Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gw
August 14, 2007 - September 07, 2007
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: Nose Art 001 |
Dear Homer,
Where are the airplane vandals when you really need them.
Gene
On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:54 AM, pat ladd wrote:
> HI All,
> I think that it was Russ who asked me for my `girlie pics` when I
> mentioned the Nose Art on my Xtra. Here it is. I hope others are
> interested. As I have never tried sending pics before please
> forgive me if it takes 5 hours to download.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pat
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
Got a question to anyone who has done this or has the knowledge. I have
ordered a 912 UL to replace my 582 on my slingshot. I called the DAR who
originally inspected it for the airworthyness cert and he gave me some info
that I dont quite understand. Can anyone clarify for me the procedures for
changing this engine and prop? I know I must report the change and put all
the information as per the regs in the books but am not sure what the
paperwork is and who to. Going through the FARs on line is like trying to
read the serial numbers on transaxles while they pass by on the road. I
think I have to call FSDO tomorrow and ask for some info. anyone done this
recently?
also, just found out that there is a hornets next over certs for e-lsa
registering for their airworthiness cert. something about having to have it
inspected by the proper people for conditional inspection prior to having an
airworthiness inspection. an inspection before an inspection? the dar says
that this is something new and has to be done, another hoop for us to jump
through. man, they sure make it easy to register and stay legal, dont they?
can someone give me some information that a human can understand -- a human
going on 62 that has ingested too many gas fumes in his life. ted cowan,
alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Ted, Clarify a few things for me if you would. Have you already been issued
your experimental certificate and operation limitations?
Rick
On 8/14/07, tc1917 wrote:
>
>
> Got a question to anyone who has done this or has the knowledge. I have
> ordered a 912 UL to replace my 582 on my slingshot. I called the DAR who
> originally inspected it for the airworthyness cert and he gave me some
> info
> that I dont quite understand. Can anyone clarify for me the procedures
> for
> changing this engine and prop? I know I must report the change and put
> all
> the information as per the regs in the books but am not sure what the
> paperwork is and who to. Going through the FARs on line is like trying to
> read the serial numbers on transaxles while they pass by on the road. I
> think I have to call FSDO tomorrow and ask for some info. anyone done
> this
> recently?
> also, just found out that there is a hornets next over certs for e-lsa
> registering for their airworthiness cert. something about having to have
> it
> inspected by the proper people for conditional inspection prior to having
> an
> airworthiness inspection. an inspection before an inspection? the dar
> says
> that this is something new and has to be done, another hoop for us to jump
> through. man, they sure make it easy to register and stay legal, dont
> they?
> can someone give me some information that a human can understand -- a
> human
> going on 62 that has ingested too many gas fumes in his life. ted cowan,
> alabama
>
>
--
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> |
oops, should be operating limitations.
Rick
On 8/14/07, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Ted, Clarify a few things for me if you would. Have you already been
> issued your experimental certificate and operation limitations?
>
> Rick
>
> On 8/14/07, tc1917 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Got a question to anyone who has done this or has the knowledge. I have
> > ordered a 912 UL to replace my 582 on my slingshot. I called the DAR
> > who
> > originally inspected it for the airworthyness cert and he gave me some
> > info
> > that I dont quite understand. Can anyone clarify for me the procedures
> > for
> > changing this engine and prop? I know I must report the change and put
> > all
> > the information as per the regs in the books but am not sure what the
> > paperwork is and who to. Going through the FARs on line is like trying
> > to
> > read the serial numbers on transaxles while they pass by on the road. I
> >
> > think I have to call FSDO tomorrow and ask for some info. anyone done
> > this
> > recently?
> > also, just found out that there is a hornets next over certs for e-lsa
> > registering for their airworthiness cert. something about having to
> > have it
> > inspected by the proper people for conditional inspection prior to
> > having an
> > airworthiness inspection. an inspection before an inspection? the dar
> > says
> > that this is something new and has to be done, another hoop for us to
> > jump
> > through. man, they sure make it easy to register and stay legal, dont
> > they?
> > can someone give me some information that a human can understand -- a
> > human
> > going on 62 that has ingested too many gas fumes in his life. ted
> > cowan,
> > alabama
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
Ted,
I made the switch from a 582 to 912S. I called the FSDO and asked the same
question. (This was before LSA) The best I recall it required the
following:
New weight and balance.
New data plate on the plane.
5 hour test period.
Logbook entry stating that the plane still flys. (or something like that)
This is just from memory so I have probably missed something.
I bet you will love the 912.
Steven
----- Original Message -----
From: "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: motors
>
> Got a question to anyone who has done this or has the knowledge. I have
> ordered a 912 UL to replace my 582 on my slingshot. I called the DAR who
> originally inspected it for the airworthyness cert and he gave me some
> info that I dont quite understand. Can anyone clarify for me the
> procedures for changing this engine and prop? I know I must report the
> change and put all the information as per the regs in the books but am not
> sure what the paperwork is and who to. Going through the FARs on line is
> like trying to read the serial numbers on transaxles while they pass by on
> the road. I think I have to call FSDO tomorrow and ask for some info.
> anyone done this recently?
> also, just found out that there is a hornets next over certs for e-lsa
> registering for their airworthiness cert. something about having to have
> it inspected by the proper people for conditional inspection prior to
> having an airworthiness inspection. an inspection before an inspection?
> the dar says that this is something new and has to be done, another hoop
> for us to jump through. man, they sure make it easy to register and stay
> legal, dont they? can someone give me some information that a human can
> understand -- a human going on 62 that has ingested too many gas fumes in
> his life. ted cowan, alabama
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: Nose Art 001 |
| From: | "Michael Sharp" <kolbdriver(at)mlsharp.com> |
My father's nickname was "Bull" Growing up I thought it was because he was as big
as a Bull. As I grew older I found out it was because he was full of BULL..
He helped me with the building untill his death. Prolly what slowed me down, I
kept seeing him "dope" fabric...
I have this worked out as a tribute to him...
--------
The air up there in the clouds is very pure and fine...And why shouldn't it be?-
--It is the same the angels breathe.
Mark Twain,
Roughing it' 1886
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129244#129244
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/da_bull_with_flag_376.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: Nose Art 001 |
Thank You George,
:- )
and thanks for setting an example of how to share nose art by
posting a link.
I used to sometimes read email from the ,,,,,,,"Kolb",,,,,,, list
with grandchildren on my lap eating popcorn.
On Aug 14, 2007, at 8:27 PM, George Alexander wrote:
> Gene: Homer would approve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: Nose Art 001 |
Tinkerbell is out in front>>
Yes she is!. We can all do with a bit of Fairy Dust.
When I posted the pic to the list one of the options I ws offered by the
program was to install it as wallpaper on my opening screen. This I did.
Wendy, peering at it across the room has just said `Why have you got that
picture of a twisted baguette on the screen` Heigh Ho!
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: Nose Art 001 |
I collect nose are off of WWII warbirds,>>
Hi ,
i have a book of nose art somewhere. The trouble is that most of them
are so badly executed. Usually botched up by one of the ground crew. It
is only the rebuild and museum pieces that have good pic done with all
the help of transfers and modern techniques.etc
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Firestar II to Firefly |
See below...
Hi Jack H:
Help me out here a lilttle.
If I understand the above statement correctly, you could not make your
FF
stall with VGs installed. It mushed rather than broke cleanly.
Now it breaks cleanly and does not mush?
What is the advantage of that?
I bet it will stall with VGs.
john h
mkIII
John,
I have had same experience with the VG's...different airframe
though...same fix and same results.
Explanation...
Original configuration, if plane was slowed and the stick brought back
slowly it, would slow, slow, slow...and then eventually stall. Then
added VG's to the main wing...now you could slow down and start pulling
the stick back...it would slow, slow, slow (approx. 7 MPH slower than
before) but if you were gentle with the deceleration, you would hit the
elevator rear stop before you got so much as a "buffet" of an impending
stall. In other words with the considerably slower airspeed the elevator
was not able to generate enough downforce to raise the nose enough to
stall the wing...this was coupled with the fact that the VG's allowed
the wing to go to a higher angle of attack before stalling anyway.
Slower speed = less elevator authority + wing capable of higher AOA than
before = an "elevator limited plane", similar to a Ercoupe.
The "bad" thing about that is this...you have a plane that while not
"stalled" is actually dropping like a rock. Just like the day out at
Joneslite in Smiths Station, Al. when you demonstrated the Kolb "mush"
to me where we were not really "stalled" (at least never got a drop out
of it) but had a rate of descent that would have been ugly on
Short,short,short final. Same situation with main wing only VG's on my
plane...if you actually used the new and improved super-slow speed
capabilities on landing and a steep approach you were going to not have
enough elevator authority to get the nose up real quick to arrest the
descent and arrive "politely"...;-)
Added the VG's under the horizontal stab and the elevator effectiveness
improved to the point that even with the super slower new stall speed I
was again able to still pull the nose up high enough to stall it (the
elevator was again strong enough to overpower the wings desire to fly).
This translated into some amazing new STOL ability...slower approaches +
total control to arrest the descent rate from a steep approach = SHORT
landings...
The main wing only VG's are great for making a stall-proof
airplane...physically not being able to pull the stick back and get a
stall could be a real safety plus...thousands of Ercoupes can't be
wrong. (to be totally honest you could snatch the stick back at a higher
speed and get an accelerated stall or pull hard in a steep bank and get
it to break...but no typical approach control input would do it...) But
to get good gentle landings I had to basically keep the same approach
speed as before VG's because even though I could fly slower, I couldn't
FLARE any slower than before...add the VG's under the horizontal stab
and you're back to an airplane that will stall if you tell it to...it
will just be slower than before when it does...
Clear as mud?
Jeremy Casey
Hoping to finish up a Kolb "Superfly" by this fall...then the RANS S7
can rest a bit...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Jeremy,
Inquiring minds want to know.
What is a Superfly?
How is Super different than Ultra?
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Jeremy Casey wrote:
> Jeremy Casey
> Hoping to finish up a Kolb "Superfly" by this fall...then the RANS S7
> can rest a bit...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
"tc1917" asked: << I have ordered a 912 UL to replace my 582 ... Can
anyone clarify for me the procedures for changing this engine and prop?
>>
Ted -
I went through the same process two years ago, when I swapped out the
Verner engine with a 912ul on my Mark-III.
Assuming your aircraft is registered as Experimental/Amateur-Built, the
FAA considers an engine change a "major" modification, and thus, you are
required to regress to your Phase-I flight test restrictions for a 5
hour period. This means you gotta fly solo and stay in your 25-mile
radius of your home airport for the new 5-hour flight test period.
After you verify that all is well with the new engine on your Slingshot,
you make the logbook entry stating so, and are then free to again
exercise all the regular privileges of your Phase-II Operating
Limitations.
You do everything (the modification, flight testing, logbook entries,
etc.). The FAA does not need to be involved.
p.s. - Good choice on the 912ul - you'll not regret your decision!
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, 912ul
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charlie Kirtland" <ckirtland1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Icom A-5 for sale |
Folks,
I have an Icom A-5 radio that I haven't used in quite a while. The radio
has been used very little and is in very good condition. The radio comes
with a belt clip, wall charger, headset adapter, a BP-200L Ni-MH
battery, a spare battery pack (for alkalines), and an instruction
manual. I'd like to have $225 plus a small amount for shipping. I can
send a photo of the stuff to anyone interested. I can also E-mail a
complete detail sheet noting specs, features, etc., if needed. Contact
me at ckirtland1(at)comcast.net.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Firestar II to Firefly |
Jeremy,
Inquiring minds want to know.
What is a Superfly?
How is Super different than Ultra?
Cage from a Firestar KXP that got trashed from being outside not tied
down during a pop-up afternoon thunderstorm (wings and tail feathers
busted up, cage fine)
Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala
Slingshot) really stout drag strut...single lift strut like all the
Kolbs except the Firefly...
Add 9" chord ailerons like a Slingshot uses...fab the flaperon mechanism
like the Firefly/SS/Firestar2 and get rid of the original Firestar
aileron mechanism...
Fab a support to mount a 10 Challenger tank
Build a set of tail feathers but cut the boom tube down to Slingshot
length.
Rig it with the lower angle of attack (and decalage of course) of the
Slingshot and add Slingshot-like gear legs to get the deck angle right
to get a 3 point landing out of it with the lower wing AOA.
Weld up a flip-over canopy frame (ala Slingshot).
Mount the 503 sitting under the workbench...
You basically have a single seat Slingshot. It will only have 52HP but
also should be about 100 pounds lighter than a 582 Slingshot.
Will have same wing area, flaperons, and tail dimensions and tail
rigging of a Slingshot (just little lower wing loading from being
lighter). With the lighter weight and the 52 HP of the 503 it will
actually have a better power/weight ratio than a 582 Slingshot...that
combined with the lower wing loading should mean better takeoff and
climb than a 582 Slingshot (which is awesome...)
Sound fun? ;-)
Jeremy Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Sounds like fun. If I were doing it, I would use the 6" tube for the main
spar tube like the MKIII & Kolbra use.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Firestar II to Firefly
>
>
> Jeremy,
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> What is a Superfly?
> How is Super different than Ultra?
>
>
>
> Cage from a Firestar KXP that got trashed from being outside not tied
> down during a pop-up afternoon thunderstorm (wings and tail feathers
> busted up, cage fine)
>
> Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala
> Slingshot) really stout drag strut...single lift strut like all the
> Kolbs except the Firefly...
>
> Add 9" chord ailerons like a Slingshot uses...fab the flaperon mechanism
> like the Firefly/SS/Firestar2 and get rid of the original Firestar
> aileron mechanism...
>
> Fab a support to mount a 10 Challenger tank
>
> Build a set of tail feathers but cut the boom tube down to Slingshot
> length.
>
> Rig it with the lower angle of attack (and decalage of course) of the
> Slingshot and add Slingshot-like gear legs to get the deck angle right
> to get a 3 point landing out of it with the lower wing AOA.
>
> Weld up a flip-over canopy frame (ala Slingshot).
>
> Mount the 503 sitting under the workbench...
>
> You basically have a single seat Slingshot. It will only have 52HP but
> also should be about 100 pounds lighter than a 582 Slingshot.
>
> Will have same wing area, flaperons, and tail dimensions and tail
> rigging of a Slingshot (just little lower wing loading from being
> lighter). With the lighter weight and the 52 HP of the 503 it will
> actually have a better power/weight ratio than a 582 Slingshot...that
> combined with the lower wing loading should mean better takeoff and
> climb than a 582 Slingshot (which is awesome...)
>
> Sound fun? ;-)
>
> Jeremy Casey
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
I just thought I would give the 'list guys' (gals included), the heads up on
my engine. I am exchanging a 582 blue head on my slingshot for a 912UL
soon. I will be going to the New Kolb Factory fly-in the end of september.
I am trailering it so I can bring my purty wife. I intend on selling the
engine complete at that time, everything is mounted on the engine, oil
injection bottle, rad., etc., ready to fly. I will send pics if you desire.
I will offer the option of a IVO ground adjust three blade for $5500 or the
brand new Warp on it now for $6000 complete and ready to mount on your bird.
