. Back when I was working on
my Kolb quite a bit, I built this panel back in 2001. Needed glases to see
up close "some". Now, 6 years later, I need glasses to see up
close...period! But, I guess that's okay, tho, because the FAA (pilot's
license) says I need to have reading glasses with me, anyway. (Actually, I
can see, it's just that things are a little blurry.)
Back to the panel; gages are self explanatory, ignition switch, clock
(from Honda Civic) intercom, aircraft swing down/(and then detach if you
want) cockpit light, and switches are for strobes and position lights,
avionics master, electric in-flight adjustable prop, etc.
Oh, and I have a rather cool DOOR mounted throttle lever.
Best to all, Mike in SW Utah
>From: "Al & Beth Nicoson" <anicoson(at)wi.rr.com>
>Reply-To:
>To:
>Subject: Overhead Panel
>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:55:54 -0500
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>Do you have a photo of your design, if so would you please pass it along?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Al
>-
>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Al & Beth Nicoson
> anicoson(at)wi.rr.com
>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I have a Dynon EFIS D100 (with OAT probe) in my Aerocomp Experimental. I
bought it in December 2006. I had some trouble with it and sent it back
to Dynon. They replaced its main board and it's been GREAT since then. I
really like the TAS & wind readout and the HSI/GPS display. It is also
comforting to have 2+ hours of backup battery in case of electrical
failure. I am looking forward to the improvements with the [free] new
firmware due out any day. Definitely get the brighter screen option
($200).
Ground calibration of the magnetic flux detector is critical to accurate
heading and wind info (this is easily done). But it's great never having
to synch a DG. It is interfaced to my Garmin GPSmap 196 portable with a
single wire.
Jim
N. Idaho
Hey Group,
Are there any of you flying with any of the EFIS units? I have two
Dynon D10A units. One will be installed in my Kolb MkIII, and the other
will be as a back-up to my Blue Mountain Avionics EFISOne in my GlaStar.
Up to this point my only experience is playing with them on the kitchen
table. They sure do look cool, and show virtually instanteous response to
movement.
For the Kolb, I'm going to have the Dynon D10A EFIS, built-in Garmin
296
GPS, Icom A200 NavCom, and King transponder. For my engine "steam gages",
they are in an overhead panel, you just look up to see them. (overhead
panel includes gages, ignition switch, clock, intercom and light, and
switches to various things)
I was curious about anyone else's experience with any EFIS units,
'cause
you don't seem to hear much from this group on any of the avionics in
their
planes.
Mike in SW Utah
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: arlington any one |
I'll be at Arlington next Sat & Sunday, but I'll be in my Aerocomp experimental,
not my Firefly.
Jim
N. Idaho
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122861#122861
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Overhead Panel |
Mike/All,
In the future, please post pics via the matronics website and
guidelines.
It won't slow the e-mail down for those of us on dial-up.
Thanx!
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Overhead Panel
> Sure, I'd be happy to. My feeling was that the area the above your
> head was blocked by the bottom side of the leading edge of the wing,
> anyway,
> so why not make it a place for things you would want fairly close.
>
(Snip)
> Oh, and I have a rather cool DOOR mounted throttle lever.
>
> Best to all, Mike in SW Utah
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Overhead Panel |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
The overhead panel is a great idea !!! I have been running out of room also on
my pedistol, and dont want anything bigger that would block my view out the front.
An overhead is the answer if I ever want to add anything more.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122889#122889
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co wrote:
>
>
> For the Kolb, I'm going to have the Dynon D10A EFIS, built-in Garmin 296
> GPS, Icom A200 NavCom, and King transponder. For my engine "steam gages",
> they are in an overhead panel, you just look up to see them. (overhead
> panel includes gages, ignition switch, clock, intercom and light, and
> switches to various things)
>
>
> Mike in SW Utah
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> http://newlivehotmail.com
That sounds like a nice setup, just about all the stuff I would want :) With
all that modern avionics, why are you still using steam guages ??? The EIS
unit is GREAT for engine monitoring. Its more accurate and you dont have to stare
at it while flying, the flashing red light with something goes out of limits
is better than constantly having to monitor guages.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122891#122891
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhead Panel |
I liked this one so much I bought it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Mike/All Others,
I agree with you re: the steam gages idea. I would be better off with an
EIS electronic system, but as I said, I started the Kolb back in 2000/2001
and didn't even consider the electronic route, plus I didn't have very much
money back then. No real intentions of changing at this point.
I got myself in a situation where I couldn't work on the plane for a few
years. Then, a year or two ago I made a ton of money, and invested a
small fortune in my GlaStar ($90,000 or so). Kolb was still on the back
burner. GlaStar moved to the head of the line. Then, another direction
change has now caused me to want to sell my Cessna 172, and focus back on
the Kolb. Plus, wife says three planes is too many.
In the last few days I have virtually finished building my shop and pool
in my backyard. I have been "stealing" time here and there, and working on
the Kolb. Actually, before I began working on the Kolb, I had to repair the
rudder on the GlaStar!!! During my move to SW Utah in December, my glass
top picnic table blew off my truck on the highway, flew up in the air and
wiped out the top of the rudder as it then exploded into a trillion pieces
on the highway. Out of a sense of remorse, I felt the need to repair the
rudder before I did anything else, either on the GlaStar OR Kolb.
Repaired the rudder! Damn nice job, if I say so myself. Then onto Kolb.
I'm having to pay the price for not keeping the Kolb inside all the time.
( mostly kept covered under tarp)
My Kolb MkIII was at the point where all I needed to do was cover the
tail feathers, and wings.
Practically ALL else was finished. Motor/prop was running. Instruments
mounted (almost all of them). Pretty much fabric and paint was all that's
left to do. Now I have to back waaaay!! up. It'll take me 3 months just
to get back to square one.
But the REALLY GOOD part is: I have began working on the Kolb again.
And in my book, that's always a good thing!! And this time I plan on
doing it like they rebuilt Steve Austin in "The SiX Million Dollar Man".
"We can build it BETTER! STRONGER! FASTER!
Best regards, Mike in SW Utah
PS. I do have the EIS for my GlaStar. I have a Electronics International
MVP 50. $5000 unit. Can't afford to spend money like that on ALL the
planes!!
>From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: EFIS Units
>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:51:49 -0700
>
>
>mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co wrote:
> >
> >
> > For the Kolb, I'm going to have the Dynon D10A EFIS, built-in Garmin 296
> > GPS, Icom A200 NavCom, and King transponder. For my engine "steam
>gages",
> > they are in an overhead panel, you just look up to see them. (overhead
> > panel includes gages, ignition switch, clock, intercom and light, and
> > switches to various things)
> >
> >
> > Mike in SW Utah
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > http://newlivehotmail.com
>
>
>That sounds like a nice setup, just about all the stuff I would want :)
>With all that modern avionics, why are you still using steam guages ???
>The EIS unit is GREAT for engine monitoring. Its more accurate and you
>dont have to stare at it while flying, the flashing red light with
>something goes out of limits is better than constantly having to monitor
>guages.
>
>Mike
>
>--------
>"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
>could have !!!
>
>Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122891#122891
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhead Panel |
David,
Please post a LINK to pics, so those who are interested can click
and view, and those who aren't (esp. those of us on dial-up) aren't
hamstrung waiting for a few minutes for pics we don't need/want.
Thanks,
Ed in JXN
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Overhead Panel
>I liked this one so much I bought it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
You can get the EIS for like 700 bucks, I forget the exact price, but its not much.
Probably slightly more then the steam guages it replaces. You can see mine
in the picture of my MKIII panel attached to this post. This thing is really
great. With my luck, I would not be looking at the guages the minute the
oil pressure went down, or when the EGT's started to go up. With a bright red
flashing light in your face, you know when something goes wrong right away.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122993#122993
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Here is the picture of my panel......
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122994#122994
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiipanelinflight_211.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | electric start for 582 |
Kolbers,
A friend of mine just purchased the funky looking Slingshot that was for
sale on Barnstormers.
He would like to convert to electric start and also may be in the market
for a good used C-gearbox.
If anyone has a good used starter for a 582 or C-box, please drop me a
line.
Denny Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Overhead Panel |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Nice looking panel, Mike W.
As an alternate location for those extra switches that never seem to fit
in the stock Kolb instrument panel, I chose the floor pan, just forward
of the passenger-side seat. This nearly-vertical section of tin is
useable real estate, directly below the passenger's knees.
Here, I fabricated a 4"x10" panel onto which is mounted little stuff:
the master switch, start button, fuel pump switch, strobe switch, power
jacks (3), and the fuse box. The panel is not visible from my seated
position in the cockpit; I activate the switches by feel.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III
New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nauga Field Fly Around - Starhill, LA (latest) |
In a message dated 7/10/2007 11:05:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kolbrapilot1(at)tx.rr.com writes:
John B and All,
You can take Ken Korenek off the list.
Can you believe that someone would let work get in the way of flying!
do not archive
Try offering him a steak. :-)
steve
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firestar II 3 view |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
I'm looking for a good 3 view of a Firestar II. This is to satisfy the one of
the requirements to register my plane under the new ELSA rules.
I tried Travis @ Kolb but, oddly enough they said they didn't have one. So I thought
I'd try the list to see if someone here might have one from some old sales
literature they may have around.
My Firestar is for sale and is listed in Barnstormers for those who might be interested.
Thanks for you Help
Best Regards
Carlos G
AKA
BaronVonEvil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123090#123090
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II 3 view |
| From: | "Jim ODay" <jimoday(at)hotmail.com> |
Here is one I used.
Jim
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123095#123095
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolb_3_view_204.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II 3 view |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Jim,
Say that looks like it should do the trick.
Thank You Very Much.
Best Regards
Carlos G.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123098#123098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Chesanning MI Fly-In July 14-15th |
Is anyone going to the fly-in? Is it still on? The weather looks good
for Saturday but?
Interesting MULA sponsors these events and all the searches that I did
point back to the MULA web site and nothing about any of the fly-ins is
listed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
Who is going to Oshkosh this year? I'm planning to fly in with Scott
Trask on Sunday (7/22) or Monday (7/23) depending on weather. Is anyone
else flying in? I will be there camping under my wing the whole week as
usual
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolmbru(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Chesanning MI Fly-In July 14-15th |
Yes it is on for the mula fly inn and I will be there I will also be in
seaplane bass at oshkosh come see me there mal
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flykolb" <flykolb(at)wowway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chesanning MI Fly-In July 14-15th |
Rick,
Could you send me information about the fly-in?
Jim Minewiser
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard & Martha Neilsen
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Chesanning MI Fly-In July 14-15th
Is anyone going to the fly-in? Is it still on? The weather looks good
for Saturday but?
Interesting MULA sponsors these events and all the searches that I did
point back to the MULA web site and nothing about any of the fly-ins is
listed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2007 |
Rick, can you shoot me Scott Trask`s e-mail address, I met him in 1996?
& would like to re-contact hiom, thanks, Jim Kmet
jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard & Martha Neilsen
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Oshkosh 2007
Who is going to Oshkosh this year? I'm planning to fly in with Scott
Trask on Sunday (7/22) or Monday (7/23) depending on weather. Is anyone
else flying in? I will be there camping under my wing the whole week as
usual
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolmbru(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Chesanning MI Fly-In July 14-15th |
MULA is a ultralight club suffering from growing pains imposed by the sport
pilot rule. we have ben holding club fly in events for 20 years. the fact
that we didn't advertise this event state wide in every passable publication
should make people realize what kind of event we are holding .If anyone wants
to know moor about it Please contact a MULA member and ask for the details
mal
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: new/old Kolber |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
Welcome back to the good side Thom. That looks like a nice plane. We should meet
up somewhere in the middle of the state some time.
--------
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=123239#123239
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I put Vortex Generators on my Kolb MK III Xtra. I did not want to post just a
first impression so I have flown with them for about a months so that I had a
chance to really try them out in a lot of different conditions. The VG's have
made a different airplane out of the MK III, not just in terms of reducing the
stall speed, but in the feel of the plane at lower speeds. It used to feel
like an approach speed of 60 MPH was needed to have a good margain of safety
and control. Now, 40 on approach feels fine, although I use 50 minimum as a safety
factor.
Stalls occour at 26 indicated, the plane is not really going this slow, as the
GPS shows mid 30's stall with no flaps. I have the traditional seperate flaps
and ailerons, and Stalling with flaps seems to be at the same speed as stalling
without them, mid 30's. The stall is really a non event, the plane shakes
1/2 second before the nose falls a few degrees nose down, Its so mild that I
have a hard time calling it a stall. Full aileron control is maintained throughout
the stall, if a wing starts to drop anytime in the stall, a medium amout
of aileron input immidately corrects it. I was teaching my wife stalls and of
course her first reaction was to jerk the stick back as soon as the nose fell,
she abruptly pulled the plane level at 33 indicated a couple times and never
got a secondary stall.
Yesterday evening, I wanted to see if I could really fly an approach at a very
low airspeed, so I went to 2000 feet, went to idle power slowed down to 35 MPH
indicated, and put in a huge amount of aileron, banked 45 degrees and roughly
jerked the plane around like an idiot, but was not able to get an accelerated
stall or felt like I was about to lose it.
Landings were a real problem at first, I was in the habbit of landing with no flaps,
and with the VG's the plane started to bounce badly on every landing no
matter how smooth the touchdown. The airplane would touch down, but there was
still enough lift being generated that it would fly again, even with a perfect
three point landing... It was worse with a wheels landing. Landing with one
notch of flaps totally cured this, im guessing that it pitches the nose down
enough that it does not tend to pitch up on a wheels landing, and its going slow
enough on a 3 point landing not to fly again. Now I land with flaps every
time.
The down side is that it cost me some speed, im not sure exactly how much as a
changed props at the same time I added the VG's, I lost 8 MPH in cruise with the
prop change and VG installation. Im guessing at least 5 of that is VG related.
I put the VG 's on with double sided automotive trim tape so that I could
take them off if I ever wanted to. Overall im so happy with the way the MK-III
flys and feels at slow speeds with VG's, I am more than happy to cruise a
bit slower.
I used 140 VG's spaced at 2.5 inches apart from the center out to the wingtips.
The VG's are in pairs and centered in the valleys of the ribs and face the airstream
at a 15 degree angle, and placed at 10 % of the chord of the wing.
Attached is a picture of the VG's on the wing, and my panel flying level with
3500 RPM just above stall.
Mike Bigelow
MK III Xtra 912-S
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123249#123249
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiivortexgenerators_208.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiipanelinflight_190.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
Might want to rethink the prop change...having flown 2 different RANS
S7's with and without VG's and communicating with several that had flown
them on Challengers, you're the first I've heard of actually losing
cruise speed. A couple of folks thought "maybe a MPH or 2" but really
hard to tell. Personally I could not tell any lose of cruise speed.
Read an article in Sport Aviation long time ago about a guy that tested
VG's on an RV-6 with an articulating pitot-static test boom and
everything and got somewhere around 4-5MPH loss...but that was on a
200MPH airplane, so go figure.
Your still a good advocate for the VG's...even thinking that the VG's
cost you that much cruise speed you were impressed enough with the slow
end improvement to leave them on...that says it all. I'd bet a crisp $5
bill that swapping back to the original prop will show the VG's to not
have cost you much (if any) on the cruise end...
Jeremy Casey
The down side is that it cost me some speed, im not sure exactly how
much as a changed props at the same time I added the VG's, I lost 8 MPH
in cruise with the prop change and VG installation. Im guessing at
least 5 of that is VG related. I put the VG 's on with double sided
automotive trim tape so that I could take them off if I ever wanted to.
Overall im so happy with the way the MK-III flys and feels at slow
speeds with VG's, I am more than happy to cruise a bit slower.
I used 140 VG's spaced at 2.5 inches apart from the center out to the
wingtips. The VG's are in pairs and centered in the valleys of the ribs
and face the airstream at a 15 degree angle, and placed at 10 % of the
chord of the wing. Attached is a picture of the VG's on the wing, and
my panel flying level with 3500 RPM just above stall.
Mike Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new/old Kolber |
At 11:28 AM 7/11/2007, Thom Riddle wrote:
>
>Scott,
>
>I first have to build an tail dolly for moving it around in the hangar
>behind the Allegro. I'll have to fold and unfold the wings at each flight
>so I'm planning on designing a dolly that will hold the wings such the the
>wing tips are above the flying wires on the tail so I won't have to fold
>the tail with each flight...
I LIKE that idea! Gotta see if I can do something like that for my US, if
I end up sharing a hangar instead of keeping it in the trailer. 'Course on
the US I'd have to partially fold the wings, keeping them outboard of the
stabilizer, but same idea.
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Myers" <gmyers(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
Did anybody see any vortez generators??? :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:21 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Vortex Generators - Flight test report.
>
>
> I put Vortex Generators on my Kolb MK III Xtra. I did not want to post
> just a first impression so I have flown with them for about a months so
> that I had a chance to really try them out in a lot of different
> conditions. The VG's have made a different airplane out of the MK III,
> not just in terms of reducing the stall speed, but in the feel of the
> plane at lower speeds. It used to feel like an approach speed of 60
> MPH was needed to have a good margain of safety and control. Now, 40
> on approach feels fine, although I use 50 minimum as a safety factor.
>
> Stalls occour at 26 indicated, the plane is not really going this slow,
> as the GPS shows mid 30's stall with no flaps. I have the traditional
> seperate flaps and ailerons, and Stalling with flaps seems to be at the
> same speed as stalling without them, mid 30's. The stall is really a
> non event, the plane shakes 1/2 second before the nose falls a few
> degrees nose down, Its so mild that I have a hard time calling it a
> stall. Full aileron control is maintained throughout the stall, if a
> wing starts to drop anytime in the stall, a medium amout of aileron
> input immidately corrects it. I was teaching my wife stalls and of
> course her first reaction was to jerk the stick back as soon as the
> nose fell, she abruptly pulled the plane level at 33 indicated a couple
> times and never got a secondary stall.
>
> Yesterday evening, I wanted to see if I could really fly an approach at
> a very low airspeed, so I went to 2000 feet, went to idle power slowed
> down to 35 MPH indicated, and put in a huge amount of aileron, banked
> 45 degrees and roughly jerked the plane around like an idiot, but was
> not able to get an accelerated stall or felt like I was about to lose
> it.
>
> Landings were a real problem at first, I was in the habbit of landing
> with no flaps, and with the VG's the plane started to bounce badly on
> every landing no matter how smooth the touchdown. The airplane would
> touch down, but there was still enough lift being generated that it
> would fly again, even with a perfect three point landing... It was
> worse with a wheels landing. Landing with one notch of flaps totally
> cured this, im guessing that it pitches the nose down enough that it
> does not tend to pitch up on a wheels landing, and its going slow
> enough on a 3 point landing not to fly again. Now I land with flaps
> every time.
>
> The down side is that it cost me some speed, im not sure exactly how
> much as a changed props at the same time I added the VG's, I lost 8 MPH
> in cruise with the prop change and VG installation. Im guessing at
> least 5 of that is VG related. I put the VG 's on with double sided
> automotive trim tape so that I could take them off if I ever wanted to.
> Overall im so happy with the way the MK-III flys and feels at slow
> speeds with VG's, I am more than happy to cruise a bit slower.
>
> I used 140 VG's spaced at 2.5 inches apart from the center out to the
> wingtips. The VG's are in pairs and centered in the valleys of the
> ribs and face the airstream at a 15 degree angle, and placed at 10 % of
> the chord of the wing. Attached is a picture of the VG's on the wing,
> and my panel flying level with 3500 RPM just above stall.
>
> Mike Bigelow
>
> MK III Xtra 912-S
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as
> you could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123249#123249
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiivortexgenerators_208.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiipanelinflight_190.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
Very funny, George. Yeah, what airplane?? Also, notice how Mike
mentioned in his email how he had his lovely wife in the plane with him,
teaching her stalls, no less!!!! Gosh, should we be so lucky to have our
wives support us so!! I think it was a sly way for him to brag about having
a real sweetheart of a wife.
In case Mr. Mike reads this email, do you have any specs/details of the
VG's? Where did you get the design, and how far back from the leading edge
are they mounted?
Appreciate the
info, Mike in SW Utah
>From: "George Myers" <gmyers(at)grandecom.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Vortex Generators - Flight test report.
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:00:55 -0500
>
>
>Did anybody see any vortez generators??? :-)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:21 AM
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Vortex Generators - Flight test report.
> >
> >
> > I put Vortex Generators on my Kolb MK III Xtra. I did not want to post
> > just a first impression so I have flown with them for about a months so
> > that I had a chance to really try them out in a lot of different
> > conditions. The VG's have made a different airplane out of the MK III,
> > not just in terms of reducing the stall speed, but in the feel of the
> > plane at lower speeds. It used to feel like an approach speed of 60
> > MPH was needed to have a good margain of safety and control. Now, 40
> > on approach feels fine, although I use 50 minimum as a safety factor.
> >
> > Stalls occour at 26 indicated, the plane is not really going this slow,
> > as the GPS shows mid 30's stall with no flaps. I have the traditional
> > seperate flaps and ailerons, and Stalling with flaps seems to be at the
> > same speed as stalling without them, mid 30's. The stall is really a
> > non event, the plane shakes 1/2 second before the nose falls a few
> > degrees nose down, Its so mild that I have a hard time calling it a
> > stall. Full aileron control is maintained throughout the stall, if a
> > wing starts to drop anytime in the stall, a medium amout of aileron
> > input immidately corrects it. I was teaching my wife stalls and of
> > course her first reaction was to jerk the stick back as soon as the
> > nose fell, she abruptly pulled the plane level at 33 indicated a couple
> > times and never got a secondary stall.