If you are building or going to build, this is a great deal. I have just
about two hundred twenty hours or so on the engine. It runs great and will
demo it for you at the fly in. That is where I am going to pick up my new
912UL and fixtures. If you are really, really insistent, I will take it off
and you pick it up at my place before then but then I wont have anything to
fly when I get there and you might not get a ride in my slingshot. Just
wanted to let the good people of this list know of this opportunity. Ted
Cowan, Alabama 334-480-0822
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Jeremy,
Your superfly project sounds like fun for sure. One question: Why do you refer
to the Rotax 503 dual carb engine as 52HP?
I suspect you are just repeating what you've heard/read from many aircraft kit
sales organizations. I've seen this myself countless times. However, all the official
Rotax Engine websites, including Kodiak list this engine's max horsepower
at 37 kilowatts which equates to 49.6 HP using the American standard of 550
ft-lb/sec. method.
FWIW, there are other types of "horsepower" including the following:
37 KW = 49.61 HP (550 ft-lb/sec)
37 KW = 50.31 HP (metric)
37 KW = 49.60 HP (electric)
37 KW = 49.60 HP (water)
37 KW = 3.77 HP (boiler)
There is only one type/measure of kilowatts which is a pretty good reason to specify
power in those units.
The reason I'm saying this is that since the actual HP of the 503 is 49.6 and not
52, your lb/hp calculations are off by nearly 5%. Still sounds like a fun project,
even with 2.4 HP less than you thought.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129415#129415
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary aman <gaman(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Jeremy is more than likely using the saddle horse co-efficient of power,not the
Budwieser Beer wagon draft horse type,which of course was obvious to us non-engineer
types By the way,did anyone else get a little .004 kick on their condescension
meter? Nah,it's probably the rainy weather .The humility has been really
high this week.
Jeremy,
Your superfly project sounds like fun for sure. One question: Why do you refer
to the Rotax 503 dual carb engine as 52HP?
I suspect you are just repeating what you've heard/read from many aircraft kit
sales organizations. I've seen this myself countless times. However, all the official
Rotax Engine websites, including Kodiak list this engine's max horsepower
at 37 kilowatts which equates to 49.6 HP using the American standard of 550
ft-lb/sec. method.
FWIW, there are other types of "horsepower" including the following:
37 KW = 49.61 HP (550 ft-lb/sec)
37 KW = 50.31 HP (metric)
37 KW = 49.60 HP (electric)
37 KW = 49.60 HP (water)
37 KW = 3.77 HP (boiler)
There is only one type/measure of kilowatts which is a pretty good reason to specify
power in those units.
The reason I'm saying this is that since the actual HP of the 503 is 49.6 and not
52, your lb/hp calculations are off by nearly 5%. Still sounds like a fun project,
even with 2.4 HP less than you thought.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129415#129415
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Jeremy Casey wrote:
> Sound fun? ;-)
Yeah,
But for even more fun ,,,,,,,,,,,,, use a 582 engine with more power
and less weight.
The 582 with a B box is 3.2 lb. lighter than the 503 and has 14.8
more horses.
http://www.kodiakbs.com/PDF/2strokeweight.PDF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mark III with an HKS |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
The MK III flys well with 100 HP, I think an 80 HP 912 is the minimum I would want
on that plane.
The HKS is the right power for a Firestar II, not the MK III. I think the HKS
would be horrible on a MK III or maybe not even fly at all.
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=129473#129473
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Firestar II to Firefly |
> Sound fun? ;-)
Yeah,
But for even more fun ,,,,,,,,,,,,, use a 582 engine with more power
and less weight.
The 582 with a B box is 3.2 lb. lighter than the 503 and has 14.8
more horses.
true...true.
When I bought the damaged plane that became the basis for this little
project it came with a 447, but a 503 DCDI became available and I like
the dual ignition...so it will go on and the 447 will hibernate under
the bench full of oil in all the appropriate places. I'll have to live
with 49.6HP for now ;-)
Jeremy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III with an HKS |
Nope, not the right answer.
Kolb marketed the MKIII with the 503 for several years, and I flew one built
to minimum weight with a dual carb 503 on it. With two people, it was slow
climbing, but better than a Cessna 152. An HKS makes more power than a 503,
so you would get performance about mid way between what you get with a 503
and a 582.
Obviously it would be much less fun than with 65, 80, or 100 HP, but it
would certainly be airworthy.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:24 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mark III with an HKS
I think the HKS would be horrible on a MK III or maybe not even fly at all.
>
> 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=129473#129473
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TNK Early Bird Roast |
At 04:26 PM 8/16/2007, you wrote:
>The 3rd annual Custom Air cookout will be Thursday afternoon before
>the TNK Homecoming begins. Bryan and I will be hosting the cookout
>for the guys that fly or drive in a day early. Sorry but there will
>be no chicken sausage this year because I am Kitchenless. I will
>however be making a big pot of "Travis Sauce"
>
>Steve and Bryan
WHAT....about the chicken festival??
That's the only reason I ever came!
Pack up the wife, the kids, fun for the whole family.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emailing: Nose Art 001 |
At 12:46 AM 8/17/2007, you wrote:
>
>Mine has a nose cone and shortie windshield.
>
>Have to have a place for instruments and nose art ;-)
>
>--------
>Ray
The only "nose art" we got down here.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/DeadPossum.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar II to Firefly |
At 09:23 PM 8/15/2007, you wrote:
>Cage from a Firestar KXP that got trashed from being outside not tied
>down during a pop-up afternoon thunderstorm (wings and tail feathers
>busted up, cage fine)
Same thing here .... crashed in the lake - Firestar KXP but: I
rebuilt the cage,
rebuilt the wings, bought a new engine, (I really like my new 503 -
732+ hrs) ..got the
same nose cone, stick - .....But I figure it's taking up the same
space/time continuum
So I don't need to buy a "carbon credit".
My Great Grandfather left me his hammer (he was a carpenter from
Ireland) ....But the "head " was
"eioj" Iron and rusted really bad, so I had to replaced it. And the
handle was broken..so I had to replace it too..
But...I figure it's taking up the same space and it's an antique -
except for the parts.
>Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala
>Slingshot) really stout drag strut..
Me too - except 8 ribs and 26' 9" wings ...tip to tip. bunch of bracing (ala
Slingshot) really stout drag strut..like you said. + angle bracing per Hauck.
You should change your wing tips?.It would save you about 18 inches.
AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION - It will cost you at LOT to go to 22' wings.
Work on the tips and add a little wing, it's nice to stall at 30 -mph with VGs.
They work, and that's the truth!
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
>.single lift strut like all the
>Kolbs except the Firefly...
Me too - the doubles only "slows you down" 8 mph
unless you're doing loops - you don't need them.
>Add 9" chord ailerons like a Slingshot uses...fab the flaperon mechanism
>like the Firefly/SS/Firestar2 and get rid of the original Firestar
>aileron mechanism...
>Fab a support to mount a 10 Challenger tank
>Build a set of tail feathers but cut the boom tube down to Slingshot
>length.
>Rig it with the lower angle of attack (and decalage of course) of the
>Slingshot and add Slingshot-like gear legs to get the deck angle right
>to get a 3 point landing out of it with the lower wing AOA.
>
>Weld up a flip-over canopy frame (ala Slingshot).
>
>Mount the 503 sitting under the workbench...
>
>You basically have a single seat Slingshot. It will only have 52HP but
>also should be about 100 pounds lighter than a 582 Slingshot.
>
>Will have same wing area, flaperons, and tail dimensions and tail
>rigging of a Slingshot (just little lower wing loading from being
>lighter). With the lighter weight and the 52 HP of the 503 it will
>actually have a better power/weight ratio than a 582 Slingshot...that
>combined with the lower wing loading should mean better takeoff and
>climb than a 582 Slingshot (which is awesome...)
>
>Sound fun? ;-)
>
>Jeremy Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Possums,
I like the Horner style wing tips! I had that STC mod on the Piper Cherokee I
had several years ago and it made a big improvement over the standard Hershey
Bar wing tips. Since I've got to fix one wing tip on the FS 1 anyway, I just might
do both of them this way.
Thanks for the TIP. (pun intended)
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129561#129561
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ckirtland1(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: TNK Early Bird Roast |
Steve,
I sure hope you know what you're allowing when you tell Stan to "feel free to bing
all your Kin". You know that Stan is from the South and noticed Stan said
he'd "pack" them. How do you think you'd be after "packing"? :-)
Sorry Stan.
Charlie
-------------- Original message --------------
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Sorry Possum, guess you did not know but the Italian Chicken Sausage I usually
make is unrelated to the Chicken Festival. The Festival should still be in full
force so feel free to bring all your Kin.
steve
Steve,
I sure hope you know what you're allowing when you tell Stan to "feel free
to bing all your Kin". You know that Stan is from the South and noticed Stan
said he'd "pack" them. How do you think you'd be after "packing"?
:-)
Sorry Stan.
Charlie
Sorry Possum, guess you did not know but the Italian Chicken Sausage
I usually make is unrelated to the Chicken Festival. The Festival
should still be in full force so feel free to bring all your Kin.
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Hey Possum, I like the wingtip, do you think it is effective?
Steve
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/etzim62@earthlink.net.02.11.2006/
P2100044.jpg
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/etzim62@earthlink.net.02.11.2006/
P2100045.jpg
On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:22 AM, possums wrote:
> At 09:23 PM 8/15/2007, you wrote:
>> Cage from a Firestar KXP that got trashed from being outside not tied
>> down during a pop-up afternoon thunderstorm (wings and tail feathers
>> busted up, cage fine)
>
> Same thing here .... crashed in the lake - Firestar KXP but: I
> rebuilt the cage,
> rebuilt the wings, bought a new engine, (I really like my new 503 -
> 732+ hrs) ..got the
> same nose cone, stick - .....But I figure it's taking up the same
> space/time continuum
> So I don't need to buy a "carbon credit".
> My Great Grandfather left me his hammer (he was a carpenter from
> Ireland) ....But the "head " was
> "eioj" Iron and rusted really bad, so I had to replaced it. And the
> handle was broken..so I had to replace it too..
> But...I figure it's taking up the same space and it's an antique -
> except for the parts.
>
>> Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala
>> Slingshot) really stout drag strut..
>
> Me too - except 8 ribs and 26' 9" wings ...tip to tip. bunch of
> bracing (ala
> Slingshot) really stout drag strut..like you said. + angle bracing
> per Hauck.
> You should change your wing tips?.It would save you about 18 inches.
> AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION - It will cost you at LOT to go to 22'
> wings.
> Work on the tips and add a little wing, it's nice to stall at 30 -
> mph with VGs.
> They work, and that's the truth!
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
>
>
>> .single lift strut like all the
>> Kolbs except the Firefly...
>
> Me too - the doubles only "slows you down" 8 mph
> unless you're doing loops - you don't need them.
>
>
>> Add 9" chord ailerons like a Slingshot uses...fab the flaperon
>> mechanism
>> like the Firefly/SS/Firestar2 and get rid of the original Firestar
>> aileron mechanism...
>> Fab a support to mount a 10 Challenger tank
>> Build a set of tail feathers but cut the boom tube down to Slingshot
>> length.
>> Rig it with the lower angle of attack (and decalage of course) of the
>> Slingshot and add Slingshot-like gear legs to get the deck angle
>> right
>> to get a 3 point landing out of it with the lower wing AOA.
>>
>> Weld up a flip-over canopy frame (ala Slingshot).
>>
>> Mount the 503 sitting under the workbench...
>>
>> You basically have a single seat Slingshot. It will only have
>> 52HP but
>> also should be about 100 pounds lighter than a 582 Slingshot.
>>
>> Will have same wing area, flaperons, and tail dimensions and tail
>> rigging of a Slingshot (just little lower wing loading from being
>> lighter). With the lighter weight and the 52 HP of the 503 it will
>> actually have a better power/weight ratio than a 582 Slingshot...that
>> combined with the lower wing loading should mean better takeoff and
>> climb than a 582 Slingshot (which is awesome...)
>>
>> Sound fun? ;-)
>>
>> Jeremy Casey
> <1 Wing tip.jpg>
> <3 Drawing 2.jpg>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
A few more perspectives showing my modified wing planform.
http://picasaweb.google.com/imhisson2/NewAlbum42707610PM
Gene
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/etzim62@earthlink.net.
> 02.11.2006/P2100044.jpg
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/etzim62@earthlink.net.
> 02.11.2006/P2100045.jpg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V |
Rick
I'm just curious how you figure that a VW is 60 Lbs. heaver than a 912?
My VW with is maybe 10lbs more. Now I took steps to save weight any
where I could but I didn't cut 50 lbs off. If your figuring the stock
generator and fan into this weight maybe.
Also I had my share of engine problems in my old beetle and bus but
never had a valve brakeage problem. They are a bit sensitive to valve
adjustments and I just don't like adjusting them so I installed
hydraulic lifters in my engine. Also there isn't much stock VW about the
engines they build today. You do have to use a bit of common sense about
sitting on the ground with the engine running and no cooling air flowing
over the engine.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Ron, Where the 912 has an advantage over the VW is weight, about 60
lb. worth. Those Austrian engineers went to great lengths to keep the
engine as light as possible. And if your talking about the 912S your
giving up 20 HP, too.
I like VW's a lot and as a child of the 60's I've owned my share. I
even owned a "Thing", and the Vanagon is on my favorite vehicle list
since my son looped one on Hwy 80 with me sleeping in the back, but I've
walked into VW parts depts carrying the latest broken bit and singing
the "Volkswagen, does it again" commercial jingle too many times. Maybe
all the development work has solved some of the problems, but I've lost
the #3 exhaust valve head on type 1, type 3, and type 4 engines and they
don't run worth a darn on three cylinders.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V |
Rick, I can't find the list of engine weights I have in some remote
subdirectory, so I used this list from Great Plains Aircraft. I also checked
what the AeroVee folks claim.
http://www.greatplainsas.com/specsfd.html
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16424&category_id=268
Start with the best weight at 160lb. then add a redrive, and you're at 180
to 190 installed. Compare this to the 128 to 134lb. (Rotax Installation
Manual page 7-2) for a 912 and even if you get real generous on the weight
of the sump tank and lines you're still at a least difference of 40lb. and a
max of 60.
Rick
On 8/17/07, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>
> Rick
>
> I'm just curious how you figure that a VW is 60 Lbs. heaver than a 912? My
> VW with is maybe 10lbs more. Now I took steps to save weight any where I
> could but I didn't cut 50 lbs off. If your figuring the stock generator and
> fan into this weight maybe.
>
> Also I had my share of engine problems in my old beetle and bus but never
> had a valve brakeage problem. They are a bit sensitive to valve adjustments
> and I just don't like adjusting them so I installed hydraulic lifters in my
> engine. Also there isn't much stock VW about the engines they build today.
> You do have to use a bit of common sense about sitting on the ground with
> the engine running and no cooling air flowing over the engine.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, August 13, 2007 4:21 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
>
> Ron, Where the 912 has an advantage over the VW is weight, about 60 lb.