> >
> > Yesterday evening, I wanted to see if I could really fly an approach at
> > a very low airspeed, so I went to 2000 feet, went to idle power slowed
> > down to 35 MPH indicated, and put in a huge amount of aileron, banked
> > 45 degrees and roughly jerked the plane around like an idiot, but was
> > not able to get an accelerated stall or felt like I was about to lose
> > it.
> >
> > Landings were a real problem at first, I was in the habbit of landing
> > with no flaps, and with the VG's the plane started to bounce badly on
> > every landing no matter how smooth the touchdown. The airplane would
> > touch down, but there was still enough lift being generated that it
> > would fly again, even with a perfect three point landing... It was
> > worse with a wheels landing. Landing with one notch of flaps totally
> > cured this, im guessing that it pitches the nose down enough that it
> > does not tend to pitch up on a wheels landing, and its going slow
> > enough on a 3 point landing not to fly again. Now I land with flaps
> > every time.
> >
> > The down side is that it cost me some speed, im not sure exactly how
> > much as a changed props at the same time I added the VG's, I lost 8 MPH
> > in cruise with the prop change and VG installation. Im guessing at
> > least 5 of that is VG related. I put the VG 's on with double sided
> > automotive trim tape so that I could take them off if I ever wanted to.
> > Overall im so happy with the way the MK-III flys and feels at slow
> > speeds with VG's, I am more than happy to cruise a bit slower.
> >
> > I used 140 VG's spaced at 2.5 inches apart from the center out to the
> > wingtips. The VG's are in pairs and centered in the valleys of the
> > ribs and face the airstream at a 15 degree angle, and placed at 10 % of
> > the chord of the wing. Attached is a picture of the VG's on the wing,
> > and my panel flying level with 3500 RPM just above stall.
> >
> > Mike Bigelow
> >
> > MK III Xtra 912-S
> >
> > --------
> > "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as
> > you could have !!!
> >
> > Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123249#123249
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiivortexgenerators_208.jpg
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolbmkiiipanelinflight_190.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: new/old Kolber |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
After a bunch of fuss with the tail light on the trailer I saw my good old N197BG
drive away with Thom...
Take good care of her!
Hope you love it as much as I did! But Time for me to move up... MKIII xtra would
be a great find when I get ready for the next plane.
-Erik
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123281#123281
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2007 |
I will be flying in sometime Thursday late or Friday early and depart on
Sunday. If work doesn't get in the way again.
Does anyone know if the New Kolb gang is going to be at Oshkosh? I didn't
see anything on their webpage about Oshkosh.
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
_http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/)
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRatcli256(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Control Surface Hinges |
Hi again,
Time to permanently install my hinges.
Have read on other lists about bedding the hinges in Epoxy when riveting them
on.
This makes since to me because you are installing a flat surface to a rounded
surface. By bedding the hinge in Epoxy, the stress is spread out over the
whole hinge leaf rather then concentrated at the rivet holes.
I'm sure this is overkill ( many kolbs are flying successfully without this,
for many years) but still makes since to me.
My questions are these: Has anyone else done this?
How about inservice results?
What kind of Epoxy did you use? Considering using J-B Weld, but discovered it
is for steel.
Would it be appropriate next to aluminum?
Would it rust over time or cause galvanic corrosion?
Since the steel fillings are embedded in an Epoxy matrix, would it be an
issue at all?
All thoughts would be appreciated.
John Ratcliffe
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface Hinges |
| Have read on other lists about bedding the hinges in Epoxy when
riveting them
| on.
|
| John Ratcliffe
John R:
As far as I know, there are no problems with piano hinges departing
round tubes on Kolbs.
Bedding hinges in epoxy is unnecessary, and will cause a serious
problem if you ever have to remove a hinge.
I have hinges on my mkIII, installed per the plans and instructions,
with well over 2,600 hours flight time on them. Have not had any
hinge problems concerning looseness.
Curious. Were the other lists you have been reading, reference epoxy
bedding of piano hinges, Kolb related/
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
Okay guys. I have a couple of VW updates.
First, I have installed and have been test flying my new series three
reduction drive. As I reported earlier the new redrive is a serpentine
belt drive that slips in one direction at low RPMs and absorbs harmonic
pulses at higher RPMs. The VW redrive is smooth throughout all RPM
ranges and will even idle smooth down 700 RPM. This is a major
improvement over the old redrive. Since there is some slippage there is
a more limited life to the belts but there is a wear indicator that
shows you when it is time to replace the belts. It isn't known yet what
the life is but it is at least a hundred hours. The belt change requires
the removal of only one bolt, it is a one inch bolt but there is only
one.
Second, I've been working with Kolb on behalf of Rick Lewis to have Kolb
to produce a VW mount for his Mark IIIX. They now have the production
jigs to produce this VW mount for other MKIIIs. Hopefully Rick will keep
us up to date on his progress. I also hope he will build a bit faster
than Big Lar.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flymichigan(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | firestar prop size? |
Hello everyone. Does anyone know the recommended prop size for a Firestar I with
a 447. I am not reaching full RPMs. My plane has a wood 66x33 which I am
guessing is my problem. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Bryan Dever
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firestar prop size? |
| Hello everyone. Does anyone know the recommended prop size for a
Firestar I with a 447. I am not reaching full RPMs. My plane has a
wood 66x33 which I am guessing is my problem. Any ideas?
|
| Thanks,
| Bryan Dever
Bryan D:
Bryan D:
66X32 was what I was running on my 1986 FS.
Not all wooden props are created equal. I also ran a 66X30 Jim Culver
prop. The GSC two blade wooden prop that is still hanging around, if
I remember correctly, was pitched a little lighter than the 66X30
Culver prop.
For me, ideal pitch is WOT, straight and level flight, just bump the
redline for max continuous rpm, which is 6,500 rpm for a 447. Will
produce the best climb and cruise.
john h
mkIII
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: firestar prop size? |
>
>Hello everyone. Does anyone know the recommended prop size for a Firestar I
with a 447. I am not reaching full RPMs. My plane has a wood 66x33 which I
am guessing is my problem. Any ideas?
>
Bryan,
If your engine is running fine and you do not wish to purchase a new propeller,
make a fixture and start cutting the tips off the propeller. Take no more that
a half and inch at a time, and fly with it after cutting to see how it performs.
If the engine does not come up to speed take another half inch off. When
you get the engine speed where you want it, check the balance.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
----- Original Message -----
From: "jimhefner" <hefner_jim(at)msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:22 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Vortex Generators - Flight test report.
>
> Mike, did you put any VG's on the underside of the horizontal stabilizers?
> You might want to consider that if not. It might not be a big deal on the
> Mk III X but it will help keep the tail from stalling before the main wing
> on slow landings.
________________________________________________________________
Just what happens when the tail stalls?
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing Downhill At The Rock House |
In a message dated 6/28/2007 4:02:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
Hi Gang:
I like this photo. Shows a lot of action and enery. Was landing on
the last couple hundred feet, down hill and to the south at Larry
Cottrell's Rock House, Jordan Valley, Oregon, May 2007.
Better put two of them in there. First is just touching down at the
crest of the hill.
These photos were taken by John W.
Very nice John............... geeeez, I gotta get back to fl and flying
again........are you there Rich Swiderski?
George Randolph
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
At 12:57 PM 7/12/2007, Larry Cottrell wrote:
>Just what happens when the tail stalls?
Since the tail normally is pushing down, when it stalls it goes up, the
plane noses down, the tail starts flying again, and the plane recovers.
This assumes you're not pushing the stick forward and doing negative g's...
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 2 cylinder - is it real |
| From: | "Spot" <spotthehall(at)gmail.com> |
It's real - seen at Wagga 2006 - but don't know if it will make production.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123512#123512
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRatcli256(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface Hinges |
John H,
Picked info on hinges from the Challenger list. Info was related to loosening
Hinges and rivets on some Challenger builds. One gent said he bedded his
hinges in epoxy on all his builds and never had one come loose.
Only thing related to Kolbs is my desire to build as safe an aircraft as
possible. Have never heard of this problem on a Kolb, although I have seen one
or
two loose hinge rivets on Kolbs for whatever reason.
Today I installed one of the hinges on an elevator. After seeing how tight
they pulled up to the spar, now don't think epoxy is necessary. With the edge
distance specified, there isn't much edge hanging out.
Mike,
Took your advice and drilled the hinges, but used safety wire instead. Looked
like the head of a cotter pin could jam ???
Thanks all for the input.
Coming along slower then had hoped, but may be in the air before the end of
the year yet.
John Ratcliffe
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Its very possible that the entire speed difference in my Kolb could be related
to my prop change, more on this in a differnt post...
You definately want the VG's on the wingtips, so that they dont stall before the
inner portion. With the vortex generators on the wingtips, better aileron control
is maintaned at slow speed and in stalls, which is a huge safety advantege.
Having VG's along the entire leingth of the wing is the best thing, I would
not want to take some VG's off the wing and reduce the performance I have
gained. I would just buy more before I would do that.
I did not put VG's on the tail. The tail generates downforce, so when the tail
stalls, it goes up... I have not seen any evidence of the tail stalling, I
can touch the tailwheel first if I want, which tells me the tail is pushing down
(not stalled) at my slowest speeds. VG's on the tail could change its handling
though, so if I ever wanted to change the way the plane feels, VG's could
make landings easier, or harder. The only way to know this would be flight
testing with VG's on the tail... In my case im very happy and dont need VG's on
my tail. Every plane is different, so I can definately see that others might
benefit from VG's on the tail.
I got the VG 's from www.landshorter.com and installed them exactly to their specs 10 % wing chord, 2.5 inches apart, and a very important and critical specification is that they be angled at a 15 degree angle to the airstream. The land shorter Vortex Generators have been optimized in both shape and size, so its well worth spending the 100 bucks to buy 100 of them that are perfect aerodynamically rather than try to make them. Extra VG's are only 1.50 each, so if I ever want to try them on the tail I will just spend 40 bucks and buy more. The VG's are wonderful, and there is absolutely nothing else that one could do to add this much more performance to a Kolb for 100 bucks.
Mike Bigelow
MK III Xtra Rotax 912-S
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123530#123530
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kolb Rigging - Flaps and Ailerons |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a MK-III Extra with seperate ailerons and flaps. I been doing some adjusting
of my flaps and ailerons to try to find the best way to rig them. It seems
to me that the bottom of each being flat with the wing in flight would be
best combination of speed and low speed capability, but that is just a guess.
Maybe having them droop just a bit would help my slow speed handling without
hurting my cruise speed to much...
What have you guys found ?? Anyone done any testing having the flaps and ailerons
rigged slightly up or down, and what is your favorite way to rig your Kolb
?
Mike
MK III Xtra 912-S
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123537#123537
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc03990_569.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 2007 |
I hope you get this in time, a friend of mine wants to go, which changes all
the weight and fuel and stops. He might be late so I am certian I can't
promise anything now. But I hope to get to the flyin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators - Flight test report. |
Hi Larry,
A very uncomfortable porpoising at least, if you're lucky. Elevator
control reversal and departure from controlled flight, if you're having a
real bad day.
VG's on the tail may be a bit of overkill, but they wouldn't hurt
IMHO.
The 2.5-inch spacing seems way overkill, compared to the GA aircraft
I've flown with STC'd VGs.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Vortex Generators - Flight test report.
>
(Snip)
> Just what happens when the tail stalls?
>
> Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: new/old Kolber |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
I changed the subject to Tail Dolly
To preclude the need to fold/unfold the tail every flight, I built a simple dolly
to hold the tail tube and the wings tilted up to clear the tail wires.
Attached are three photos.
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123605#123605
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/root_tubes_secured_small_433.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/firestar_wings_tilted_on_dolly_small_100.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/close_up_of_boom_wing_dolly_small_920.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Rigging - Flaps and Ailerons |
On Jul 13, 2007, at 12:23 AM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> What have you guys found ?? Anyone done any testing having the
> flaps and ailerons rigged slightly up or down, and what is your
> favorite way to rig your Kolb ?
I adjust them up/down according to the pitch trim desired.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Rigging - Flaps and Ailerons |
As a starting point it is recommended that you rig them to be slightly down
or even with the bottom of the wing while lifting on the control surfaces a
bit to take the slack out of the control linkage.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Zimmerman" <etzim62(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Rigging - Flaps and Ailerons
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2007, at 12:23 AM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>>
>> What have you guys found ?? Anyone done any testing having the flaps
>> and ailerons rigged slightly up or down, and what is your favorite way
>> to rig your Kolb ?
>
>
> I adjust them up/down according to the pitch trim desired.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: new/old Kolber |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
Very Cool! Now you can be flying in about 10 minutes...
-Erik
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123643#123643
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver Sprint |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
Does anyone have experience with any of the Quicksilver aircraft, especially the
MX Sprint with respects to how it flys compared to the Kolb Firestar? An ultralight
instructor here in Boulder City, NV insists that the Kolb is much more
complicated to fly than any of the Quicksilver aircraft. I guess the real question
should be: Is the Kolb more forgiving than the Quicksilver???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123682#123682
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DBforfun(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver Sprint |
I have owned Quicksilver aircraft. The quicksilvers have so much drag that
they stick close to the airport. They burn up a lot of fuel to just fly. If you
actually want to fly somewhere and then get back again go with a Kolb.
The kolb is only slightly more complicated to fly but that is only if you are
learning. If you know how to fly or once you learn how to fly the Kolb is a
much better aircraft and much more enjoyable to fly. Plus you can quickly fold
it up and put it away.
Dan
In a message dated 7/13/2007 4:34:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jhm9812(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John H Murphy"
Does anyone have experience with any of the Quicksilver aircraft, especially
the MX Sprint with respects to how it flys compared to the Kolb Firestar? An
ultralight instructor here in Boulder City, NV insists that the Kolb is much
more complicated to fly than any of the Quicksilver aircraft. I guess the
real question should be: Is the Kolb more forgiving than the Quicksilver???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123682#123682
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver Sprint |
There's absolutely NO comparison... I owned a Quicksilver 3-axis MXL
for a couple of years, and then later flew several Kolb models (and
currently own a MkIIIC)... the Kolbs all fly SO much better, much,
MUCH stronger, and more balanced and will fly hands-off (assuming they
are rigged correctly). They will also fly as slow as a Quick, but
will also fly MUCH faster. The difference is night and day. And
there is -nothing- "complicated" about flying a Kolb... I find the
Quicks more "complicated" since the stick is way off the right, and
the instrument panel (on mine) was off to the left.
I will say, though, that my Quick -- being my first ultralight -- was
probably not rigged as tightly as it could be, but, even so, I can't
imagine it being better in -any- of the characteristics than a Kolb.
As for being "forgiving"... well, that's a pretty nebulous word... two
pilots, each trained how to fly their craft properly, would probably
find each plane "forgiving".
My $0.02...
-- Robert
On 7/13/07, John H Murphy wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with any of the Quicksilver aircraft, especially
the MX Sprint with respects to how it flys compared to the Kolb Firestar? An ultralight
instructor here in Boulder City, NV insists that the Kolb is much more
complicated to fly than any of the Quicksilver aircraft. I guess the real question
should be: Is the Kolb more forgiving than the Quicksilver???
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123682#123682
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | mk lll kolb for sale in florida.... |
Hello gang,
A fellow i know has a mk lll for sale in florida....anyone interested
can call him at 863-990-8186 his name is John Guy....he has lost hangar and
is not flying the plane is reason for sale...has no email ...please contact
him and not me as I know very little about the plane.
jim Swan firestar ll 503 michigan
do not archive
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar aileron chord length |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Thom,
I measured my ailerons. They taper from 14-7/8" inboard to 11" at the wing tips.
I pulled my plans out to double check.
The plans call for 14-3/4" inboard and 11" outboard. It looks like the builder
of your Firestar and I both screwed up by a few fractions of an inch on the inboard
end. Other than that you have bone stock ailerons per the plans for the
original Firestar and the KXP. The drawings are dated April of '85 and Aug of
'90 respectively. Those big ailerons work great at low airspeeds.
Anybody have their plans handy? Are the aileron dimensions different on the FirestarII?
Inquiring minds want to know.....
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123701#123701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver Sprint |
I guess the real question should be: Is the Kolb more forgiving than the
Quicksilver???
If this is the real question, clarify "more forgiving" in what
respect????
Kolbs do what you ask of them, within their limitaions. I would
imagine the same is true with the Quicksilver. : ) Jim
Try Them both, with an experienced pilot/CFI
----- Original Message -----
From: DBforfun(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs.
Quicksilver Sprint
I have owned Quicksilver aircraft. The quicksilvers have so much drag
that they stick close to the airport. They burn up a lot of fuel to just
fly. If you actually want to fly somewhere and then get back again go
with a Kolb. The kolb is only slightly more complicated to fly but
that is only if you are learning. If you know how to fly or once you
learn how to fly the Kolb is a much better aircraft and much more
enjoyable to fly. Plus you can quickly fold it up and put it away.
Dan
In a message dated 7/13/2007 4:34:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jhm9812(at)yahoo.com writes:
Does anyone have experience with any of the Quicksilver aircraft,
especially the MX Sprint with respects to how it flys compared to the
Kolb Firestar? An ultralight instructor here in Boulder City, NV insists
that the Kolb is much more complicated to fly than any of the
Quicksilver aircraft. I guess the real question should be: Is the Kolb
more forgiving than the Quicksilver???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123682#123682bsp; -->
=====================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver Sprin |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
I have flown the quicksilver a little. It is primarily a rudder airplane. The
ailerons are there to give a small amount of help to the rudder. You could fly
the pattern without them most days.
The Firestar is an aileron airplane. The rudder is used most for ground work and
much less in the air.
The quicksilver also has a much greater dihedral effect. It does not want to stay
in a turn. You have to hold left stick and left rudder to stay in a left
turn. Release control pressure and the plane will right itself. The Firestar
has much less of this effect. It only take a little aileron to initiate a turn
and then the stick can be mostly neutralized except for a little added backpressure
if you want it. You then add controls the other way when you want to
stop turning.
A friend of mine is currently making the transition from Quick to Kolb and thought
the Kolb was unstable. The plane kept steepening the turn because he was
telling it to. When I explained that he did not need to hold the stick over, but
only use it to start the turn, the "instability" disappeared and he is now
comfortable with steep turns.
I don't think a Firestar is any more difficult to fly than a Quick, but they are
different.
Hope this helps a little.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123705#123705
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolmbru(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver |
Sprin
I also owned a kxp but with a 447. what would you rather cut a peace of
cake with? a meat tenderizing hammer or a knife? I really liked the kxp over
every Quicksilver I ever flew mal
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Hello all:
I'm having difficulty getting Pennzoil air-colled 2-C oil locally. This product
seems to be similar. Is anyone using this oil? It is priced very similarly to
Pennzoil and soulds like it would meet Rotax specs. Any thoughts? Here is
a link to the info:
http://www.76lubricants.com/NR/rdonlyres/88A1712C-5E21-4311-8039-AC01D27B3C4C/0/76_Airkool_HP_2Cycle_Oil.pdf
Thanks,
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123738#123738
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
When it comes to asking opinions on oil to use, you open a whole can of
worms.Ask 10 people get 10 different opinions. I have always used castrol TT
or its replacement Castrol super. I have put up over 500 hours on two
different 503s without having a bearing fail. One of the engines did stick
the top ring but was easily freed up.Cylinders have not been scuffed.After
freeing the top ring this engine was still in-service at 800 hrs. There are
a lot of people using Pennzoil in this part of the world but I personally
have seen no evidence that they out last any other oils. I have seen engines
with stuck rings and others ,mostly early 582s with run bearings that have
been on Pennzoil.Also 582s with run bearings on almost any type of oil
that's available.The other thing to look at is the price you pay for some of
these oils, if you are going to rebuild your engine at say 500 hours the
extra cost of some oils will have exceeded the cost of the rebuild. I think
its a personal choice thing if you believe one oil is giving you better
protection than another then stay with it. Who can put a price on piece of
mind when in a steep climb with a passenger over some unfriendly country
just after take off.
If the replacement oil meets the specs and you are happy to fly with it then
I see no reason that it will not perform as well ,just keep an eye on the
CHT and EXT temps if these are different than what you are used to {
higher } then I would change back.
Just my $00:02 worth
Tony
from down under MK111 classic
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:24 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil?
>
> Hello all:
>
> I'm having difficulty getting Pennzoil air-colled 2-C oil locally. This
> product seems to be similar. Is anyone using this oil? It is priced very
> similarly to Pennzoil and soulds like it would meet Rotax specs. Any
> thoughts? Here is a link to the info:
> http://www.76lubricants.com/NR/rdonlyres/88A1712C-5E21-4311-8039-AC01D27B3C4C/0/76_Airkool_HP_2Cycle_Oil.pdf
>
> Thanks,
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123738#123738
>
>
> --
> 4:08 p.m.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver Sprin |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
My first UL was a quicksilver MX super, an older design which was the aerobatic
version in the MX series (though I trained in a 2-place sprint).
But I pretty much agree with the comparisons made by the rest of the guys. The
really significant differences flying-wise are the tailwheel aspect and the lack
of dihedral in the Kolb over the stock sprint.
If you have no tailwheel time in anything, you have to get used to that (just holding
the nosewheel off the ground in your trike gear does NOT prepare you for
tailwheel as some guys might think ;)). Fortunately, the Kolb is the best tailwheel
trainer in existence - besides being pretty docile, the prop is up on
the wing in the back and out of the way of any possible prop strikes. What more
could you ask for in a tailwheel plane? ;)
The other thing I remember having to get used to was the lack of roll coupling
with the rudder as someone else mentioned. I've got over 100 hours in my FS II
and sometimes still don't keep my turns completely coordinated. The lack of dihedral
though has so many other advantages, though, I'd recommend removing it
even on the quicksilver (which mark smith can help with).
Otherwise, the transition should be pretty easy. First time I went around the patch
in my FS II I remember it was very similar to flying my quick regarding inertia
and etc....