> worth. Those Austrian engineers went to great lengths to keep the engine as
> light as possible. And if your talking about the 912S your giving up 20 HP,
> too.
> I like VW's a lot and as a child of the 60's I've owned my share. I even
> owned a "Thing", and the Vanagon is on my favorite vehicle list since my son
> looped one on Hwy 80 with me sleeping in the back, but I've walked into VW
> parts depts carrying the latest broken bit and singing the "Volkswagen, does
> it again" commercial jingle too many times. Maybe all the development work
> has solved some of the problems, but I've lost the #3 exhaust valve head on
> type 1, type 3, and type 4 engines and they don't run worth a darn on three
> cylinders.
>
> Rick
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
At 12:31 PM 8/17/2007, you wrote:
>
>I like your wing tip counter weights.
>
>You should put fins on them and paint them up like AIM-9's
YES - I did that "at first", but they broke off and you have to buy the
whole rocket - just to get the fins $20 and I superglued them on last time
and they still broke off after 50 hrs.
But the little counter weights have lead in the ends.
So even tho they look like rockets they are still counter weights.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need radio work |
Rick G:
I think the idea is to be brief and expedite, but not so fast us senior
citizens can not understand what you are saying.
john h
mkIII
The idea is to get your intentions out as fast as possible to avoid
tying up the radio frequency.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need radio work |
At 06:02 PM 8/17/2007, you wrote:
>
>Lanny, the FAR-Aim has a section in the AIM section on "Correct
>PhraseologyTo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Steve,
>
>I sure hope you know what you're allowing when you tell Stan to
>"feel free to bing all your Kin".\
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Need radio work
>
>At 06:02 PM 8/17/2007, you wrote:
>>
>>Lanny, the FAR-Aim has a section in the AIM section on "Correct
>>Phraseology", when using the radio both when talking to ATC & the
>>Unicom.Also, a product called Comm 1 communications is available,
>>but it will cost you about $100. bucks. The FAR-AIM is cheaper, but
>>Comm1 lets you interact with your computer & I have seen them On E-Bay.
>>Further, your Flight reveiw, (According to the FAR`S) is supposed
>>to include "One Hour of flight Instruction, & one hour of
>>ground instruction" & the Manuvers & topics are up to the
>>instructor. You already know, you can`t "Fail a flight review", but
>>its up to the instructor to sign you of for the
>>successful completion of the flight review. Why not let the
>>instructor earn his money during the ground portion & help you with
>>communication? You`re going to pay him/her anyway.
>>
>>Jim Kmet
>>MK-3C, CFII
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Lanny Fetterman" <donaho(at)uplink.net>
>>To:
>>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:37 PM
>>Subject: Kolb-List: Need radio work
>>
Hi All, The flying I do dosen`t require that I talk on my radio very
much. I announce when I am about to enter the active runway for take
off, and I announce where I am in the landing pattern. ( I`m usually
alone at the airport and no one is listening to me , but I announce
anyway, kind of like yelling clear prop when no one is within a
country mile of me.) I flew with my instructor today from an airport
with a control tower and learned that I have very poor radio skills
and will need to improve them before my biennial flight review next year.
Herein lies my problem, how do I sharpen my skills when I have no one
to talk to when and where I fly? Can anyone recommend a CD or DVD or
anything that I can use to learn radio skills.
Thanks in advance Lanny Fetterman N598LF
Don't try harder - just talk.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V |
That's interesting. You do have to be careful how you build a VW engine
too keep it light. You also have to be careful what weights you pick for
comparison. I see you figured 20-30 lbs for the redrive when my redrive
is 9 lbs and all the listed engines have a slick magneto (under powered,
expensive and heavy) mine doesn't. I have seen a number of weights
listed for the 912 Rotax and most realistic weights are a bit higher
than you indicate. Bottom line my MKIIIC with a full silver coat paint,
fully enclosed, all instruments, luggage trays, a bunch of patches and
radios weighed 598lbs empty weight wet (oil & unusable fuel) when I
redid the motor mount a few years ago. Seems like I even forgot to
remove my survival kit. This isn't light for a MKIIIC but there aren't
too many 912 powered planes that are 60 lbs. lighter. In fact it seems
like most are about the same weight. I don't know how Rotax figures
their weights and the weight you came up with. Maybe they use some fairy
dust on their scales.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Rick, I can't find the list of engine weights I have in some remote
subdirectory, so I used this list from Great Plains Aircraft. I also
checked what the AeroVee folks claim.
http://www.greatplainsas.com/specsfd.html
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=
16424&category_id=268
Start with the best weight at 160lb. then add a redrive, and you're at
180 to 190 installed. Compare this to the 128 to 134lb. (Rotax
Installation Manual page 7-2) for a 912 and even if you get real
generous on the weight of the sump tank and lines you're still at a
least difference of 40lb. and a max of 60.
Rick
On 8/17/07, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
Rick
I'm just curious how you figure that a VW is 60 Lbs. heaver than a
912? My VW with is maybe 10lbs more. Now I took steps to save weight any
where I could but I didn't cut 50 lbs off. If your figuring the stock
generator and fan into this weight maybe.
Also I had my share of engine problems in my old beetle and bus but
never had a valve brakeage problem. They are a bit sensitive to valve
adjustments and I just don't like adjusting them so I installed
hydraulic lifters in my engine. Also there isn't much stock VW about the
engines they build today. You do have to use a bit of common sense about
sitting on the ground with the engine running and no cooling air flowing
over the engine.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Ron, Where the 912 has an advantage over the VW is weight, about
60 lb. worth. Those Austrian engineers went to great lengths to keep the
engine as light as possible. And if your talking about the 912S your
giving up 20 HP, too.
I like VW's a lot and as a child of the 60's I've owned my share.
I even owned a "Thing", and the Vanagon is on my favorite vehicle list
since my son looped one on Hwy 80 with me sleeping in the back, but I've
walked into VW parts depts carrying the latest broken bit and singing
the "Volkswagen, does it again" commercial jingle too many times. Maybe
all the development work has solved some of the problems, but I've lost
the #3 exhaust valve head on type 1, type 3, and type 4 engines and they
don't run worth a darn on three cylinders.
Rick
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
http://forums.matronics.com
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Rick,
I have no idea what the installed weight of our 912UL is but our Allegro 2000 is
about 50 lb. heavier than your MkIIIC w/ VW. Our Allegro is a very light S-LSA
compared to most w/ 912ULS engines at about 750 lb. empty. Most of that extra
weight is heavier airframe components.
Bottom line is your 598 lb empty weight is a good weight with plenty of power from
a reliable engine that is cheap to maintain. Hard to beat.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129693#129693
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need radio work |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Lanny,
Another way to get used to the radio, at least the listening and understanding
part, is to go to
www.liveatc.net
and listen to the ATC at several airports. These are live broadcasts of actual
aircraft/atc conversations. I'd try the smaller airports so you won't be overwhelmed.
It also helps to pick one in your part of the country so the language
is one you are accustomed to hearing. It is free and really helps you get used
to the rhythm, order and cadence.
I agree with John H., as we age our ability to understand rapid fire speech diminishes
and there is nothing gained by being fast if you are not understood. Most
of us fly from airports that are not all that busy anyway, so the need for
speed is just not there. Be relaxed and speak in a normal conversational tone
but leave out all the unnecessary words. As Sergeant Friday on Dragnet used to
say, "Just the facts, M'am."
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129695#129695
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III with an HKS |
I fly a MK111 with a 503 and have done so for 300hrs . It gives a cruise
of about 70 mph at amsl .Climbs about 700 ft pmt with two up . its a very
nice machine to handle that performs very well . The only failing that I
have had is that in very high winds the ruder control is marginal. That is
in a wind speed of 30 + mph and turning into wind on short finals you need
to push the nose down and give it plenty of power to line up with the runway
Very safe very easy and know surprises .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Mark III with an HKS
>
> Nope, not the right answer.
> Kolb marketed the MKIII with the 503 for several years, and I flew one
> built to minimum weight with a dual carb 503 on it. With two people, it
> was slow climbing, but better than a Cessna 152. An HKS makes more power
> than a 503, so you would get performance about mid way between what you
> get with a 503 and a 582.
>
> Obviously it would be much less fun than with 65, 80, or 100 HP, but it
> would certainly be airworthy.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:24 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mark III with an HKS
>
>
>
> I think the HKS would be horrible on a MK III or maybe not even fly at
> all.
>>
>> 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=129473#129473
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 269.12.0/957 - Release Date: 16/08/2007 1:46 p.m.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need radio work |
Lanny et al, By fast I meant brief and succinct. You don't have to speak
like a high school debater on a meth amphetamine buzz, just clear about your
intentions.
I don't need to tell ground control anything more than where I am and where
I want to go. I.E. "Renton ground, Cessna 54088 at BEFA with Zulu, taxi
takeoff."
What the ground controller now knows about Cessna 54088 is that it's at the
Boeing Employees Flying Assn., The pilot has the latest ATIS information (
Zulu ), and he wants to taxi to the active runway to takeoff.
It doesn't happen often, but I've heard controllers chew a pilot out in a
not too pleasant manner after a rambling transmission. In one memorable
case, the controller told the pilot to hold position until he had the ATIS
info and knew what he wanted to do. He was still being held when I had
finished a mile long taxi, done my runup, changed to tower frequency and
done my first touch and go.
Just remember that radio communications are simplex, that is, they aren't
like a telephone where you can just talk over someone else. While you have
the key open no one else can communicate on that frequency, even the pilot
calling in with a life threatening emergency cannot get through if you're
yakking it up.
Rick
On 8/18/07, Thom Riddle wrote:
>
>
> Lanny,
>
> Another way to get used to the radio, at least the listening and
> understanding part, is to go to
>
> www.liveatc.net
>
> and listen to the ATC at several airports. These are live broadcasts of
> actual aircraft/atc conversations. I'd try the smaller airports so you won't
> be overwhelmed. It also helps to pick one in your part of the country so the
> language is one you are accustomed to hearing. It is free and really helps
> you get used to the rhythm, order and cadence.
>
> I agree with John H., as we age our ability to understand rapid fire
> speech diminishes and there is nothing gained by being fast if you are not
> understood. Most of us fly from airports that are not all that busy anyway,
> so the need for speed is just not there. Be relaxed and speak in a normal
> conversational tone but leave out all the unnecessary words. As Sergeant
> Friday on Dragnet used to say, "Just the facts, M'am."
>
> --------
> Thom in Buffalo
> N197BG FS1/447
>
> --------------------
> "Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> Albert Einstein
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129695#129695
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V |
I seem to remember Dennis Souder pulled a 912 install off the factory
Slingshot and weighed it ready to run minus prop and it was something
like 165? (Shooting from memory here but I bet it's in the archives.)
Jeremy Casey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Rick, I can't find the list of engine weights I have in some remote
subdirectory, so I used this list from Great Plains Aircraft. I also
checked what the AeroVee folks claim.
http://www.greatplainsas.com/specsfd.html
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product
<http://www.sonexaircraft.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=1
6424&category_id=268> &product_id=16424&category_id=268
Start with the best weight at 160lb. then add a redrive, and you're at
180 to 190 installed. Compare this to the 128 to 134lb. (Rotax
Installation Manual page 7-2) for a 912 and even if you get real
generous on the weight of the sump tank and lines you're still at a
least difference of 40lb. and a max of 60.
Rick
On 8/17/07, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
Rick
I'm just curious how you figure that a VW is 60 Lbs. heaver than a 912?
My VW with is maybe 10lbs more. Now I took steps to save weight any
where I could but I didn't cut 50 lbs off. If your figuring the stock
generator and fan into this weight maybe.
Also I had my share of engine problems in my old beetle and bus but
never had a valve brakeage problem. They are a bit sensitive to valve
adjustments and I just don't like adjusting them so I installed
hydraulic lifters in my engine. Also there isn't much stock VW about the
engines they build today. You do have to use a bit of common sense about
sitting on the ground with the engine running and no cooling air flowing
over the engine.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard <mailto:jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Ron, Where the 912 has an advantage over the VW is weight, about 60 lb.
worth. Those Austrian engineers went to great lengths to keep the engine
as light as possible. And if your talking about the 912S your giving up
20 HP, too.
I like VW's a lot and as a child of the 60's I've owned my share. I even
owned a "Thing", and the Vanagon is on my favorite vehicle list since my
son looped one on Hwy 80 with me sleeping in the back, but I've walked
into VW parts depts carrying the latest broken bit and singing the
"Volkswagen, does it again" commercial jingle too many times. Maybe all
the development work has solved some of the problems, but I've lost the
#3 exhaust valve head on type 1, type 3, and type 4 engines and they
don't run worth a darn on three cylinders.
Rick
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
http://forums.matronics.com
when you live at the airport.
__________ NOD32 2469 (20070818) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Firestar II to Firefly |
Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala
Slingshot) really stout drag strut..
Me too - except 8 ribs and 26' 9" wings ...tip to tip. bunch of bracing
(ala
Slingshot) really stout drag strut..like you said. + angle bracing per
Hauck.
You should change your wing tips?.It would save you about 18 inches.
AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION - It will cost you at LOT to go to 22'
wings.
Work on the tips and add a little wing, it's nice to stall at 30 -mph
with VGs.
They work, and that's the truth!
Have flown my share of big wing homebuilts.wanted a "toy" that would
handle as such.yea stall will go up but the beating from thermals will
go down thanks to the higher wing loading too.everything is a tradeoff.
Flew a clip-wing Challenger single place and compared to the 2 place
long wing I flew at the time the clip-wing single was a hoot to fly and
the 2 place long wing was a pig. When I run across this cage the first
thing through my head was mini-Slingshot . Also the wings were toast
already so I was starting from scratch anyway.
Jeremy
P.S. I posted a lengthy explanation of some VG experience the other
day.fully understand the benefits of VG's and the "Superfly" will have
them too.;-)
P.P.S. The RANS S7 with VG's indicated 26 at "stall" solo.but AS
indicators are pretty inaccurate that slow.although the GPS says it's
real close.then again just a puff of wind at those low numbers will
affect the GPS too..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Jeremy:
Some day I would like to do a side by side comparison with one of these
super slow flying aircraft and my non-VG equipped mkIII. Might give me
some idea of what I am missing, flying around in a hawg that weighs way
too much.
I offerred the right reverend Pike the opportunity to rub it in, the VG
thing that is, doing a side by side, but he said that would not be fair.
Still waiting. I don't mind getting whupped. Promise not to whine too
loud if I do.
john h
mkIII
P.P.S. The RANS S7 with VG's indicated 26 at "stall" solo.but AS
indicators are pretty inaccurate that slow.although the GPS says it's
real close.then again just a puff of wind at those low numbers will
affect the GPS too
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
I still don't think it would be fair, but just to even the odds, maybe
we could talk Travis into riding with me while we do it...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar II to Firefly
Jeremy:
Some day I would like to do a side by side comparison with one of
these super slow flying aircraft and my non-VG equipped mkIII. Might
give me some idea of what I am missing, flying around in a hawg that
weighs way too much.