The other advantage of the Kolb is ease of maintenance. It's strut-braced and uses
the Al tube for the fuselage, a simpler design than the tube structure of
the quick. All I've had to do on my FS II so far is replace the rudder and elevator
cables (old ones had 500 hours on them and were fraying at pully block under
the seat) apart from putting the new engine on it.
PS. speaking of those cables, if you ever do need to replace them do NOT use stainless
steel cable - you'll start getting broken strands at the pully block in
about 20 hours (you should see the logbook for my plane with my attempt at this).
Call Travis and get the galvanized cable from Kolb.... I still don't know
why this happens, I suspect the small size of the pullies breaks the stainless
though the angle doesn't exceed the suggestion in AC 43.13. In any case, the
galvanized cures that problem.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123747#123747
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Well, I'll say what I always say about 2-stroke oil.... The brand isn't that important,
the important thing is the service grade.
Rotax now recommends the API TC spec oil be used in the 2-strokes. Before there
was a TC spec, though, they recommended TCW-III grade oil.
Both of these oil grades will lubricate a 2-stroke, though the TC rating is more
strenuous.
The original owner of my FS II used the Walmart marine oil in that 503, which went
more than 500 hours. the motor was still developing full power and ran fine
at the time I took it off (I only replaced it becuase it was rotting away).
I use the air cooled pennzoil too, but I have the save availability problems as
you and will likely switch to the locally available TCW-III oil when I finish
this last case of pennzoil I have....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123749#123749
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
Roger
Stick your zip code in the box...Herb
http://www.pennzoil.com/products/outdoor/2cycle_aircooled.html
writes:
>
>
> Hello all:
>
> I'm having difficulty getting Pennzoil air-colled 2-C oil locally.
> This product seems to be similar. Is anyone using this oil? It is
> priced very similarly to Pennzoil and soulds like it would meet
> Rotax specs. Any thoughts? Here is a link to the info:
>
http://www.76lubricants.com/NR/rdonlyres/88A1712C-5E21-4311-8039-AC01D27B
3C4C/0/76_Airkool_HP_2Cycle_Oil.pdf
>
> Thanks,
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123738#123738
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
>
>Roger
>
> Stick your zip code in the box...Herb
>
>http://www.pennzoil.com/products/outdoor/2cycle_aircooled.html
>
Better yet:
http://oilstore.stores.yahoo.net/penaircool2c.html
And they will deliver it right to your door.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
Thay oil will be fine for your Rotax.
Denny Rowe
Mk-3 PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
Pennzoil seesm to tbe the universal standard oil for Rotax engines, however,
there remains a small pocket of resistance in Northeast Tennessee which has
been using Phillips Injex since 1983 with no failures yet. (Probably close
to 3,000 hours of Rotax/Phillips Injex time) So if you can't find Pennzoil,
and Phillips is available, you might want to try it -
PS - it doesn't leave as greasy a soot as Pennzoil does, for what that's
worth -
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:24 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil?
>
> Hello all:
>
> I'm having difficulty getting Pennzoil air-colled 2-C oil locally. This
> product seems to be similar. Is anyone using this oil? It is priced very
> similarly to Pennzoil and soulds like it would meet Rotax specs. Any
> thoughts? Here is a link to the info:
> http://www.76lubricants.com/NR/rdonlyres/88A1712C-5E21-4311-8039-AC01D27B3C4C/0/76_Airkool_HP_2Cycle_Oil.pdf
>
> Thanks,
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123738#123738
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | propeller balance? |
Hi,
I am trying to get Possum's video camera to the point that I can use
it, but vibration is killing me. Due to the enclosure I have to hard
mount it to the frame up by the nose cone. I have it as solid as I can
and braced as well. Even with the camera stabilization there is
noticeable vibration. John H and John W helped me set my blade angle
when they were here, but I painted the tip to get it ready for its Air
worthy inspection. I suspected that I got a bit more paint on one tip
than the other, so I rigged up this set up to balance it. Spraying paint
on what appeared to be the lightest tip until it balanced out. Every
thing was level as well. If my methods are correct then the vibration
(still more there than I would like) is not going to go away. Blades
were rechecked and are still right on for angle. The blades were set in
varying positions and did not move from setting.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: propeller balance? |
I got some good movies from my Kolb, but used a non-solid mounting
method. If I remember right, you have a Firestar? So maybe you can use
this? If not, it was free...
If you have the hoop skid for underneath the nose cone like the MKIII
does, you can use that, because that is what I used. I hose clamped
about a 3' length of aluminum tubing to the nose hoop, kinda close to
the fuselage, extending toward the front beyond the hoop. The hose
clamps were twisted up, but it was still good and solid.
Then you take another slightly shorter piece of tubing and suspend it
just below the first tube, ahead of the hoop, by hose clamping short
lengths of bungee cord to each tube, so that the second is parallel to
the first and just below it, supported by the bungees. Now you attach
whatever you are using for a camera bracket to the lower tube. The
camera is now vibration-free and hanging just ahead of the hoop. You
want the tubes long enough to stabilize the camera so that it can't
wig-wag or twist in the wind. I had to add a bit of nose up trim, but
not bad.
It looks like the pits but it works. Just don't nose over on landing...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Cottrell
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: propeller balance?
Hi,
I am trying to get Possum's video camera to the point that I can
use it, but vibration is killing me. Due to the enclosure I have to hard
mount it to the frame up by the nose cone. I have it as solid as I can
and braced as well. Even with the camera stabilization there is
noticeable vibration. John H and John W helped me set my blade angle
when they were here, but I painted the tip to get it ready for its Air
worthy inspection. I suspected that I got a bit more paint on one tip
than the other, so I rigged up this set up to balance it. Spraying paint
on what appeared to be the lightest tip until it balanced out. Every
thing was level as well. If my methods are correct then the vibration
(still more there than I would like) is not going to go away. Blades
were rechecked and are still right on for angle. The blades were set in
varying positions and did not move from setting.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: propeller balance? |
Thanks for the tip Mr Pike, but I don't have a hoop. Here is how I have
it mounted on the plane. I think that without having it shock mounted I
am going to get this vibration. Perhaps a three blade would be smoother,
but I guess I will never know.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kolb Mark III X - trailering/storage experience |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
Does anyone here use a trailer to haul/store their MK III X? The reason I ask is
that I have a 24 foot trailer (Haulmark) that I'm trying to figure out if it
would fit a MK III X? The limiting factor appears to be the inside wheel wells.
It fits my Kolb Firestar II fine. When John Williamson was in town recently
with his Kolbra, we measured it from the nose tip to the back of the wheels.
It just would not fit inside. I would not be able to get the door closed and the
Kolbra wheels were just to wide. The length by the way appears to be fine.
Even though they call it a "24" foot trailer, it actually is a bit longer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123829#123829
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firestar 1 - control cables rubbing elevator torque tube |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
On my FS 1, when the elevator is moved in the nose up direction, well past neutral,
the rudder control cables rub on the top side of the elevator torque tube.
I plan on putting a sacrificial wear strip there to keep it from wearing into
the torque tube more than it has. So far, not much more than the paint is worn
off.
My question is, is this normal on the FS 1? Or is it built wrong. Any ideas will
be welcome.
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123832#123832
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRatcli256(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RE:propeller balance? |
Gents,
Is it a requirement to paint the prop tips or just a safe thing to do?
John Ratcliffe
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Mark III X - trailering/storage experience |
John H Murphy wrote:
>
> Does anyone here use a trailer to haul/store their MK III X? The
> reason I ask is that I have a 24 foot trailer (Haulmark) that I'm
> trying to figure out if it would fit a MK III X? The limiting factor
> appears to be the inside wheel wells. It fits my Kolb Firestar II
> fine. When John Williamson was in town recently with his Kolbra, we
> measured it from the nose tip to the back of the wheels. It just
> would not fit inside. I would not be able to get the door closed and
> the Kolbra wheels were just to wide. The length by the way appears to
> be fine. Even though they call it a "24" foot trailer, it actually is
> a bit longer.
>
How much 'swing' do the gear legs have if you pick up the plane & take
the weight off the wheels? If you get enough motion so that the gear is
now narrow enough, you could use ratcheting tiedown straps or a small
come-along to narrow the gear for transport. It's been done with other
homebuilts.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Warp Drive phone number or web address? |
John H, anybody,
I need Warp Drives phone number, Google gets me nothing but dealers who
don't answer their phones.
Denny Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | warp drive phone # |
Never mind,
found it in the archives, first time for everything I guess.
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
No no Richard, it's Klotz synthetic is the oil of choice for the Rotax 2-stroke.
There's very little wear with this oil and it's super clean inside and on the
plugs.
Ralph B
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123920#123920
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
I'm not that rich. Went to the Klotz webpage, and the cheapest Klotz 2-cycle
oil I could find was $11.41 a quart. So unless you have some inside
connection, I think I'll stay with Phillips Injex at $2.36 a quart, thanks
anyway. And that's delivered to my door, if you buy a case at a time, the
local distributor delivers it for free.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil?
>
> No no Richard, it's Klotz synthetic is the oil of choice for the Rotax
> 2-stroke. There's very little wear with this oil and it's super clean
> inside and on the plugs.
>
> Ralph B
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> 20 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=123920#123920
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is anyone using this 2-cycle oil? |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Klotz and all oils are getting expensive like gasoline. I buy the Klotz in bulk
from the local dealer for $22/gallon and it lasts a long time.
Ralph B
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124004#124004
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: propeller balance? |
At 02:36 PM 7/14/2007, you wrote:
>Hi,
> I am trying to get Possum's video camera to the point that I can
> use it, but vibration is killing me. Due to the enclosure I have to
> hard mount it to the frame up by the nose cone. I have it as solid
> as I can and braced as well. Even with the camera stabilization
> there is noticeable vibration.
I always had the same problem when I hard mounted it to the frame.
You could always duck tape it to your head or I've found - most of the
vibration goes away when you turn you engine off, albeit for a short while.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolmbru(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | mula fly in was OK |
the mula fly in was postponed till Sunday we had a good turn out but the
weather could have ben better Saturday was defiantly going to be a bust,
another good reason for a moor grass roots approach, malcolm
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive phone number or web address? |
I need Warp Drives phone number
Denny Rowe
1-800-833-9357
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: propeller balance? |
I have tried putting a bit of stiff foam under the camera, wind has
been blowing too hard to make it fun, so I am biding my time waiting for
a bit of calm. I have a Sony High 8 camera, so I had a lot of batterys
that fit the camera. Most of them will last the Sony for as much as four
hours. Man that thing eats batteries like candy. I had hoped that I
would be able to smooth the plane out with balancing the prop. It is
balanced but there is still enough vibration that it over powers the
stabilization feature. I stuck the camera to the side of my headset, and
got a great view of the hinge in the windscreen and the heater tube. I
am a bit afraid that the duct tape would pull out my whiskers when I
took it off. :-) Not only that, I find that I am a good pilot in that my
head any eyes are scanning all over the place and I get a bit seasick
when trying to watch the video.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: propeller balance? |
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
............I had hoped that I would be able to smooth the plane out with
balancing the prop. It is balanced but there is still enough vibration that
it over powers the stabilization feature.
..........
Larry,
What you are seeing is the effect of torsional firing impulse on the air
frame. As the propeller moment of inertia increases it becomes more
difficult to speed or slow the propeller. The causes the firing impulse to
be transmitted back to the crank shaft, to the crank case, mounts and
finally to the air frame. If you wish to see less vibration, mount a
lighter lower inertia propeller.
You may be able to fool the camera by changing vibration frequency. Reduce
engine speed and at some speed the stabilizer should be able to keep up.
Just hope that it is a sustainable flight engine speed.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mk 3 steel main gear legs |
Rich,
Do you still have the gear legs?
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mk 3 steel main gear legs
Colder than a well digger's knee caps here, I woosed out last night,
but got a picture today. Still in TNK tape and factory insert up to here
lines.
Rick
On 2/1/07, Denny Rowe wrote:
Are "these"
----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Rowe
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mk 3 steel main gear legs
Are this legs for a Mk-3 Classic?
Do you still have them?
Pic?
Denny Rowe
rowedenny(at)windstream.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mk 3 steel main gear legs
When I was in the midst of main gear straightening caused by my
horrible landing technique, I thought the way out was TNK's steel gear
legs. Now that I am pretty happy with my landings, I know I'm not going
to install them. $350 for the pair, plus shipping.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">
http://forums.matronics.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">
http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Date: 1/31/2007 3:16 PM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
http://forums.matronics.com
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/1/2007 2:28 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mk 3 steel main gear legs |
Yep, still on my "parts I'll use someday" rack.
Rick
On 7/16/07, Denny Rowe wrote:
>
> Rich,
> Do you still have the gear legs?
>
> Denny
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 8:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Mk 3 steel main gear legs
>
> Colder than a well digger's knee caps here, I woosed out last night, but
> got a picture today. Still in TNK tape and factory insert up to here lines.
>
> Rick
>
> On 2/1/07, Denny Rowe wrote:
> >
> > Are "these"
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Denny Rowe
> > *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:50 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Mk 3 steel main gear legs
> >
> > Are this legs for a Mk-3 Classic?
> > Do you still have them?
> > Pic?
> > Denny Rowe
> > rowedenny(at)windstream.net
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Richard Girard
> > *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:44 AM
> > *Subject:* Kolb-List: Mk 3 steel main gear legs
> >
> > When I was in the midst of main gear straightening caused by my horrible
> > landing technique, I thought the way out was TNK's steel gear legs. Now that
> > I am pretty happy with my landings, I know I'm not going to install them.
> > $350 for the pair, plus shipping.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > --
> > Rick Girard
> > "Ya'll drop on in"
> > takes on a whole new meaning
> > when you live at the airport.
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: 1/26/2007 11:11 AM
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: 1/31/2007 3:16 PM
> >
> > *
> > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List http://forums.matronics.com*
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: 2/1/2007 2:28 PM
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kolb Mark III fuel tanks |
| From: | "Bruce Chaisson" <bruce20(at)bellsouth.net> |
Does anyone know where to buy 8 gal. plastic fuel tanks to replace the standard
5 gal ones? I know Kolb is selling 6 gal replacements but have heard there are
some 8 gal ones out there. Thanks for the help.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124072#124072
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Mark III fuel tanks |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I dont know the website, but 8 gallons would be great if they drop right in.
I have been wanting to put two 10 gallon tanks in my MK III Xtra, but it will
require cutting the current tubing and welding a new frame for them to sit in,
so I have been putting it off. There is plenty of room for two 10 gallon tanks
or even bigger just by redoing the frames they sit in... If I could just
buy 8 gallon tanks that would drop right in, it would be so easy I just might
do it. If you do find them let us know where you can get them.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124078#124078
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Mark III fuel tanks |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I dont know the website, but 8 gallons would be great if they drop right in.
I have been wanting to put two 10 gallon tanks in my MK III Xtra, but it will
require cutting the current tubing and welding a new frame for them to sit in,
so I have been putting it off. There is plenty of room for two 10 gallon tanks
or even bigger just by redoing the frames they sit in... If I could just
buy 8 gallon tanks that would drop right in, it would be so easy I just might
do it. If you do find them let us know where you can get them.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124077#124077
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Rick,
If what you suggest leans the mixture at mid-range (it will), then the EGT's would
go up, no?
Thom in Buffalo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124123#124123
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
try raising the clip one notch (lowering the needle and leaning the
midrange) and monitor CHT and EGT. CHT should go up and EGT should come
down.
Isn't this backwards? If his CHT's are high now in midrange, it would
seem to follow that he needs more fuel to cool it down.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
The trim problem you are having is from flying a high thrust mounted pusher airplane,
that is normal for that plane. The more thrust you have, the more the
plane will tend to pitch down. Take off the power, and the airplane goes up.
This has nothing to do with the thrust angle, its easier than that. All you
need to trim the elevator to fly straight and level with cruise power and speed.
My MK III has a spring trim system, I just put in some nose up trim for level
flight at cruise power setting.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124125#124125
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | propeller balance? |
I had a friend that was going to build a model helo blade balancer... it
was to consist of an accelerometer and a processor that would take all the
guess work out of balancing the prop.. I found when balancing a helo
blade.. You could static balance it like you did in the photo.. But when
it was spinning up to speed it still needed some fine tuning. I used a
wrap of electrical tape at the mid blade ( the cg of the blade) and tried
it to see if it was worse or better.. Then adjusted it from there. either
more or less tape on that blade or the other.. I will try and see if my
friend built something he could market or sell me and find out how much $$$
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
Larry, The condition Thom quoted was low CHT's and high EGT's with the prop
pitched correctly. Since the aircraft is new to Thom, the first thing to
verify is that everything is set up stock and the easiest thing to check, in
my humble opinion, is the needle setting and the correctness of the needle
setup. Also, he says the temps are all good when at WOT. This suggests that
the main jet is stock or very close to it.
All the things I listed should be checked immediately after purchase on any
engine carrying Bing carbs and annually thereafter to insure that the needle
is protected from vibration damage. All but one of my aircraft engines came
with some portion of the vibration preventatives missing or installed
incorrectly. The 582 I inspected at Sun n Fun had damage to both needles,
one almost to the point of failure. When that happens the fire goes out. So,
my idea was, why not do the easy inspection of a known problem area first,
make sure all the jetting is stock and move on from there, once it's certain
everything is up to snuff? Even if you have to replace every piece I
mentioned, it's only about $50 a carb, so it's probably the cheapest
potential life saving repair you'll ever do, too.
Rick
On 7/16/07, Larry Cottrell wrote:
>
>
> try raising the clip one notch (lowering the needle and leaning the
> midrange) and monitor CHT and EGT. CHT should go up and EGT should come
> down.
>
> Isn't this backwards? If his CHT's are high now in midrange, it would seem
> to follow that he needs more fuel to cool it down.
> Larry C
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
I guess my logic would be that there is less fuel being burned on the way
out the exhaust port making the EGT go down or remain unchanged.
Rick
On 7/16/07, Thom Riddle wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> If what you suggest leans the mixture at mid-range (it will), then the
> EGT's would go up, no?
>
> Thom in Buffalo
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124123#124123
>
>
--
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: FS 1 First Flight questions |
|I guess my logic would be that there is less fuel being burned on the
way
| out the exhaust port making the EGT go down or remain unchanged.
|
| Rick
Rick/Richard:
My experience with 2 strokes has been:
1-Unload the prop, EGT goes up.
2-Load the prop, EGT goes down.
How did I discover this? Watching the EGT on my Ultrastar in 1984, as
I pulled the nose up and loaded the prop, and pushed the nose over and
unloaded the prop.
3-Lean it midrange, EGT goes up. Richen it up in midrange, EGT goes
down.
4-Full throttle is same as midrange.
Finally, I don't worry about CHT, except to keep it under the red
line.
My experience and opinion only. The two stroke operates best when it
is pitched to turn max continuous rpm, WOT, straight and level flight.
I find the EGT will be right in the ball park, and one will experience
the best climb and cruise with a prop that is not "in flight
adjustable."
I prop my boats the same way as I do my airplanes. Gives me the best
"out of the hole" and cruise performance.
For what it is worth,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
Thom,
Your carb needle is set at the second from the bottom, o-ringed in place and under
the cup. I put it there a few weeks ago.
I've been researching the EGT for the last year, and if you notice in the Rotax
manual for the 447, they don't give an EGT spec... just a CHT.
I've even talked to a few Rotax repairman about it and they say as long as the
CHT is OK, you are pitched for 6500 RPM at WOT, that's OK.
With that advice and the manual not having the EGT limit for the 447, I felt confident
in the engine.
When it all comes down to it, it is what YOU feel comfortable with.
Hope that helps a little. (at least about where your needle is set)
--------
-Erik Grabowski
N?????
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124219#124219
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
grabo172 wrote:
>
> Thom,
>
> Your carb needle is set at the second from the bottom, o-ringed in place and
under the cup. I put it there a few weeks ago.
>
> I've been researching the EGT for the last year, and if you notice in the Rotax
manual for the 447, they don't give an EGT spec... just a CHT.
>
> I've even talked to a few Rotax repairman about it and they say as long as the
CHT is OK, you are pitched for 6500 RPM at WOT, that's OK.
>
> With that advice and the manual not having the EGT limit for the 447, I felt
confident in the engine.
>
> When it all comes down to it, it is what YOU feel comfortable with.
>
> Hope that helps a little. (at least about where your needle is set)
>
> --------
> -Erik Grabowski
> N?????
> CFI/CFII/LS-I
>
That's exactly how the local 447 drivers around here do it. Jet and Prop
by the book and forget the EGT. ~ Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
| From: | "tlongo" <tlongo(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
If EGT is okay at full throttle and too high at cruse that means your main jetting
is good and needle too lean. Check the holes in sides of needle jet tube if
they have a build up that will cause a lean mixture even if your needle is set
in the correct clip setting. You can use a toothpick to clean the holes or
a piece of wire then blow out with air. Worth a try, very easy to do.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124337#124337
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
Not necessarily. See here:
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg11.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "tlongo" <tlongo(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FS 1 First Flight questions
>
> If EGT is okay at full throttle and too high at cruse that means your main
> jetting is good and needle too lean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Two Stroke Prop and Carb Tuning |
| Not necessarily. See here:
| http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg11.htm
| Richard Pike
Richard P:
How do you do a spark plug check?
john h
mkIII
PS: I changed to subject line to be more in line with what is being
discussed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver |
Sprin
At 06:40 AM 7/14/2007, lucien wrote:
>
>My first UL was a quicksilver MX super, an older design which was the
>aerobatic version in the MX series (though I trained in a 2-place sprint).
>
>But I pretty much agree with the comparisons made by the rest of the guys.
>The really significant differences flying-wise are the tailwheel aspect
>and the lack of dihedral in the Kolb over the stock sprint.