I offerred the right reverend Pike the opportunity to rub it in, the
VG thing that is, doing a side by side, but he said that would not be
fair. Still waiting. I don't mind getting whupped. Promise not to
whine too loud if I do.
john h
mkIII
P.P.S. The RANS S7 with VG's indicated 26 at "stall" solo.but AS
indicators are pretty inaccurate that slow.although the GPS says it's
real close.then again just a puff of wind at those low numbers will
affect the GPS too
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
http://picasaweb.google.com/imhisson2/BarnFire
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
John, I agree with the preacher. It would not be fair.
But I'd love to give it a try with my modified Firestar.
I have never had an aircraft best me yet in a slow-flight challenge
except the slow Jelly Fish and I can match even some of them.
Gene
On Aug 18, 2007, at 4:24 PM, John Hauck wrote:
> Jeremy:
>
> Some day I would like to do a side by side comparison with one of
> these super slow flying aircraft and my non-VG equipped mkIII.
> Might give me some idea of what I am missing, flying around in a
> hawg that weighs way too much.
>
> I offerred the right reverend Pike the opportunity to rub it in,
> the VG thing that is, doing a side by side, but he said that would
> not be fair. Still waiting. I don't mind getting whupped.
> Promise not to whine too loud if I do.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> P.P.S. The RANS S7 with VGs indicated 26 at stall solobut AS
> indicators are pretty inaccurate that slowalthough the GPS says
> its real closethen again just a puff of wind at those low numbers
> will affect the GPS too
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Will you be there Gene?
Of course, I would want Travis on the ground if I was matched against your
Firestar...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Zimmerman" <ez(at)embarqmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar II to Firefly
>
> John, I agree with the preacher. It would not be fair.
>
> But I'd love to give it a try with my modified Firestar.
> I have never had an aircraft best me yet in a slow-flight challenge
> except the slow Jelly Fish and I can match even some of them.
>
> Gene
>
> On Aug 18, 2007, at 4:24 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
>> Jeremy:
>>
>> Some day I would like to do a side by side comparison with one of these
>> super slow flying aircraft and my non-VG equipped mkIII. Might give me
>> some idea of what I am missing, flying around in a hawg that weighs way
>> too much.
>>
>> I offerred the right reverend Pike the opportunity to rub it in, the VG
>> thing that is, doing a side by side, but he said that would not be fair.
>> Still waiting. I don't mind getting whupped. Promise not to whine too
>> loud if I do.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>> P.P.S. The RANS S7 with VGs indicated 26 at stall solobut AS
>> indicators are pretty inaccurate that slowalthough the GPS says its
>> real closethen again just a puff of wind at those low numbers will
>> affect the GPS too
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List_-
>> ============================================================ _-
>> forums.matronics.com_-
>> ===========================================================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
Richard,
"Fleeting are the delights of a delusion."
Me and my Firestar are both phatt
What do I get if I win? :-)
Gene
On Aug 18, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Richard Pike wrote:
> Will you be there Gene?
> Of course, I would want Travis on the ground if I was matched
> against your Firestar...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar II to Firefly |
All the honors and privileges of an Aviation Superstar.
Too bad there aren't any...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Zimmerman" <ez(at)embarqmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar II to Firefly
>
> Richard,
> "Fleeting are the delights of a delusion."
> Me and my Firestar are both phatt
> What do I get if I win? :-)
>
> Gene
>
> On Aug 18, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Richard Pike wrote:
>
>> Will you be there Gene?
>> Of course, I would want Travis on the ground if I was matched
>> against your Firestar...
>>
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 08/18/07 |
I get a kick out of reading of those who want 'slow' stalls and really
'slow' landings. 'Cut the wings off', add vgs, do this and do that to land
slow. I still hear of them landing really slow and bamm, down the nose goes
and they say "oh, it must have been a shear over the hedge or something".
Love it. This is being sarcastic but I had about enough of 'slow' with my
little white lightning firestar. I had enough of the bouncing around like a
balloon on the ocean. I wanted better speed with agility, better handling
and response. That is why I went to a "slingshot". Those that have never
flown one cannot understand the command control on this craft. You cannot
understand that float is not always better. I like mine cause it puts down
exactly where I want it. It lands exactly when I want it, cross wind or
not. It lands soft, slow and precise. It climbs like a fool with a 582.
cruises in the low 80's if I like it to. goes through bumps and lumps like
they are not there. That is what I wanted. Wind gust to 30+? No problem.
Cross winding? No problem. I love this bird. Putting a 912 on it for
safety factor. Not worrying about sink or stall cause that engine most
likely wont quit like a two banger. Anyway, I think putting VGS on a
slingshot would be like putting wings on bowling balls; might make it land
softer but wont add nothing to the control and cruise. I love the fact that
I could probably land my bird in an emergency in one hundred foot or less
and NOT ROLL OVER. THAT, is what I got it for. Love my Greezed Lightnin.
My two cents. That is also why Jeremy Casey is building his "superfly".
Ted Cowan, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Firestar II to Firefly |
Jeremy:
Some day I would like to do a side by side comparison with one of these
super slow flying aircraft and my non-VG equipped mkIII. Might give me
some idea of what I am missing, flying around in a hawg that weighs way
too much.
I offerred the right reverend Pike the opportunity to rub it in, the VG
thing that is, doing a side by side, but he said that would not be fair.
Still waiting. I don't mind getting whupped. Promise not to whine too
loud if I do.
john h
mkIII
Are we "flying" for pinks??? ;-) When is the Kolb Homecoming? If work
works out ok I just might fly up.then your on. Question.are we limiting
to power off or is power on ok too? Power on I could get out and walk
along beside it. (tractor engine.low thrust line will help it "hang" on
prop.one of the few advantages to that engine getting the best view of
the air out front.)
Jeremy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 08/18/07 |
Amen...brother Cowan...Amen ;-)
Jeremy
I get a kick out of reading of those who want 'slow' stalls and really
'slow' landings. 'Cut the wings off', add vgs, do this and do that to
land
slow. I still hear of them landing really slow and bamm, down the nose
goes
and they say "oh, it must have been a shear over the hedge or
something".
Love it. This is being sarcastic but I had about enough of 'slow' with
my
little white lightning firestar. I had enough of the bouncing around
like a
balloon on the ocean. I wanted better speed with agility, better
handling
and response. That is why I went to a "slingshot". Those that have
never
flown one cannot understand the command control on this craft. You
cannot
understand that float is not always better. I like mine cause it puts
down
exactly where I want it. It lands exactly when I want it, cross wind or
not. It lands soft, slow and precise. It climbs like a fool with a
582.
cruises in the low 80's if I like it to. goes through bumps and lumps
like
they are not there. That is what I wanted. Wind gust to 30+? No
problem.
Cross winding? No problem. I love this bird. Putting a 912 on it for
safety factor. Not worrying about sink or stall cause that engine most
likely wont quit like a two banger. Anyway, I think putting VGS on a
slingshot would be like putting wings on bowling balls; might make it
land
softer but wont add nothing to the control and cruise. I love the fact
that
I could probably land my bird in an emergency in one hundred foot or
less
and NOT ROLL OVER. THAT, is what I got it for. Love my Greezed
Lightnin.
My two cents. That is also why Jeremy Casey is building his "superfly".
Ted Cowan, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V |
Rick,
For comparison, My M3 weighs in at 596 dry with similar accessories and
a 20 gal aluminum tank and a 1050 canister BRS. So you are very close
it sounds like. I am always interested in what you guys are doing
with the VWs. I had begun working on a reduction for a VW when I ran
across a used 912 at a fair price so I stopped working on the drive. I
still like the old VWs. I got my type 181 out last week for a little
exercise. 45K miles, original engine that hasn't been out of the car.
Not bad for a 33 year old VW.
Steven
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard & Martha Neilsen
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
That's interesting. You do have to be careful how you build a VW
engine too keep it light. You also have to be careful what weights you
pick for comparison. I see you figured 20-30 lbs for the redrive when my
redrive is 9 lbs and all the listed engines have a slick magneto (under
powered, expensive and heavy) mine doesn't. I have seen a number of
weights listed for the 912 Rotax and most realistic weights are a bit
higher than you indicate. Bottom line my MKIIIC with a full silver coat
paint, fully enclosed, all instruments, luggage trays, a bunch of
patches and radios weighed 598lbs empty weight wet (oil & unusable fuel)
when I redid the motor mount a few years ago. Seems like I even forgot
to remove my survival kit. This isn't light for a MKIIIC but there
aren't too many 912 powered planes that are 60 lbs. lighter. In fact it
seems like most are about the same weight. I don't know how Rotax
figures their weights and the weight you came up with. Maybe they use
some fairy dust on their scales.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Rick, I can't find the list of engine weights I have in some remote
subdirectory, so I used this list from Great Plains Aircraft. I also
checked what the AeroVee folks claim.
http://www.greatplainsas.com/specsfd.html
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=
16424&category_id=268
Start with the best weight at 160lb. then add a redrive, and you're
at 180 to 190 installed. Compare this to the 128 to 134lb. (Rotax
Installation Manual page 7-2) for a 912 and even if you get real
generous on the weight of the sump tank and lines you're still at a
least difference of 40lb. and a max of 60.
Rick
On 8/17/07, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
Rick
I'm just curious how you figure that a VW is 60 Lbs. heaver than a
912? My VW with is maybe 10lbs more. Now I took steps to save weight any
where I could but I didn't cut 50 lbs off. If your figuring the stock
generator and fan into this weight maybe.
Also I had my share of engine problems in my old beetle and bus
but never had a valve brakeage problem. They are a bit sensitive to
valve adjustments and I just don't like adjusting them so I installed
hydraulic lifters in my engine. Also there isn't much stock VW about the
engines they build today. You do have to use a bit of common sense about
sitting on the ground with the engine running and no cooling air flowing
over the engine.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki 1.3 DOC 16V
Ron, Where the 912 has an advantage over the VW is weight, about
60 lb. worth. Those Austrian engineers went to great lengths to keep the
engine as light as possible. And if your talking about the 912S your
giving up 20 HP, too.
I like VW's a lot and as a child of the 60's I've owned my
share. I even owned a "Thing", and the Vanagon is on my favorite vehicle
list since my son looped one on Hwy 80 with me sleeping in the back, but
I've walked into VW parts depts carrying the latest broken bit and
singing the "Volkswagen, does it again" commercial jingle too many
times. Maybe all the development work has solved some of the problems,
but I've lost the #3 exhaust valve head on type 1, type 3, and type 4
engines and they don't run worth a darn on three cylinders.
Rick
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
http://forums.matronics.com
when you live at the airport.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 08/18/07 |
The guy with the best plane is the guy who is happy with the one he's
got.
If you don't believe me ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ask John. :-)
Gene
On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Jeremy Casey wrote:
> <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us>
>
>
> Amen...brother Cowan...Amen ;-)
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
> I get a kick out of reading of those who want 'slow' stalls and really
> 'slow' landings. 'Cut the wings off', add vgs, do this and do that to
> land
> slow. I still hear of them landing really slow and bamm, down the
> nose
> goes
> and they say "oh, it must have been a shear over the hedge or
> something".
> Love it. This is being sarcastic but I had about enough of 'slow'
> with
> my
> little white lightning firestar. I had enough of the bouncing around
> like a
> balloon on the ocean. I wanted better speed with agility, better
> handling
> and response. That is why I went to a "slingshot". Those that have
> never
> flown one cannot understand the command control on this craft. You
> cannot
> understand that float is not always better. I like mine cause it puts
> down
> exactly where I want it. It lands exactly when I want it, cross
> wind or
>
> not. It lands soft, slow and precise. It climbs like a fool with a
> 582.
> cruises in the low 80's if I like it to. goes through bumps and lumps
> like
> they are not there. That is what I wanted. Wind gust to 30+? No
> problem.
> Cross winding? No problem. I love this bird. Putting a 912 on it
> for
> safety factor. Not worrying about sink or stall cause that engine
> most
> likely wont quit like a two banger. Anyway, I think putting VGS on a
> slingshot would be like putting wings on bowling balls; might make it
> land
> softer but wont add nothing to the control and cruise. I love the
> fact
> that
> I could probably land my bird in an emergency in one hundred foot or
> less
> and NOT ROLL OVER. THAT, is what I got it for. Love my Greezed
> Lightnin.
> My two cents. That is also why Jeremy Casey is building his
> "superfly".
>
> Ted Cowan, Alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Herron <drherron(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Decisions decisions |
Hum,
Short wing, long wing...
Single place, two place...
2 stroke, 4 stroke/turbo...
My plane has 36' wings, weighs 240 lbs and gets kicked in turbulence,
but can be fun.
Just thinking about abandoning my little joy to join your world, because
Kolb offers folding wings and more power.
I feel I need floats for the rugged terrain I have moved to and the Kolb
can do both tose things better.
What is the glide ratio like in the traditional FS II or Twinstar, with
standard length wings? I am thinking I should accept a few extra bumps
and slow roll for a few extra minutes of descent.
The guys with the snappy performance had me leaning that way, until I
looked out the window.
As for engine choice, I guess that is a personal value judgment.
Reliability is number one here. Back when I had some farm fields it was
not unimportant just not as imperative.
Several people on this list have been very helpful as I bite into this
possible shift in plane.
drh
CYEL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Phillips <rphillip1999(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III C For Sale |
Kolb Mark III Classic for sale. All control surfaces
and main wings completed through fabric coverage and
coatings. Professional workmanship. Must see to
appreciate. Includes Matco hydraulic brakes, full
enclosure, wing tip strobes, and aileron balancers.
All coatings done to Polyfiber specs. Only things not
done: gap seal, final paint, engine and instruments.
Ready to finish it your way. Purchase value from Kolb
is $17,200.
Asking $13,500. Must sell.
E-Mail rphillip1999(at)yahoo.com or
Call Russ at 352-245-7857
Located in Ocala, Florida
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Anyone know about this guys work? |
Does anyone know of Brian Macallum`s engine work at Boyer Flightpark? A
friend of mine is looking at a plane that has an overhualed 582 done by
this guy/place? Any 1st hand knowledge, good or bad? Thanks,
Jim Kmet MK-3C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolmbru(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone know about this guys work? |
I have taken the rebuild course with him 2 times and got mu current motor
from him. he is full time and easy to work with . mal
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
Gene,
I see you got a picture of the corn maze, Amazing Maze, at Cherry Crest Farm
I was just there with my grandson the other day while visiting the
Strasburg Railroad and the Rough & Tumble Threshers Reunion at Kinzer, Pa.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
Dana, The noise you hear in the wing is probably the rivet heads from the
pop rivets, not a concern. When I fold and unfold my FSII, I use a step
ladder of the correct height to rest the wing tip on. I hold the wing in
place with a bungi cord attached to the step ladder and wrapped around the
counter balance on the aileron and back to the step ladder. Then I put the
clevis pin in, that holds the wing in position. Once the pin is in, and the
wing can`t move aft, I loosen the bungi and attach the strut to the wing,
then I lift the wing off the ladder with the strut, and attach the strut to
the fuselage. Lanny Fetterman N598LF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help to fix careless mistake |
| From: | "tomd" <tpd47(at)earthlink.net> |
I have decided to replace 1 1/4" tube with 1 1/2". I will be using oversized rivets
(5/32) for holes that are not salvageable but I have has good luck drilling
out so far. I coated my rivet heads with primer which has had a unanticipated
secondary benefit, holding the rivet heads from spinning as I drill them out.