I expect to fly my US pretty soon... with about 10 hours in a Quick (not
counting the weightshift Quick I damn near killed myself in) and 400 hours
in a Taylorcraft (so the tailwheel doesn't worry me), anything I should
bear in mind on my first flight in the US?
>...The lack of dihedral though has so many other advantages, though, I'd
>recommend removing it even on the quicksilver (which mark smith can help with).
Along with a Super (I miss doing aerobatics) that's something I'd like to
fly (a Mark Smith Quickalike, I mean)... the Quick I was flying was bone
stock, beat up and sloppy, pretty much a pig.
-Dana
--
--
The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Stroke Prop and Carb Tuning |
How DO I it, or how SHOULD I do it?
There's a difference you know...
I have always heard that the ideal way to do it is to be running your engine
at the RPM & loading you want to check for, leave it there for a couple
minutes, and then turn the engine off and then check it. Since there is a
difference in prop loading in flight than on the ground, that would mean
being right above a suitable strip to chop the engine, glide down, and then
pull the plug out and look at it. That should be the ideal to give you an
unadulterated reading. Probably running it at the RPM you wanted on the
ground would actually work close enough in practice.
The way I do it is I leave my plugs in long enough for them to be
distinctively colored (at least 15 hours) and then take them out and look at
them. (blush, kicks dirt with foot) Which tells me if the engine is running
consistently too lean, (whitish-gray) consistently too rich, (black) or more
or less right. (brown) And since the stock Rotax specified jetting gives me
temps right around 1050-1100, and the plugs are a medium brown, I actually
can't remember the last time I did a plug check. Probably the last time I
actually did a genuine, hard core, do-it-right-or-else plug check was with a
Rotax 277 in the Hummer about 24 years ago.
But thanks for asking...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
PS - this is probably the best description of how to do it-
http://dirtbike.off-road.com/dirtbike/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=332655
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:35 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Two Stroke Prop and Carb Tuning
>
>
> | Not necessarily. See here:
> | http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg11.htm
> | Richard Pike
>
>
> Richard P:
>
> How do you do a spark plug check?
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
> PS: I changed to subject line to be more in line with what is being
> discussed.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Stroke Prop and Carb Tuning |
| I have always heard that the ideal way to do it is to be running
your engine
| at the RPM & loading you want to check for, leave it there for a
couple
| minutes, and then turn the engine off and then check it. Since there
is a
| difference in prop loading in flight than on the ground, that would
mean
| being right above a suitable strip to chop the engine, glide down,
and then
| pull the plug out and look at it. |
| Richard Pike
Richard:
That is the way I did it. Past tense.
Haven't done one in a while. I long while.
Normally, the engineers that design and build these things know what
they are doing. Two strokes are unique when combined with an
airplane. Suddenly we have a propeller and prop loading. ;-( For
most of us folks down here near sea level and up to 1,500 or 2,000
feet, that Rotax two stroke is jetted, timed, and equipped with the
correct heat range spark plug to do the job, with nothing for the
pilot/builder to do but dial in the correct pitch to load the prop.
Always the same for me. WOT, straight and level flight, just bump the
red line which is max continuous rpm for me because I fly with a prop
that is not inflight adjustable. This will put my egt and cht right
in the green arc on a Rotax two stroke, and other brands also.
912UL and 912ULS it is 5,500 rpm
Rotax two strokes is 6,500 rpm
Pushing the EGT redline to squeeze more power and less fuel burn is
also pushing the engine failure factor with a two stroke, IMHO.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying characteristics- Kolb Firestar vs. Quicksilver |
Sprin
anything I should
| bear in mind on my first flight in the US?
|
|
| -Dana
Dana:
A couple things:
1-Don't forget to fly the airplane.
2-Ultrastars do not fly below the stall speed, even though they will
fly in a mush at a rapid rate of descent.
3-Gravity is not prejudice.
Most folks that have trouble with an Ultrastar usually do so on
landing. They are not accustomed to sitting out in the open, in front
of the wing, get the airplane in a below stall speed mush, and spready
the gear. Have personally witnessed this process several times over
the years.
Take care and have a fun flight.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
| If you do not have a primer, sell your EGT gauge and get one.
Just
| kidding ,,,,,,, but do get one.
|
| These EGT gauges are notoriously inaccurate.
|
| Gene Z
Gene:
You can get the same results, in flight, with the enricher. Not only
on the two strokes, but it also works on the 912 series engines.
Old fashioned, using the enricher on all my engines.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mushy control stick |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
Hey gang,
After Charleys first flight in the Kolbra the only complaint he had was mushy responce
from the stick. Well we figured alot of this is his lack of time in a
Kolb type aircraft and his comparing it to the RV8 or even the jets he flys on
a regular basis. After John H stopped by and it was discussed we or John rather
found some movement in the control tube that sticks out the back and connects
to the aileron push pull tubes. Right away we all agreed "There is your mush".
Then it was suguested that more support be added back there. I started thinking
of a way to fix this. To back up a bit remember than we changed the configuration
of this area by running the control rod through a nylon bearing and
making it fixed at the aft point. This leaves about 8" of the 4130 tube un-supported.
However I got to really thinking about the steel tube and thought hmmm
man there is no way that the 4130 steel tube is "flexing" that much.
Now here is my thinking.. I am thinking that because the control tube is supported
by a ridgid mount aft vs the slider for the flaperons, the flex or mush is
coming from the lack of support at the other end of the control tube up near
the rubber U-Joint. This makes perfect sence to me now that I think about it.
The rubber U-joint is supported less than 3" in front but nothing of support to
maybe 4' aft. This would make alot of stress on the U-joint and explain the
flexing.
Any of you guys think Im on the right track here?
As soon as I can get back to the airplane and have some help I will confirm this
therory and report back.
The only reason for this post about this issue is this....
Other Kolbs with flapperons when the flapperons are extended may encounter the
same mushy feel. might want to get a buddy to hold the aileron and another to
move the stick side to side and watch the movenent at the U-Joint to see if the
tube is trying to warp up/down or sideways.
If my theroy is confirmed I will make a nylon bearing and mount it to the tail
boom up close to the U-Joint to prevent this flexing.
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124453#124453
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Mark III fuel tanks |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
This looks like a nice 10 gallon tank for replacement of the Kolb Fuel tanks.
http://www.air-techinc.com/prod_cat_item.asp?categoryID=fueltanks&typ=exclusives&ID=1080
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124474#124474
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
Hey John,
I believe your $.02 on the subject will probably buy as much as
mine, :-) except perhaps at higher power settings.
The enricher becomes decreasingly effective as the throttle is opened.
In fact one reason some people have difficulty starting a cold engine
using the enricher is because they open the throttle too far for the
enricher to be effective. The enricher works different than a choke.
I know I'm preaching to the choir with you.
Gene,
On Jul 17, 2007, at 2:36 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> | If you do not have a primer, sell your EGT gauge and get one.
> Just
> | kidding ,,,,,,, but do get one.
> |
> | These EGT gauges are notoriously inaccurate.
> |
> | Gene Z
>
> Gene:
>
> You can get the same results, in flight, with the enricher. Not only
> on the two strokes, but it also works on the 912 series engines.
>
> Old fashioned, using the enricher on all my engines.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FS 1 First Flight questions |
| I believe your $.02 on the subject will probably buy as much as
| mine, :-) except perhaps at higher power settings.
| The enricher becomes decreasingly effective as the throttle is
opened.
|
| In fact one reason some people have difficulty starting a cold
engine
| using the enricher is because they open the throttle too far for the
| enricher to be effective. The enricher works different than a
choke.
| I know I'm preaching to the choir with you.
|
| Gene,
Gene:
Reason I shared my little bit of info is because it worked with me and
the 912UL.
Did not feel like it was running as crisp as it should at 5,000 rpm
cruise. Had had a problem with this same engine on my flight to
Deadhorse, AK, in 1994. Was still working on the problem with less
than ideal performance at cruise in colder climates. After I got back
home, I experimented a lot trying to come up with a fix. While on a
cross country flight to Mobile, AL, I got the idea to pull on the
enricher. When I did, cruise speed increased 200 rpm. When I got
back home, I pulled the carb piston, raised the needles a knotch, and
my cold weather and warm weather midrange problem was solved. Wish I
could have figured that out in Alaska. I would have made Point Barrow
in 1994 instead of 2001.
BTW: After I raised the needles in the 912, I checked the enricher at
cruise rpm and the engine lost 200 rpm, indicating the enricher was
making it go over rich. I might add, the 912 is tuned very close to
max lean in midrange. Does not take much more leaning to piss off the
912 and make it act up. Definitely gets the pilots attention.
I realize the enricher is not a choke. That is why I never had a need
for primers. Never had a problem starting pull start, electric
starter two strokes, and four strokes, using the correct procedure for
starting. Do it right by the book and it works for me.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
When I first started flying my FS II, I noticed the stick was rather "springy"
in the aileron direction. It isn't what I'd call mushy, but definitely springy...
Once I started relaxing and looking around a bit, I took it up and did some full-deflection
wing rocking to get an idea of the aileron response. I noticed the
ailerons hardly defected at cruise even with the stick against the stop to either
side.
I think some of the spring is twisting of the torque rod between the stick and
the bellcrank in the back that attaches to the pushrods. Probably the rest is
absorbed elsewhere, just in the general play in the aileron linkage.
I don't think there are long portions of unsupported rod, but there might be towards
the back....
So some of the flexing you're having could just be the tube itself?
That's my only quarrel with the plane at all, and even so with gap seals on the
ailerons there's still a good bit of aileron control.
Otherwise, I love the design of the ailerons. Very simple and virtually no maintenance.
No linkages, pullies or pushrods in the wing anywhere, it's all outside
the plane for easy inspection and lubrication, etc.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124515#124515
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two Stroke Prop and Carb Tuning |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Just FWIW,
The same methods appear to work at high density altitudes as well. I fly at about
7000' MSL where I live, the DA is frequently as high as 9000' even in the morning.
Basically, the only change I've had to make to the 503 on my FS II is a leaner
main jet as per the Rotax jetting chart. Virtually everything else is the same
except a very slightly higher rpm needed to maintain altitude at my cruise speed
and of course a noticeable improvement in fuel economy.
Oh, and a much crappied climb rate, but it's still as good as the local spam cans....
;)
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124538#124538
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I have the same springy feeling in my MK - III Xtra. There is a lot of aileron
deflection on the ground, but in the air the ailerons dont deflect that much
even with stick deflection. In my case, all the linkages are steel, well supported,
and have almsot no play. I do have the seperate flaps and ailerons though,
and im sure most of my "SPRINGY" feeling is comming from the aluminum tubes
on the wing that go out to the aileron. There must be 6 feet of aluminum
tube there before it gets to the aileron, and 6 more in the aileron itself...