Thanks to all for your help with this temporary set back.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130309#130309
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dshepherd" <cen23954(at)centurytel.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for Kolb training in Nevada/California/Utah area |
| From: | "clearprop" <john(at)lv702.com> |
Looking for training in a Kolb MKIII in the greater Las Vegas area. Would consider
looking outside Nevada to California or Utah.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130365#130365
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help to fix careless mistake |
In a message dated 8/22/2007 4:45:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpd47(at)earthlink.net writes:
I coated my rivet heads with primer which has had a unanticipated secondary
benefit, holding the rivet heads from spinning as I drill them out.
tom d,
Thanks for posting that advice. I have helped my buddy rebuild his
wings/ailerons a couple of times now, and spinning rivets, while drilling them
out,
has always been a problem. Hopefully I'll remember this for the next time.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for Kolb training in Nevada/California/Utah area |
I might consider it. How much do you weigh? I live in Sacramento.
Vic Gibson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "promod69camaro" <shawn-bishop(at)verizon.net> |
I have been researching light sport aircraft for about a year. I have flown in
several types, but have not found the plane I want yet, that I can afford. I
have flown in a Cessna 150, 152, 172, Evektor Sportstar, a Sonex, and a Titan
Tornado 2S with a Rotax 912S. Under sport rules, I can't fly a Cessna GA plane.
The Evektor is to expensive. The Sonex is a tight fit, slower build, and
demands a premium right now. The Sonex also has a poor view out the front that
bothered me.
I like the Titan, but have not found one that I like yet that is for sale. The
Titan is pretty quick and playful. Not as quick as a Sonex or Zenith 601, but
close.
I don't know how the Titan will do in an engine out landing in a ranch field.
I know that none will do well if I land on a mesquite tree, but there are always
roads through the fields as long as you can land slow enough to stay on them.
I like the look of the Kolb M3X, and the way this groups members talk positive
about them. I have been reading post, but have not found out what the max cruise
speed is with a 100 hp motor? I know that not all planes feel comfortable
at max cruise and have a comfortable cruise speed also, where the plane just
likes to fly. What would that be in the M3X?
Can you not roll or loop any of the Kolb planes? Are they as tough as the metal
wing Titan Tornado? Since I know how the Titan flies, could someone please
compare them for me?
Thanks for your time.
Shawn
--------
Sport Pilot (almost) - Waiting for good weather to take flight exam.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130392#130392
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for Kolb training in Nevada/California/Utah area |
| From: | "clearprop" <john(at)lv702.com> |
225 lbs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130401#130401
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for Kolb training in Nevada/California/Utah |
area
Not possible. Thanks for the reply
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
No comparison. Titan is more of a go-somewhere airplane with good speed
and strength. Kolb is more fun. Some have been able to get them to go
around 90 mph. I am lucky to get 70 with a 58 hp engine. But, it is
the best of all airplanes at a slow cruise around 55-60. If it had a
well designed fiberglass gear, it would be perfect.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
My MK 3 Xtra is very happy crusing around 75 MPH. It will easily do 80 or more,
but it seems to like the mid 70's, which is a nice low power setting on the
Rotax 912-S, around 4600 RPM.
The MK-3 is very stable, and I would NEVER try to roll it, it wont roll fast enough.
The MK3 Xtra would be relaxing compared to a Titan, and a much better
short field plane. The MK 3 Xtra has a lot of lift, and you will get bounced
around a lot in turbulance. The Titan is much stronger, handles better in turbulance,
and is faster, but requires much more of a longer and prepared runway.
The Titan will also kill you if you dont fly it correctly, it can be spun
by accident... The Kolb is much more forgiving, I have been teaching my wife
stalls, and she has made every mistake you can think of and none resulted in
a secondary stall, or more than a 15 degree bank. I can jerk the Kolb around
like a drunk fool at very slow airspeeds and it has never done anything buy fly
well.
The Kolb is a little harder to land being a tail dragger, but thats the case with
any tail dragger.
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=130407#130407
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 fuel line, again |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Some of the guys around here use fuel lines made for Boats, the marine fuel line
is UV resistant, much better than the clear ultralight plastic type lines,
much stronger, and well worth it at even 5 times the cost.
When it comes to my plane, I would never try to save a few dollars for a fuel line
that may deteriorate and leak over time.
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=130408#130408
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
> The Titan will also kill you if you dont fly it correctly, it can be spun by
accident...
> Mike
Could you elaborate on this statement?
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130412#130412
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
Would like to add something to the string about the Titan v. M3X Kolbs. If
you want the zoom and fun flying, but still want the benefits of a larger (a
little larger inside than a titan) plane, check out the slingshot. Cruise
more around 85. Not a bad stall. Very easy in bumps. Fold up wings. Put
a 912 on it and you got a rocket. Probably wont cruise as fast as a Titan
could or would but still a better plane. Tail wheels have a lot of
advantages. I have flown a titan also but my money is still on the Kolb
Slingshot. Not for the faint hearted. Ted Cowan, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
>
............................
The Titan will also kill you if you dont fly it correctly, ...............
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MIke,
How is this different from any other aircraft?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 447 fuel line, again |
Hi Rick:
Personally, I would not put grease on my barbed fuel fittings. I do not
want them to be easily removed. If I have to cut them off, when the
time comes, so be it.
Undoubtedly, the "grease'em up" system works for you or you would not
use it.
I use neoprene rubber fuel line on my MKIII and 912ULS. Have not used
plastic in years. I have heard there is some problem using premixed
fuel/oil with some black neoprene line, but also heard marine grade fuel
line will work with that combo. I have used marine fuel line before.
It is much heavier, thicker wall, than regular Gates auto fuel line.
Capable of making tight bends without collapsing.
UV, heat, and fuel will eventually get any flexible fuel line, but the
black neoprene rubber line will far outlast plastic.
Does anyone know why the UL community decided to use plastic fuel line
instead of black neoprene rubber?
john h
mkIII
To make replacement easier, I coat the barbed fittings with lithium
grease before I slide the line on. Keeps me from having to cut the line
off the fitting when the time comes.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
I fly a MKIIIC but it is the same airplane just 10 MPH slower but my cruise
is 75 MPH. The major difference between a Kolb and a Titan is that the Kolb
is a STOL air plane it can easily get in and out of strips all day long that
a Titan can only dream about. I would also like to say that Kolbs have VERY
strong airframes and find it very difficult to believe the Titan is
stronger. Anyone that has built a Kolb can attest to the lengths that Kolb
went through to design a rugged air frame. Our flight history supports this
claim.
Also Kolb now makes a very well designed optional spring steel landing gear
that is superior to any fiberglass landing gear.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: <APilot(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Need Kolb M3X information please.
>
> No comparison. Titan is more of a go-somewhere airplane with good speed
> and strength. Kolb is more fun. Some have been able to get them to go
> around 90 mph. I am lucky to get 70 with a 58 hp engine. But, it is
> the best of all airplanes at a slow cruise around 55-60. If it had a
> well designed fiberglass gear, it would be perfect.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help to fix careless mistake |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
Hey Tom D,
I just noticed you are in Scotia. I'm right near you. I would love to come over
and see your Kolb. We have a pretty good EAA chapter also and you may want
to come to the meeting Monday. Send me an email if you want to get together.
olendorf at gmail.com
--------
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=130471#130471
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 447 fuel line, again |
In a message dated 8/23/2007 9:04:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
I use neoprene rubber fuel line on my MKIII and 912ULS. Have not used
plastic in years. I have heard there is some problem using premixed fuel/oil
with
some black neoprene line, but also heard marine grade fuel line will work
with that combo. I have used marine fuel line before. It is much heavier,
thicker wall, than regular Gates auto fuel line. Capable of making tight bends
without collapsing.
Hi John, You and I have discussed this before, I even tried using auto line
but as you know it did not work for us lowly mixgas types. The fuel line I
am talking about appears to be superior to auto line. It is not the big
clunky stuff for under the hull install, it is very flexible and non collapsing.
I do not need to test this hose because I have already used it for years
exposed to UV and mixed fuel on skiffs. The added bonus is that for those using
a pump bulb, The bulb on the Yamaha assy seems to be the same material and
is far superior to any I have seen.
I think that standard auto hose is great for unmixed fuel but this is the
best thing that I have seen for fuel/oil mix.
steve
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Jet Pilot,
Have you ever owned a Titan? The "Titan will kill you" comment was an irresponsible
and unwarranted slam. All aircraft can kill you if not flown safely.
I have owned two Kolbs and one Titan. Both are great aircraft. Kolbs are better
at short field but there are not many fields, including grass ones, that I would
not fly a Tornado in and out of. The Tornado is faster in both cruise and
roll response. If aerobatics are an important capability, the the Tornado wins
easily. The two things I didn't like about the Titan was that the back seat in
the Tornado II was too small, not the case in the larger Tornados. The other
thing was I hated the tail being on the ground when parked.
The prospective owner should answer three questions before deciding.
1) Must you operate out of a field that is shorter than 1000' at low density altitudes
at gross weight? If the answer is yes, then a Kolb is the better choice.
At higher DA the length limit goes up. The runway length limit also depends
upon which wing is on the Tornado. With runway lengths longer than this, then
the question is moot.
2) Must you cruise at over 90 mph on a regular basis? If so, then the Tornado is
the better choice. If this is not important then this question is moot.
3) Must you be able to fly at 50 mph comfortably for extended periods of time?
If so, then the Kolb is better suited for this.
If all of these are answered in the negative, then you must decide on personal
preference or other criteria, because both aircraft (assuming 2 seats with 80
hp or more) will cruise comfortably at 80+ mph and both will operate comfortably
from a 1,000' field at low DA at gross, unless the Titan has the very short
20' wing, like mine had. I operated comfortably from 1,000' field solo, but not
at gross with the short wing.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130490#130490
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
Happy to hear that Kolb makes a new spring steel langing gear. I
definitely will contact them. Their previous gear leg was made of 4130
steel and would transfer hard landing loads to the fuselage frame
sockets, which are very hard to fix if bent. The original 7075 aluminum
was weak, but it did save the fuselage socket area. And, they will
rebend a couple of time before they fail. I suggest tension lines
between the wheel axles if one intends to do full stall landings. Wheel
landings are definitely easier on the gear legs. Big soft tires also
benefit the gear legs such as the golf cart tires called Surf Glide sold
at Les Schwab.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "promod69camaro" <shawn-bishop(at)verizon.net> |
Thanks for the information. The reason I have joined several groups is because
that is the best way to get information. The Titan group members love their
Titans. The Sonex group has Monnett warshipers. They love those little planes
eventhough they look strange and are very small.
The reality is that the Kolb better fits my situation except for the trips to my
fathers farm. Its located right outside of Altus Oklahoma in the middle of
nowhere. He is getting old and it would be nice to fly out to help when weather
permitts. The drive across Dallas on a Friday afternoon can take 3 to 4 hours
or more depending on how many wrecks I get behind. Then I still have a 3
to 4 hour drive ahead of me. Its only a 200 mile drive. With an airplane, it
would be more like a 150 mile fly. But there asways seems to be a wind at one
of our places, so I will have to contend with windy landings, some of which
would be cross winds. And with the Kolb, I may be able to land on a road going
through the wheat field. That would be nice, and probably not advisable in
a Titan because of the trike gear.
I want to be able to fly the plane like a fighter plane. Dive into a river and
follow it. Maybe a loop from time to time.
So you can see that I have two missions. One is fun, the other is transportation
around 200 miles (150 in the air).
The other thing I like about the Kolb is that you guys are very interested in alternative
engines. I just can't see paying for a Rotax 912S at the current prices.
You guys have found many ways to get around that without durability issues.
Its nice to meet such a group of resourceful individuals. Not many Titans
are equipped with alternative engines, so if you try, you are the one blazing
the trail. As you know, that is a lot of work and can be very dangerous.
Thanks,
Shawn
--------
Sport Pilot (almost) - Waiting for good weather to take flight exam.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130512#130512
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Shawn,
The Titan would be better in crosswinds, because of the tricycle gear. Landing
a Kolb in a crosswind is tricky, as with any taildragger. With taildraggers,
ground loops happen, its just a matter of time. I would never never loop, spin,
or roll a Kolb, they are not made for that. With a flat bottom wing, and
a huge amount of lift, air loads build up very quick and you can get a huge amount
of G loading at even moderate airpseeds and a small change in pitch. Bottom
line, forget about any kind of aerbatics with a Kolb.
Also the Titan airframe is just much stronger. Contrary to what some might say,
the Kolb can not compare to the all metal Titan wing in streingth. If I was
going to go to my fathers farm reliably on a regular basis, I would drive.
By the time you get to the airport, preflight, etc. etc. you would almost be there
in your car. When you factor waiting for weather which will happen sooner
or later, the car is faster. People really get themselves into trouble thinking
of light aircraft as "transportation", they get somewhere, and then make
bad choices trying to get back in bad conditions. If I wanted an airplane I
could fly in worse weather though, the Titan would handle the margional weather
and summertime turbulance better than a Kolb would.
Engines, the 912 is worth the 16,000 period. People spend so much time and hassle
with alternative engines, they would have been better off just to pay what
a 912 or a Jabiru costs. If you can not afford that, should probably wait
until you can.
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=130516#130516
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kolb training - Anywhere in the US? |
| From: | "clearprop" <john(at)lv702.com> |
Is there anyone in the lower 48 States that is providing Kolb training? I'm looking
for someone with a Kolb MK III that can provide the experience of flying
in a Kolb.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130523#130523
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb training - Anywhere in the US? |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
I think Kolb Aircraft has an aircraft they provide training with. Not sure if this
is still the case.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130531#130531
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb training - Anywhere in the US? |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
Just got off the phone with Travis @ Kolb. He tells me that Kolb no longer has
any aircraft for training.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130543#130543
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
I took a chance and tried the Geo Metro G10 engine a few years ago. For
some reason, I decided to go with the Raven conversion. Thanks to
Jeron's continuing help at Raven Re-drive, I was able to get it
installed on the Kolb Mark III Classic and tuned to perfection. It has
turned out to have 4 cycle reliability, easy to maintain, quite a lot of
power (approx. the same as a 582 Rotax at about a 20 lb. penalty),
excellent thrust with an Ivo 3 blade 70" dia prop, fuel economy and at a
cost of somewhere around $5000. I am glad that I listened to those who
are equally satisfied with their Geo conversion and regularly express
their views on the Fly Geo site.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
Mike, I guess I was lucky. When I was learning to fly GA aircraft, I was
never allowed to do a crabbed landing. Spence always made my keep lined up
with the runway centerline by cross controlling. Darn good thing, too,
because I don't think I've ever landed my Kolb in anything but a cross wind.
When I first flew my Mk IIIC the only trouble I encountered, as I've
documented here, was trying to land in a three point stance. Once Travis, at
TNK, told me to stop doing that and wheel it on, my problems went away. A
Kolb has it's idiosyncrasies but all taken together, it's about the
gentlest, most forgiving plane you can buy or build.
I'm going to go knock on wood, now. :-)
Another thing Shawn might consider is how easy it is to get in and out of a
Mk III. Should your Dad ever want to take a ride around the patch you'll
really appreciate that. I just spent a week clamoring in and out of a
Challenger II. Once I was in, it was a pretty comfy fit, but getting in and
out was like the proverbial monkey and the football. Evaluate your choice on
that criteria, too.
Rick
On 8/23/07, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> Shawn,
>
> The Titan would be better in crosswinds, because of the tricycle gear.
> Landing a Kolb in a crosswind is tricky, as with any taildragger. With
> taildraggers, ground loops happen, its just a matter of time. I would never
> never loop, spin, or roll a Kolb, they are not made for that. With a flat
> bottom wing, and a huge amount of lift, air loads build up very quick and
> you can get a huge amount of G loading at even moderate airpseeds and a
> small change in pitch. Bottom line, forget about any kind of aerbatics with
> a Kolb.
>
> Also the Titan airframe is just much stronger. Contrary to what some
> might say, the Kolb can not compare to the all metal Titan wing in
> streingth. If I was going to go to my fathers farm reliably on a regular
> basis, I would drive. By the time you get to the airport, preflight, etc.
> etc. you would almost be there in your car. When you factor waiting for
> weather which will happen sooner or later, the car is faster. People really
> get themselves into trouble thinking of light aircraft as "transportation",
> they get somewhere, and then make bad choices trying to get back in bad
> conditions. If I wanted an airplane I could fly in worse weather though,
> the Titan would handle the margional weather and summertime turbulance
> better than a Kolb would.
>
> Engines, the 912 is worth the 16,000 period. People spend so much time
> and hassle with alternative engines, they would have been better off just to
> pay what a 912 or a Jabiru costs. If you can not afford that, should
> probably wait until you can.
>
> 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=130516#130516
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
Shawn,
I'm in Plano if you want to ride in a Xtra. What is your weight?
David
>From: "promod69camaro" <shawn-bishop(at)verizon.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Need Kolb M3X information please.
>Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:44:36 -0700
>
>
>
>Thanks for the information. The reason I have joined several groups is
>because that is the best way to get information. The Titan group members
>love their Titans. The Sonex group has Monnett warshipers. They love
>those little planes eventhough they look strange and are very small.
>The reality is that the Kolb better fits my situation except for the trips
>to my fathers farm. Its located right outside of Altus Oklahoma in the
>middle of nowhere. He is getting old and it would be nice to fly out to
>help when weather permitts. The drive across Dallas on a Friday afternoon
>can take 3 to 4 hours or more depending on how many wrecks I get behind.
>Then I still have a 3 to 4 hour drive ahead of me. Its only a 200 mile
>drive. With an airplane, it would be more like a 150 mile fly. But there
>asways seems to be a wind at one of our places, so I will have to contend
>with windy landings, some of which would be cross winds. And with the
>Kolb, I may be able to land on a road going through the wheat field. That
>would be nice, and probably not advisable in a Titan because of the trike
>gear.
>I want to be able to fly the plane like a fighter plane. Dive into a river
>and follow it. Maybe a loop from time to time.
>So you can see that I have two missions. One is fun, the other is
>transportation around 200 miles (150 in the air).
>The other thing I like about the Kolb is that you guys are very interested
>in alternative engines. I just can't see paying for a Rotax 912S at the
>current prices. You guys have found many ways to get around that without
>durability issues. Its nice to meet such a group of resourceful
>individuals. Not many Titans are equipped with alternative engines, so if
>you try, you are the one blazing the trail. As you know, that is a lot of
>work and can be very dangerous.
>Thanks,
>Shawn
>
>--------
>Sport Pilot (almost) - Waiting for good weather to take flight exam.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130512#130512
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "promod69camaro" <shawn-bishop(at)verizon.net> |
Hi David,
I way 195 out of the shower, so probably 210 full dressed. I would very much appreciate
a take up if possible. The weather has been difficult for flying this
spring and summer with all the thunderstorm, so I am eger to get back up.
Thanks,
Shawn
You can call me at 972-740-3240 if you would like.
--------
Sport Pilot (almost) - Waiting for good weather to take flight exam.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130572#130572
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "promod69camaro" <shawn-bishop(at)verizon.net> |
The other thing I like about the Kolb is that you can take down the wings and use
a trailer for the hanger. I have an enclosed race car trailer that can become
home. I can store it at the airport in the trailer and save a lot of money.
Hanger rent here is very expensive
Seeing the video of the Kolb being taken down was what peaked my interest in this
aircraft to start with. And its nice to be a side by side where my kids can
look me in the face while we fly. It just does not sound as if its a good fit
at all to take a short trip with.
I need two planes. One fast and the other fun!!
I don't really consider driving to be a good option. The traffic not only makes
the drive twice as long as it has to be, but it makes it dangerous. I have
been rear ended 4 times in my life. 3 were here in Dallas, and 2 were drivers
moving very fast. I was put into the hospital twice and got serious back, neck,
and head injuries with the last hit. So I am not sure its safer to drive.
My doctors have told me that head injuries are cumulative and that the next
one will be worse than the previous one. I just can't imagine that. But I want
to protect myself from those drunks out there that seem intent on hurting me.
I guess its just bad luck.
Thanks for all the input everyone. I am going to keep investigating alternate
ways to power a light plane. I would like that decision made before I get one.
--------
Sport Pilot (almost) - Waiting for good weather to take flight exam.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130574#130574
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 447 fuel line, again |
I use fuel-injection line that is compatible with all fuels with any
mixes: SAE 30R9 (one popular mfg is Gates). Most NAPA stores will
have an SAE 30R9 equivalent. Also, I haven't used it, but check out
Areoquip FC332...
http://www.hosexpress.com/hose/socketless/FC332.htm
-- Robert
On 8/23/07, N27SB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 8/23/2007 9:04:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
>
>
> I use neoprene rubber fuel line on my MKIII and 912ULS. Have not used
> plastic in years. I have heard there is some problem using premixed
> fuel/oil with some black neoprene line, but also heard marine grade fuel
> line will work with that combo. I have used marine fuel line before. It is
> much heavier, thicker wall, than regular Gates auto fuel line. Capable of
> making tight bends without collapsing.
>
>
> Hi John, You and I have discussed this before, I even tried using auto line
> but as you know it did not work for us lowly mixgas types. The fuel line I
> am talking about appears to be superior to auto line. It is not the big
> clunky stuff for under the hull install, it is very flexible and non
> collapsing.
>
> I do not need to test this hose because I have already used it for years
> exposed to UV and mixed fuel on skiffs. The added bonus is that for those
> using a pump bulb, The bulb on the Yamaha assy seems to be the same material
> and is far superior to any I have seen.
> I think that standard auto hose is great for unmixed fuel but this is the
> best thing that I have seen for fuel/oil mix.
>
> steve
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb training - Anywhere in the US? |
I have a MK-3 C in Cookeville, TN, (based KSRB) , with dual controls , and
I`m a CFII. I do not have insurance on this plane for instructing. I am
available though for familiarization flights to anyone that can confirm
(Prove) they Own a Kolb aircraft. I am not available for familiarization
flights to persons needing dual training, or persons "thinking about buying
a Kolb aircraft."
When I converted this plane to LSA this year, I had to make a statement
about whether this plane will be used for dual instruction, & I claimed that
it would not, but I`m fine taking "passengers". "If you need time in type"
for insurance purposes, this may be helpful.
Jim Kmet
--- Original Message -----
From: "clearprop" <john(at)lv702.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb training - Anywhere in the US?
>
> Is there anyone in the lower 48 States that is providing Kolb training?
> I'm looking for someone with a Kolb MK III that can provide the experience
> of flying in a Kolb.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130523#130523
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Esp. for Steve Re: 447 fuel line, again |
Steve -
I may have missed an e-mail from you in this thread -
can't find the name/mfg. of the fuel line you mention
below. Would you specify?
Arty Trost
> Hi John, You and I have discussed this before, I
> even tried using auto line
> but as you know it did not work for us lowly mixgas
> types. The fuel line I
> am talking about appears to be superior to auto
> line. It is not the big
> clunky stuff for under the hull install, it is very
> flexible and non collapsing.
>
> I do not need to test this hose because I have
> already used it for years
> exposed to UV and mixed fuel on skiffs. The added
> bonus is that for those using
> a pump bulb, The bulb on the Yamaha assy seems to be
> the same material and
> is far superior to any I have seen.
> I think that standard auto hose is great for unmixed
> fuel but this is the
> best thing that I have seen for fuel/oil mix.
>
> steve
>
>
>
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 447 fuel line, again |
At 09:03 AM 8/23/2007, John Hauck wrote:
>
>Does anyone know why the UL community decided to use plastic fuel line
>instead of black neoprene rubber?
I'm guessing it's because the clear line makes it possible to see air
bubbles if any are present, which can be pretty important in keeping a
2-stroke healthy.
Funny... Aircraft Spruce sells the blue Bing urethane fuel line, which one
presumes is good if the carburetor manufacturer sells it... it's what I
bought for my US. OTOH, over on the Quicksilver list where I used to hang
out for awhile, they hate the blue line, preferring (I think) the yellow
Tygon fuel line, which I've used with no problems on my PPG (you still have
to replace it every few years). McMaster sells the yellow Tygon, and they
also sell a cheaper generic yellow fuel line, which hardens up much faster
than the genuine Tygon.
When I bought a primer bulb (Suzuki, I think) from a boat dealer a few
years ago it came with some very nice looking gray tubing (which I never
used as it was too short).
-Dana
--
--
Children seldom misquote you. In fact, they usually repeat word for word
what you shouldn't have said.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
My .02,
As JD said, I own his titan II SS and I still have my Firestar II which I still
try to fly as much as I can.
Here are what I think are good points of comparison, though admittedly my Kolb
experience is with the FS II and not the MK III:
- landing gear config. The Kolb is the clear winner if the mission requires lots
of soft field ops due to the tailwheel configuration. So this is something to
consider when deciding on which plane to get. The titan will still do ok on
grass fields too; I've landed on grass in mine and it does fine with normal soft
field technique. But the Kolb will do somewhat better, IMO, as is true of any
tailwheel plane.
- STOL capability. The Kolb is going to have an advantage here, mostly due to the
high lift flat bottom airfoil. The titan can still do surprisingly well in
STOL with generous flap usage, but the Kolb is what you want for short field ops.
If you do go with the titan and need good STOL ability, though, be sure and
build it with the 26' wing option. also, the tornado II SS fixes the prop clearance
proplem of the other models in a major way, allowing a prop up to 72"
in length. But you get pretty large prop clearance for free on the Kolb, which
is an advantage for STOL.
- Low and slow vs fast. Well, low and slow is kind of a wash here, IMO. The titan,
especially with the 26' wing flies along perfectly comfortably trimmed at
70mph with the power backed off. The AOA is a little higher than you'll have with
the Kolb, though, I'd say. Both planes can do this though the kolb might be
more comfortable. The titan, though, is a fast plane, cruising at 100mph plus
pretty easily. The Kolb won't fly quite that fast I don't believe (my FS II
will do about 70 fairly comfortably, though I have to push the motor a little
to go that fast).
- xwind capability. Well both planes have no-dihedral wings so both will do easy
wing-low xwind landings. My FS II in fact requires practically no aileron input
to do a decent wing-low xwing approach. The titan requires a little opposite
aileron but not much.
That's about all the major highlights I can think of apart from the metal vs rag-and-tube
and other issues.
Also I agree on wheel landings vs. 3-point. 3-pointing my FS II takes very calm
conditions and super spot-on timing in the flare. I've only 3 pointed my FS II
perfectly a handful of times. Wheel landings are so much easier and the Kolb
is pretty docile in its handling so its not so hazardous even when a little hot
(but I still try to get close to a 3-point whenever possible to insure I'm
slowed down as much as possible).
LS
[quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]Mike, I guess I was lucky. When I was learning to
fly GA aircraft, I was never allowed to do a crabbed landing. Spence always
made my keep lined up with the runway centerline by cross controlling. Darn good
thing, too, because I don't think I've ever landed my Kolb in anything but
a cross wind. When I first flew my Mk IIIC the only trouble I encountered, as
I've documented here, was trying to land in a three point stance. Once Travis,
at TNK, told me to stop doing that and wheel it on, my problems went away. A
Kolb has it's idiosyncrasies but all taken together, it's about the gentlest,
most forgiving plane you can buy or build.
I'm going to go knock on wood, now. :-)
Another thing Shawn might consider is how easy it is to get in and out of a Mk
III. Should your Dad ever want to take a ride around the patch you'll really appreciate
that. I just spent a week clamoring in and out of a Challenger II. Once
I was in, it was a pretty comfy fit, but getting in and out was like the proverbial
monkey and the football. Evaluate your choice on that criteria, too.
Rick
Shawn,
The Titan would be better in crosswinds, because of the tricycle gear. Landing
a Kolb in a crosswind is tricky, as with any taildragger. With taildraggers,
ground loops happen, its just a matter of time. I would never never loop, spin,
or roll a Kolb, they are not made for that. With a flat bottom wing, and
a huge amount of lift, air loads build up very quick and you can get a huge amount
of G loading at even moderate airpseeds and a small change in pitch. Bottom
line, forget about any kind of aerbatics with a Kolb.
Also the Titan airframe is just much stronger. Contrary to what some might say,
the Kolb can not compare to the all metal Titan wing in streingth. If I was
going to go to my fathers farm reliably on a regular basis, I would drive.
By the time you get to the airport, preflight, etc. etc. you would almost be there
in your car. When you factor waiting for weather which will happen sooner
or later, the car is faster. People really get themselves into trouble thinking
of light aircraft as "transportation", they get somewhere, and then make
bad choices trying to get back in bad conditions. If I wanted an airplane I
could fly in worse weather though, the Titan would handle the margional weather
and summertime turbulance better than a Kolb would.
Engines, the 912 is worth the 16,000 period. People spend so much time and hassle
with alternative engines, they would have been better off just to pay what
a 912 or a Jabiru costs. If you can not afford that, should probably wait
until you can.
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:
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
> [b]
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130645#130645
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edrlinds(at)wmconnect.com |
| Subject: | MK III Flight Needed |
I own Kolb Mk III Classic SN 008 with 912ul (With 224 hours). After a year of
upgrades we are a couple of months from being E-LSA. I have 30 hours of sport
pilot instruction and have my ultralight license. I am looking for someone
with a Mk III that will allow me to ride with them in their plane for an hour or
two to help me prepare for the day we get to fly in ours. My LS flight
instructor has flown a MK III one time. He feels more time in my plane would allow
him to instruct me. The more information on the handling characteristics I can
acquire prior to it being flown would be a big help.
We are currently in Rochester, NY and will be traveling back to
Florida in mid Sept. Via interstate 81 and 95 in our motorhome. We have the time
to
make a side trip to fit in a flight if any of you can help us out.