That could cause a LOT of spring like twist. There is not much I can do about
this exept go to a thicker tube, but that would involve a lot of work and given
the leingth of it, some springy feeling would always be there. I am going
to add aileron spades to the counterweights to take much of the air loads resistance
off the ends of the tubes and prevent it twisting so much. That should
make for much lighter and more pleasant aileron forces.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124540#124540
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
I should mention, speaking of control forces, that my FS II has the lightest forces
in all axes of any plane I've flown so far.. The compromise there is it doesn't
have huge amounts of control, but of course then again, it's not a Pitts
and wasn't designed to be... ;)
My titan tornado, for example, has vastly more control, but the stick is a lot
heavier in comparison, even with the spades on the ailerons.....
I also kicked around some thoughts of modifications of the aileron system on the
FS II to take out some of the flex and give more deflection. But that would
put me in test pilot territory, with new unknowns as far as additional stress
on the ailerons, hinges and possibly even the wing panels and who knows what else........
Also, since the Kolb has been flying for a long time as-is, I figured it's all
working as designed. So I haven't messed with it.
I still haven't flown in the big Kolbs yet, so I don't know how they are as far
as amount of control available and etc. A couple friends of mine in TX have an
older MK III and I noted the same flexing in the ailerons. But they fly that
plane in conditions I wouldn't think of going up in in my FS II, so....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124552#124552
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
How do you think the wingtip vortices will interact with those spades?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mushy control stick
>
> I have the same springy feeling in my MK - III Xtra. There is a lot of
> aileron deflection on the ground, but in the air the ailerons dont deflect
> that much even with stick deflection. In my case, all the linkages are
> steel, well supported, and have almsot no play. I do have the seperate
> flaps and ailerons though, and im sure most of my "SPRINGY" feeling is
> comming from the aluminum tubes on the wing that go out to the aileron.
> There must be 6 feet of aluminum tube there before it gets to the aileron,
> and 6 more in the aileron itself... That could cause a LOT of spring like
> twist. There is not much I can do about this exept go to a thicker tube,
> but that would involve a lot of work and given the leingth of it, some
> springy feeling would always be there. I am going to add aileron spades
> to the counterweights to take much of the air loads resistance off the
> ends of the tubes and prevent it twisting so much. That should make for
> much lighter and more pleasant aileron !
> forces.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124540#124540
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
<< ... at the other end of the control tube up near the rubber U-Joint.
>>
Paul -
Rubber U-Joint?
I've not heard of this design feature. (It's not on the M-3 Classic.)
Is this unique to the Kolbra? Why would the designers want to "soften"
the control transmissions between the control stick and the ailerons?
Dennis Kirby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
Maybe take Kimberly's advice and reflex the ailerons a bit. That might help
a lot with the control forces.
J.D.
> My titan tornado, for example, has vastly more control, but
> the stick is a lot heavier in comparison, even with the
> spades on the ailerons.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Richard,
I have thought quite a bit about the wingtip vorticies affecting spades on the
tips, and I have come to concusion that I have no idea :) I think the only way
I will ever know is to try it. I will bolt the spades onto the counterweights
so that I can take them off if I dont like the results. Threre is a possibility
of the ailerons going hard over if the spades are to big or the vorticies
are a big probelm, so I will start out with small ones to see how they act
and make them bigger until the releive enough of ths stick pressure. I will also
flight test it by flying a foot off the runway and progressively faster speeds
to get an idea of what they will do.
Lucien,
The aileron forces on the MK III Xtra are very heavy, much heavier than on a Cessna
172. I could live with even normal forces, but not the very heavy forces
needed to make a turn. The Kolb is not designed to roll fast, and I dont want
it to, but I do want to be able to turn the plane without a huge amount of effort.
I have thought about wing twist and fatigue of the panels, and I plan
to fly the plane within its limits, I just want it to be pleasant and easy to
fly. Durring the building phase, I got some good advice from John Hauck and
streingthened the wing structure with angle aluminum along the ribs, before and
behind the spar. This should make my MK III much more resistant to any fatigue
and twisting from aileron forces. Attached is a picture of the wing before
covering.
Reflexing the ailerons might reduce the aileron forces some, but it is a horrible
way to do it. The proper term for reflexed ailerons is "Spoilerons", meaning
the ailerons are also acting as spoilers. It may make it a bit easier to roll,
but relfexing the ailerons also kills lift, increases stall speed, and makes
the wing less efficient. I dont want any of these bad side effects in my
plane.
Michael Bigelow
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124565#124565
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbbuildpictures073_113.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
Find an excuse to get to NE Tennessee & stop by Indian Springs airport and
I'll let you fly mine. Light ailerons and all.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mushy control stick
The aileron forces on the MK III Xtra are very heavy, much heavier than on a
Cessna 172. I could live with even normal forces, but not the very heavy
forces needed to make a turn. The Kolb is not designed to roll fast, and I
dont want it to, but I do want to be able to turn the plane without a huge
amount of effort.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
Mike:
The weakest, most flexible part of the Kolb wing is the bow tip. You
plan on turning the aileron counterbalance weight into a spade at the
weakest, most flexible point, outboard of the wing tip. Might want to
think on that a bit. Also, the counterbalance weight attachment was
not designed nor intended to have increased torsional loads.
Remember, every time you change one thing, it will affect several more
in the chain.
If it were me, I would look at the geometry of the aileron control
from stick to aileron. To get a little more, or a lot more mechanical
advantage, it is pretty simple to change the arm length of a bell
crank or horn to more effect with less effort.
All Kolbs inherently load up the ailerons at speeds over 50 to 60 mph.
You ain't gonna change that unless you cut the cord of the aileron in
half. Then you lose low speed aileron authority which, to me, is
extremely important. Much more important than light stick force at
higher speeds. At lower speeds it is easy to move the stick from stop
to stop, when it is really needed should you get caught in violent
winds and want to be on the ground more than in the air.
At higher speeds one does not have to deflect the aileron but a tad to
make the aircraft roll. A little rudder input helps. Also a little
patience. Like has been said, you ain't flying a Pitts Special.
If you are interested in doing snap rolls and aileron rolls then you
might need a whole buncha aileron at higher speeds.
Kolbs are not to be compared with Cessna 172's, Piper Warriors,
Challengers, Titan Tornados, ect. They have very little in common.
Kolbs do things differently than most airplanes. Yet, they are very
easy to fly and very forgiving, if you don't turn into a design
engineer and screw it up.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
At 11:32 AM 7/18/2007, you wrote:
>
>Richard,
>
>I have thought quite a bit about the wingtip vorticies affecting
>spades on the tips, and I have come to concusion that I have no idea :)
One of the guys we used to fly with put spades on a Firestar, but he
put them in the middle
of the ailerons ( I think). John H might remember.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
here is the U-Joint.
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124609#124609
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1210049_164.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| here is the U-Joint.
|
| --------
| Paul Petty
That is a rubber dust cover, not a rubber universal joint.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
here is the old U-Joint.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| wow! never knew there was a tiny U-Joint in there. Looked them up
in AC spruce.
| Paul Petty
Did you look at the prices???
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> Mike:
>
> The weakest, most flexible part of the Kolb wing is the bow tip. You
> plan on turning the aileron counterbalance weight into a spade at the
> weakest, most flexible point, outboard of the wing tip. Might want to
> think on that a bit. Also, the counterbalance weight attachment was
> not designed nor intended to have increased torsional loads.
>
> All Kolbs inherently load up the ailerons at speeds over 50 to 60 mph.
> You ain't gonna change that unless you cut the cord of the aileron in
> half.
>
> john h
> mkIII
You are correct that it would put more stress on the bow tip, that could be a problem.
The other answer would be to put a spade in the middle of the aileron
underneath the wing, which is probably a better solution and gets rid of any
unknowns like tip vorticies. Thanks for that advice, it will be a lot of extra
work, but if I do this I will put standard spades in the middle of the ailerons.
I was wondering why my Kolb was heavy on the ailerons while Richard reports his
to be light. I am cruising pretty fast with the 912-S, that is probably why
they are stiffening up quite a bit.
Mike Bigelow
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124648#124648
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
WillUribe(at)aol.com wrote:
> here is the old U-Joint.
>
>
>
>
> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com (http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982).
Wonderful.. this is what's on my FS II's linkage... Mine's a pre-TNK FS II finished
in 98.....
So, is this a joint that has hazards and needs replacement or ?
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124682#124682
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jstewart(at)inebraska.com wrote:
> Maybe take Kimberly's advice and reflex the ailerons a bit. That might help
> a lot with the control forces.
>
> J.D.
>
>
Hey JD,
I thought about it when I read Kimberly's post, but I'm actually used to the feel
of it now and the plane flies perfectly the way it is.
I think the ailerons ride a hair bit up in the air already anyway... I'm going
to look at that next time I'm up.
Sorry guys for the brief titan exchange - JD is the seller/builder/co-designer
of my titan and builder extraordinaire...
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124684#124684
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
I think it is just not as precision as what they are currently using. On the
other hand, it only needs to work in a Kolb, not in a watch...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:26 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mushy control stick
> Wonderful.. this is what's on my FS II's linkage... Mine's a pre-TNK FS II
> finished in 98.....
>
> So, is this a joint that has hazards and needs replacement or ?
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124682#124682
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mushy control stick |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Richard Pike wrote:
> I think it is just not as precision as what they are currently using. On the
> other hand, it only needs to work in a Kolb, not in a watch...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> ---
Ok, just curious if it was an AD that I needed to call Kolb about or something
like that...
The plane has about 500 hours on it and hasn't seemed to have problems with this
joint, so I was just wondering if it was something that just hadn't been updated
but needed to be.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124706#124706
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
Just wanted to let you all know I have completed restoration of the Classic
Kolb Twinstar. It has no engine so you may install your choice. An HKS
would be great I would think. Plenty of time to register it. It has drop
down nose cone for ease of entry and two nice seats with lap/shoulder
harness. Has canister 2nd Chance Chute and easy installation if you want.
It is white and blue. Folds easily. New tires and breaks. Everything is
ready for your engine and registration. I have reg. kit available. Dont
have to tell you about the Kolbs, you know better than I. If you like open
flying, this is the bird for you. New Stits with poly spray and white
wings. Have penty of pics. $6000 OBO. Ted Cowan, Alabama 334-480-0822.
Call or email for pics. This plane, your engine, cheap great flying. Will
consider delivery.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around 2007 |
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
Kolbers and Kolbettes:
Finally got settled in back home enough to comment on the Nauga Field Fly Around.
As a "drive in" participant, I would have to echo John W's words about what a good
time it was.
The Bickhams (John and Sandy .....mostly Sandy) did a great job of taking care
of those who came. Their friends and family who came were equally as gracious.
Sample of pictures attached. (You'll notice that there is no closeup of Bruce
C. He claimed to be in a witness protection program or something like that.)
--------
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=124745#124745
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nauga_field_sf_landing_112.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nauga_field_sf_take_off_526.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nauga_field_flyers_150.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bruce_c_204.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/david_k_148.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/john_w_850.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/john_h_525.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/john_b_179.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/gary_h_849.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nauga_field_134.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flasher for landing lights |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
July 03, 2007 - July 19, 2007
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gu