Thanks
Edith (Edy) Lindsay, ( 72 yr. old retired Mechanical Engineer - email me at
"edrlinds(at)wmconnect.com" or call my cell phone "407-375-8905))
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "promod69camaro" <shawn-bishop(at)verizon.net> |
Hi Lucien,
It seem that I run across you on every list I subscribe to. And you own or have
owned at least two planes that I am interested in. I always look forward to
your responses. They are well thought out and usually just the information the
poster is looking for.
I am going up in a M3X next week to see what I think. I need to keep in mind that
even on a 150 mile trip, a 20 or 30 mph speed difference doesn't make much
difference in terms of arrival time. But it would be nice to have it all in
one package.
I bid on and won a never before used Jabiru 3300 yesterday that was on ebay. I
have not heard back from the seller yet. I hope its not a scam and I will need
to be careful. I think this engine would be great on a M3X or a Titan S or
SS. For that matter, it would also make a slick moving Sonex. In tail dragger
configuration, they are remarkably flexable.
Shawn
--------
Sport Pilot (almost) - Waiting for good weather to take flight exam.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130782#130782
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: MK III Flight Needed |
The Mark III Classic flies much like a J-3 Cub except easier. If you
can wheel land any tail wheel airplane such as a cub, t-craft, champ,
chief, citabria, etc., you will have no trouble landing the Mark III
Classic. If you have learned to do full stall landings, you will have
to learn how to fix a bend landing gear because the tail wheel hits
first and many times will slam the mains on hard. This can be avoided,
but it will take some practice. I have had to straighten my gear twice
and have bought an extra gear leg for quick change out. They are great
airplanes and very forgiving. I am anxious to try out the new spring
steel gear from Kolb. I just learned that they sell one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Landing speed |
| From: | "Jim ODay" <jimoday(at)hotmail.com> |
60 MPH --- That is great advice. (speaking from my novice experience anyway)
I have been test flying my FSII and have put on about 5 hours on it this week.
I was concerned about a lot of things but one was speeds. The one I was most
concerned was about the final approach speed especially after reading the story
of Thom - a.k.a. - Stalls too High
60 right down to the flare and there is no problem slowing down with a flick of
the wrist. Very good advice. I have followed this procedure to smooth wheel
landings. A crop duster at the field commented that had the handle on the bird
today.
I can say from what my experience has been so far is a wheel landing is the best.
(I know I am a rookie) I would be hesitant to do the 60 mph approach and
transition into a 3 point landing. I have flown approaches now at 2500, 3000
and 4000 RPM and this speed is fine. Keeping the 60 all the way down to the flare
is a rush in more ways than one.
I have been flying for many years and have forgotten all about light plane flying.
My regular ride is 6,500# and would not like to be flown the same way as
the FS. I did some TW training this summer to tune up for flying the FS and that
was EXTREMELY helpful (plus required for insurance).
Yep, I think I will stick with the 60 on final to the flare. I was flying tonight
and sneezed, jerked the stick at the same time from 65 to 45. It really is
a flick of the wrist. The thought of imprinting my forehead with the ASI needle
at 40 came to mind.
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130902#130902
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/phpmpomu5pm_157.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Landing speed |
At 10:20 PM 8/24/2007, you wrote:
>
>60 MPH --- That is great advice. (speaking from my novice experience anyway)
>
>I have been test flying my FSII and have
>put on about 5 hours on it this week. I have
>flown approaches now at 2500, 3000 and 4000 RPM
>and this speed is fine. Keeping the 60 all the
>way down to the flare is a rush in more ways than one.
>
>--------
>Jim O'Day
You can get it down lower after you get used to short fields.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8022448200127542755
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I need a Firefly |
_http://barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=search&PHPSESSID=81a028cde9ba54d3145ffcb
c6bd765c7_
(http://barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=search&PHPSESSID=81a028cde9ba54d3145ffcbc6bd765c7)
steve
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Landing speed |
| From: | "Jim ODay" <jimoday(at)hotmail.com> |
I am learning: when I get some calm air, I think I will try to slow the short
final down.
I am OK at 60 for now, but it the ground does come at you in a hurry, I can get
to 40 mph in about 2 seconds. Feel it down to the RW, touch down and stick it
on. Seems to be working OK for me, this method with wheel landings.
Just got down from a nice 1 hour flight. I seemed to be getting tossed all over
the place in thermals. If I stayed low, ~ 500 agl it was smoother, but 1000
agl was like a roller coaster.
First mid day flight - prior flying has been done early AM or late PM light. So
I have not flown in any turbulence until today. I did think about rivets, pins,
bolts, fabric ..... put my hand through the motion, ... kill switch ....
BRS handle ... nothing seems to be falling apart ... calmed down and enjoyed
the flying.
The pelicans were cruising at 500 agl and the hawks were at 1000' today. I guess
pelicans favor smoother air.
I guess the technique to use is maintain the airspeed constant and let the moving
air take me up and down. The ups and downs cancel each out .... Is that
the Kolb way? Maybe some of you buzzards can comment.
And, the video link above. I saw this before and it blew the myth that when the
motor quits, you are going strait down. Till I saw that, I thought there was
some truth to what some had said that the Kolb cannot glide. Thanks for posting
that again. (any idea of the glide speed?)
Got to mow grass now --- no more flying for me today. :(
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130990#130990
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Landing speed |
best glide is usually 1.3 times stall speed on most airplanes as is best
rate of climb, and 1.2 is very close to minimum sink speed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
Found an alternative source for the steel safety rings that go in the
end of the clevis pins we use to put our quick disconnect items together
with - Hobby Lobby. The jewelry section has 16mm split rings, ten for a
dollar, and they are very stiff and resistant to easy opening.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help to fix careless mistake |
In a message dated 8/23/2007 10:44:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jb92563(at)yahoo.com writes:
I read that coating a surface the rivet is in contact with before riveting
is NOT an approved method for aircraft construction.
For what it's worth ($0.02)
L. Pazmany, a major aircraft designer, wrote in his Pazmany PL-4A
Construction Manual (Ref. pg 14 item 4-2-4 Installing Pop Rivets) "Take each rivet
and
dip it into the Zinchromate", and then later at the end of the instruction
item he adds, "When using Zinchromate or Epoxy for dipping rivets, it is
unavoidable that they will find a way into the riveter, plugging it". He then
goes
on to explain how to clean the tool using MEK. He also has an item
explaining how to clean the manufacturing oils (and finger print oils) off of
the
aluminum, then treating with Alodine and then applying Zinchromate, before
assembly.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Cleaning before alodining and other processes |
I discovered the best cleaner I've ever used when my arms started growing
shorter as I tried to read. In the machine shop, cutting oil would get
splashed on my glasses and then get smeared all around as I tried to clean
them with a shop rag. I tried several things, none of which worked very
well, not even the perennial aircraft windshield cleaner, Lemon Pledge.
I was at the point of buying cheap bifocals at the Dollar General store and
throwing them away when they became too scratched by my shop rag cleaning
method, when I accidentally discovered the perfect instant cleaner.
Scrubbing Bubbles bathroom cleaner.
Spray it on, let it bubble for a few seconds, then wash it off. My glasses
were as sparkling clean as the day the lenses left the molding machine.
I've been using it as a cleaner for aluminum parts prior to alodining for
the last seven years. It removes all oily contaminates, finger prints and
the denatured alcohol I use to remove the adhesive from plastic coated skin
quality aluminum sheet, effortlessly. Since the acid used to etch the
aluminum before applying the hexavalent chromium alodine solution is diluted
50% with water, I don't even bother to dry whatever water drops don't run
off. The alodined finish comes out nice and uniform that requires no extra
effort to get an equally uniform primer finish with minimal primer.
A word of caution, Scrubbing Bubbles has a warning on the back about using
it on acrylics. Strange, considering so many shower surrounds are made of
the stuff. I asked a friend, a retired college chemistry professor, about
the ingredients and the acrylic warning. He said it was mostly surfecants,
hence its ability to just float the dirt away, but couldn't see anything
that would directly attack acrylics.He could only guess that if the
chemicals were trapped against the acrylic in a seam or crack they might
create a reaction over time. I have seen no reaction around the lenses of my
glasses, but they only have a maximum life of six months in my hands, so the
test is invalid for very long term exposure. I've used it on the lexan on my
MkIII for over a year now with no visible adverse reaction, but again, the
test is of too short a duration to be any guarantee.
Worth what you paid for it.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Landing speed |
Before you get too set on an approach speed remember this: A headwind
will initiate a wind gradient. For example: a 20 mph headwind will
cause a wind gradient at about 12 feet, more or less. Therefore the
wind velocity will change from 20 mph to about 15 mph or less at 12
feet. Of course, with a 30 mph headwind the gradient will rise a little
and the difference in wind velocity will be more. What does a pilot do?
Most carry more airspeed so that they will not be stalled or near stall
speed when the descend through the gradient. Or, you can land like a
bird or a Navy pilot with a circle approach which takes you down through
through the gradient on base leg where you will not notice the hazard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Name that plane!! |
Hello all,
I recently came across this photo of a plane. Anyone care to venture a
guess as to what it is????
Thank you, Mike in SW
Utah
Oh, BTW, I DO know. Kudos to the first guy or gal that gets it right!!!
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more.then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene-0607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Name that plane!! |
My first photo was rejected. Hope this one gets through. Mike
> Hello all,
>
> I recently came across this photo of a plane. Anyone care to venture a
>guess as to what it is????
>
> Thank you, Mike in SW
>Utah
>
>Oh, BTW, I DO know. Kudos to the first guy or gal that gets it right!!!
_________________________________________________________________
See what youre getting intobefore you go there
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Name that plane!! |
Let me guess...Fergy came out with a new design!!
>From: "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Name that plane!!
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:26:47 -0700
>
>My first photo was rejected. Hope this one gets through. Mike
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I recently came across this photo of a plane. Anyone care to venture a
>>guess as to what it is????
>>
>> Thank you, Mike in SW
>>Utah
>>
>>Oh, BTW, I DO know. Kudos to the first guy or gal that gets it right!!!
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>See what youre getting intobefore you go there
>http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507
><< MkIIInose.JPG >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Name that plane!! |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
mark IIIX?
--------
-Erik Grabowski
N?????
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131096#131096
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Welch" <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Name that plane!! |
IN IT's DREAMS!!!
>From: "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Name that plane!!
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:13:25 -0700
>
>
>mark IIIX?
>
>--------
>-Erik Grabowski
>N?????
>CFI/CFII/LS-I
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131096#131096
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Stonex <cstonex(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Name that plane!! |
Kolb Extra?LEBTFChuck
> From: mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RE:
Kolb-List: Name that plane!!> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:26:47 -0700> > My f
irst photo was rejected. Hope this one gets through. Mike> > > Hello all,>
>> > I recently came across this photo of a plane. Anyone care to venture a
> >guess as to what it is????> >> > Thank you, Mike in SW > >Utah> >> >Oh,
BTW, I DO know. Kudos to the first guy or gal that gets it right!!!> > ___
______________________________________________________________> See what yo
u=92re getting into=85before you go there > http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid
=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kolb fly's like a J3 Cub? |
| From: | "clearprop" <john(at)lv702.com> |
I'm trying to figure out how to get instruction in a Kolb aircraft. No one seems
to have one for instructional use. Ideally I'm trying to fly a Firestar. I read
in one of the threads here that the J3 Cub has similar flying characteristics
as the Kolb. Any truth to this? There is a fellow in town who gives dual instruction
in his Cub. I guess if I can master the J3 Cub I can fly a Kolb???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131155#131155
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fly's like a J3 Cub? |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
clearprop wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how to get instruction in a Kolb aircraft. No one seems
to have one for instructional use. Ideally I'm trying to fly a Firestar. I
read in one of the threads here that the J3 Cub has similar flying characteristics
as the Kolb. Any truth to this? There is a fellow in town who gives dual
instruction in his Cub. I guess if I can master the J3 Cub I can fly a Kolb???
Possibly, but even the cub will probably still handle like an airliner compared
to the Firestar ;)
Seriously, I don't know as I've never flown in a cub. But I can say my FS II flies
most like my old quicksilver than anything else I've flown. Basically once
I got used to the tailwheel handling on the ground, I more or less jumped in
it and went flying due to its similarity to the quicksilver.
The biggest problem will be the flare. Kolbs are like most UL-like planes; they
roundout and flare a lot lower to the ground than the average front-engined tractor.
They're much lower inertia as well, so the energy budget is very different
than in bigger planes.
My original UL instructor had about 1000 hours in a cub and, while he said it flew
somewhat like an ultralight, it wasn't quite the same.....
So I'd keep looking around until you find an actual Kolb to train in....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131158#131158
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fly's like a J3 Cub? |
The Century of Fllight simulator's J-3 Cub is almost exactly comparable
to my Mark III Classic in speed, rate of climb, glide and wheel
landings. It does not do slips like my Classic and the full stall
landings do not bend the gear. It is good practice and a whole lot
cheaper than renting a J-3. In the beginning, I taxied mine about 6
hours over the roughest terrain that I could find to see what was going
to fall off of the engine. It was a good thing to do because a couple
things did break under vibration. During that time, I got very familiar
with ground handling, including forced ground loops. Once relaxed and
in control, the flying part is easy. And the landing part is easy when a
wheel landing is used using a touch down speed which is the same as a
high speed taxi speed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fly's like a J3 Cub? |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Clearprop,
What kind of dual training you will need to prepare for flying a Firestar depends
largely on what you have been flying recently. If you have not flown at all,
then you need to get competent training before soloing anything.
I've flown a PA-11 which is much like a J-3 Cub with more power (90 hp) but soloed
from the front seat. I've flown two early model Firestars. If you can master
a Cub, including ground handling in strong cross-winds, you should have no
problem transitioning to the Firestar. They are not the same but close enough
that if you do the slow flight and simulated approach work at safe altitude on
your first flight in the Firestar, after J-3 training, then you should be ready
to handle the Firestar during landing.
The Cub with an instructor along for ballast will be roughly twice the weight of
a Firestar flown solo, so the momentum during flare is the biggest difference
you will notice, as others have said. Other differences worth noting: Lighter
wing loading will make the FS more susceptible to thermals and gusts. Lower
angle of attack in three point stance (FS) makes graceful full stall landings
in a FS a little tough but are fairly easy in a Cub, so wheel landings are recommended
in the FS with standard main gear configuration. Cub is more susceptible
to ground loops but they are still possible in a FS, so don't let it get
ahead of you in x-winds on the ground. Nose over in a FS is easier with standard
gear legs so advancing the throttle in the FS during take-off should be smooth
and not too fast, especially with long grass or very soft runway surfaces.
For the same reason, the FS brakes should be applied smoothly and gently.
Get used to the differences in calm or nearly calm conditions, and you should be
good to go.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131170#131170
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vincent Nicely <vincenic1(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fly's like a J3 Cub? |
John,
I took instruction in a J3 before flying my Firestar II the first
time. I thought it worked out very well as a model for flying the Firestar.
Vince Nicely
clearprop wrote:
>
>I'm trying to figure out how to get instruction in a Kolb aircraft. No one seems
to have one for instructional use. Ideally I'm trying to fly a Firestar. I
read in one of the threads here that the J3 Cub has similar flying characteristics
as the Kolb. Any truth to this? There is a fellow in town who gives dual
instruction in his Cub. I guess if I can master the J3 Cub I can fly a Kolb???
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131155#131155
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
promod69camaro wrote:
> Hi Lucien,
> It seem that I run across you on every list I subscribe to. And you own or have
owned at least two planes that I am interested in. I always look forward
to your responses. They are well thought out and usually just the information
the poster is looking for.
> I am going up in a M3X next week to see what I think. I need to keep in mind
that even on a 150 mile trip, a 20 or 30 mph speed difference doesn't make much
difference in terms of arrival time. But it would be nice to have it all in
one package.
> I bid on and won a never before used Jabiru 3300 yesterday that was on ebay.
I have not heard back from the seller yet. I hope its not a scam and I will
need to be careful. I think this engine would be great on a M3X or a Titan S
or SS. For that matter, it would also make a slick moving Sonex. In tail dragger
configuration, they are remarkably flexable.
> Shawn
The 3300 is supposed to work very well on the tornado, though I don't know about
the Kolb. The 912 and 912s sound like the motors of choice on the large 2-place
kolbs, mostly likely because of the ability to swing the larger props, preferred
on slower planes designed more for STOL.
I've attached a couple photos of my two planes, two of the finest light a/c types
you can get, IMO - the titan for go-fast, zip around, high-performance mission,
and the Kolb for the magic-carpet ride mission.
Truth is, I can't identify any particular reason why I like the Kolb design so
much. It's probably the construction, the folding wings and the fact that it's
tailwheel. The entire airframe uses traditional aviation construction, nothing
junky or screwball on the entire plane. The covering used is the Stitts process
which pretty much lasts forever and there are very few wear points on the
plane.
Personally, if I were going with a big Kolb, I'd do the Kolbra, mainly because
of the tandem seating and what appears to be a little less wing area (so it might
be less affected by the wind). It looks like the view is a little better in
the Kolbra from the front seat. But I still have yet to fly in either of the
big Kolbs, so I can't really make an informed judgement there....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131240#131240
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00053_137.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00051_210.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
Lucien et al, From the experience of the rash of S-LSA Cub builders the
problem with the Jab 3300 is that it takes very careful design of engine
baffling to get it to cool acceptably. I believe it was Cub Crafters that
wanted to run the 3300 with eyebrow baffles to make it better resemble the
classic J-3. Could not get it to cool and in the end had to put it inside a
full cowling. This on a tractor airplane with the big fan out front pushing
air over the cylinders. Might be really tough to get it to cool in a pusher
configuration like the Kolb.
Rick
On 8/27/07, lucien wrote:
>
>
> promod69camaro wrote:
> > Hi Lucien,
> > It seem that I run across you on every list I subscribe to. And you own
> or have owned at least two planes that I am interested in. I always look
> forward to your responses. They are well thought out and usually just the
> information the poster is looking for.
> > I am going up in a M3X next week to see what I think. I need to keep in
> mind that even on a 150 mile trip, a 20 or 30 mph speed difference doesn't
> make much difference in terms of arrival time. But it would be nice to have
> it all in one package.
> > I bid on and won a never before used Jabiru 3300 yesterday that was on
> ebay. I have not heard back from the seller yet. I hope its not a scam and
> I will need to be careful. I think this engine would be great on a M3X or a
> Titan S or SS. For that matter, it would also make a slick moving
> Sonex. In tail dragger configuration, they are remarkably flexable.
> > Shawn
>
>
> The 3300 is supposed to work very well on the tornado, though I don't know
> about the Kolb. The 912 and 912s sound like the motors of choice on the
> large 2-place kolbs, mostly likely because of the ability to swing the
> larger props, preferred on slower planes designed more for STOL.
>
> I've attached a couple photos of my two planes, two of the finest light
> a/c types you can get, IMO - the titan for go-fast, zip around,
> high-performance mission, and the Kolb for the magic-carpet ride mission.
>
> Truth is, I can't identify any particular reason why I like the Kolb
> design so much. It's probably the construction, the folding wings and the
> fact that it's tailwheel. The entire airframe uses traditional aviation
> construction, nothing junky or screwball on the entire plane. The covering
> used is the Stitts process which pretty much lasts forever and there are
> very few wear points on the plane.
>
> Personally, if I were going with a big Kolb, I'd do the Kolbra, mainly
> because of the tandem seating and what appears to be a little less wing area
> (so it might be less affected by the wind). It looks like the view is a
> little better in the Kolbra from the front seat. But I still have yet to fly
> in either of the big Kolbs, so I can't really make an informed judgement
> there....
>
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131240#131240
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00053_137.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00051_210.jpg
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Frequently ask questions, answered |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
Here is a little frequently ask questions document from Rotax about the 912.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131407#131407
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/912_faqs_510.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Frequently ask questions, answered |
> Here is a little frequently ask questions document from Rotax about the
912.
http://forums.matronics.com//files/912_faqs_510.pdf
> Roger Lee
Thanks Roger L:
Reference oil pump leaks. I chased an oil pump leak for more than 100 hours
on my new engine. Finally came to the conclusion it was not the oil pump at
all, but the gear box. Removed the gear box, resealed with Loctite 518, and
leak was gone.
Not going to tell you how many times I removed and replaced the oil pump,
and how much time I wasted during the process.
Damn thing was driving me nuts. Took all the fun out of flying.
She is ready to go now though. Looking for a place to fly.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary aman <gaman(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Kolb M3X information please. |
the 2200 cools nicely on my mk-3.Will the mk-3 mount system handle 120Hp?
Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> wrote: Lucien et al, From the experience of
the rash of S-LSA Cub builders the problem with the Jab 3300 is that it takes
very careful design of engine baffling to get it to cool acceptably. I believe
it was Cub Crafters that wanted to run the 3300 with eyebrow baffles to make
it better resemble the classic J-3. Could not get it to cool and in the end had
to put it inside a full cowling. This on a tractor airplane with the big fan
out front pushing air over the cylinders. Might be really tough to get it to
cool in a pusher configuration like the Kolb.
Rick
promod69camaro wrote:
> Hi Lucien,
> It seem that I run across you on every list I subscribe to. And you own or have
owned at least two planes that I am interested in. I always look forward
to your responses. They are well thought out and usually just the information
the poster is looking for.
> I am going up in a M3X next week to see what I think. I need to keep in mind
that even on a 150 mile trip, a 20 or 30 mph speed difference doesn't make much
difference in terms of arrival time. But it would be nice to have it all in
one package.
> I bid on and won a never before used Jabiru 3300 yesterday that was on ebay.
I have not heard back from the seller yet. I hope its not a scam and I will
need to be careful. I think this engine would be great on a M3X or a Titan S
or SS. For that matter, it would also make a slick moving Sonex. In tail dragger
configuration, they are remarkably flexable.
> Shawn
The 3300 is supposed to work very well on the tornado, though I don't know about
the Kolb. The 912 and 912s sound like the motors of choice on the large 2-place
kolbs, mostly likely because of the ability to swing the larger props, preferred
on slower planes designed more for STOL.
I've attached a couple photos of my two planes, two of the finest light a/c types
you can get, IMO - the titan for go-fast, zip around, high-performance mission,
and the Kolb for the magic-carpet ride mission.
Truth is, I can't identify any particular reason why I like the Kolb design so
much. It's probably the construction, the folding wings and the fact that it's
tailwheel. The entire airframe uses traditional aviation construction, nothing
junky or screwball on the entire plane. The covering used is the Stitts process
which pretty much lasts forever and there are very few wear points on the
plane.
Personally, if I were going with a big Kolb, I'd do the Kolbra, mainly because
of the tandem seating and what appears to be a little less wing area (so it might
be less affected by the wind). It looks like the view is a little better in
the Kolbra from the front seat. But I still have yet to fly in either of the
big Kolbs, so I can't really make an informed judgement there....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131240#131240
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00053_137.jpg
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RLHingtgen(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning before alodining and other processes |
Thank you for the info.
This comes just in time for me and my build.
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thumb" <bill_joe(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hey guys is the list down ?Or is everybody on vac.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
If you can stand some shameless (but non-commercial) self-promotion,
then check out my latest Texas-Flyer story:
http://www.Texas-Flyer.com/morelocalflying
for lots of things see from a Kolb in the air... and then, if
compelled, you can go read all the stories:
http://www.Texas-Flyer.com
I have to admit... not anything nearly as cool as mountains and canyons, though!
-- Robert
Kolb MkIIIC w/ 912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
What better to see than a Kolb....
..... with the SW FL coast, Tampa Bay and St. Pete for a background and just up
the coast, a little of Mother Nature.
jb92563 wrote:
> This is a great idea for a thread, everyone must have something to contribute:
--------
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131709#131709
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/sw_fl_view_185.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/sw_fl_view_birds_259.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
>> This is a great idea for a thread, everyone must have something to
contribute:
> George Alexander
Hi Gang:
Here is a herd of caribou trying to escape the mosquitoes and black flies
between Deadhorse and Barter Island, Alaska, 2004.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need radio work |
| From: | "Michael Sharp" <kolbdriver(at)mlsharp.com> |
Gents,
I found in my stack of stuff last night a book on Radio procedures.
"VFR Radio Procedures USA" Copyright 1997. It covers patterns, Airspace class
B,C,D,E,G, TRSA, Air traffic control center, Flight Service stations, emergency
assistance etc. and gives examples of radio procedures. Some of the info may
be outdated but it would be a good start.
I'll PDF it today if anyone would like a copy send me an email off list and I'll
shoot it out to you. (it will be a pretty big file so I wouldn't want to send
it though the list)
Later,
--------
The air up there in the clouds is very pure and fine...And why shouldn't it be?-
--It is the same the angels breathe.
Mark Twain,
Roughing it' 1886
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131765#131765
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
George Alexander wrote:
>
> What better to see than a Kolb....
>
> ..... with the SW FL coast, Tampa Bay and St. Pete for a background and just
up the coast, a little of Mother Nature.
>
>
> jb92563 wrote:
>
>> This is a great idea for a thread, everyone must have something to contribute:
>>
>
>
> --------
> George Alexander
> http://gtalexander.home.att.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131709#131709
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/sw_fl_view_185.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/sw_fl_view_birds_259.jpg
>
>
George,
I would love to fly where you fly! Thanks for the pics.
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
Hey John,
Nice pict!
But that ain't no mosquito, or black fly they be trying to escape. :-)
Gene
On Aug 29, 2007, at 10:32 PM, John Hauck wrote:
> Here is a herd of caribou trying to escape the mosquitoes and black
> flies between Deadhorse and Barter Island, Alaska, 2004.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | whacking & melting |
fellow barnyard mechanix: between other projects I've been patching
Thom Riddle's FS
(since he wasn't willing to fly it out of here)
Required fixes are the left side cabin tube and the rudder pedal
hinge tube
The picassa link shows 1: before 2: the chunk I spliced in (notice
the EPA approved pure
woven asbestos blanket in the background from my plumbing days)
3: the plug welded to the tamping stick
4: stick stuck in tube
5: welded
http://tinyurl.com/2jaugy
The tamping rod was necessary to push the inner sleeve reinforcement
up to its proper resting place.
BB
Glad I don't do it for a living.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
On Aug 30, 2007, at 2:15 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Actually, the caribou, me, and the mkIII were all running from the
> skeeters
Hauck running from them skeeters ?
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/photos/mosquito2.jpg
Hauck running from them black flys ?
http://users.cihost.com/ata/aircraft/sr711.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
At 03:56 PM 8/29/2007, you wrote:
>
>"... mountain flying and flight over open water usually are beyond
>the scope of private pilot training." (Jeppesen) In Hawaii if you're
>not over the open ocean or mountains... You're still on the runway.
>Some of us don't get that.
> I know I gotta practice every aspect of airmanship... To
> land at Pueo Field I have to find some where to run some
> touch-n-goes, and get better control of my descent speeds... Any
> advice on short field, uphill, in the trees landings would be appreciated...
>
>Henry
>FireFly Five-Charlee-Bravo
Good job.
Possum material.
Here's a guy on google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2249666480592775533&q=%22short+field%22&total 1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: landing gear legs |
Sometime ago, it was mentioned on the Kolb list that Kolb sold a spring
steel gear leg. Kolb have not answered my inquiry. Could someone give
me more information about it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
> Pueo Field has been carved out of a sloping forest 2,700 ft. up the side of Haleakala
(10,000 ft.). It uses the "Air America" lay out... take-off downhill
(runway 29), land uphill (runway 11). I've paced out 350 ft. of lumpy hillside
runway, 50ft. wide at the bottom down to 30 ft. at the top. The trees that surround
it are about 40 ft tall, but no worries, this is Maui... so come the rainy
season and with a little fertilizer and we'll have 'em up to the regulation
"50 foot obstacle at end of runway" faster than you can spell FAA...
>
Henry, sure enjoyed the account of your Pueo Field aventure.
I'd suggest you find a more forgiving strip to build your proficiency in the Firefly.
You stand a good chance of bending your ship operating out of Pueo Field
unless you are well practiced in all aspects of flying your new ship. I also
operate from a very short mountain strip on the Big Island where I take off
down hill and land up hill. I trailered the Firestar to the Waimea airport and
did a lot of pattern work before I attempted to fly from my pasture strip.
Even after that, it still is pretty exciting and leaves no room for error.
How about the old Puu Nene strip? Can you trailer down there and spend a couple
of sessions practicing?
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131976#131976
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: landing gear legs |
> Sometime ago, it was mentioned on the Kolb list that Kolb sold a spring
> steel gear leg. Kolb have not answered my inquiry. Could someone give
> me more information about it.
Try giving Travis a call at 606-862-9692.
Sometimes email traffic may get lost in the shuffle. Telephone works great.
Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: landing gear legs |
| From: | "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net> |
Call Travis at TNK. I'm sure he can help you.
Kolb had two steel designs; a very soft "springy" gear and a more firm one. I
think the latter is heat treated to a higher hardness as I used up several cobalt
drills to mount them. I don't think they are offering the "springy" ones
anymore but Travis can tell you for sure.
As far as I know these are for the Mark III only.
Rex
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131991#131991
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month. |
In a message dated 8/31/2007 8:25:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month.
john h
mkIII
John, Don't forget about the Early Bird Custom Air Cookout.
It would be helpful if we had a rough idea of whom will be in early.
Steve
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Travis Brown (Kolb Aircraft)" <travis(at)tnkolbaircraft.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month. |
Steve I will be there. Cant wait.
Travis @ Kolb
----- Original Message -----
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month.
In a message dated 8/31/2007 8:25:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month.
john h
mkIII
John, Don't forget about the Early Bird Custom Air Cookout.
It would be helpful if we had a rough idea of whom will be in early.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
| From: | "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello Henry, Way back in the dim distant past (circa 1970s) I used to do a lot
of jungle flying in Papua New Guinea (PNG) including some into short / steep
mountain strips, some up to 15% slope. This was in C 206s etc but the info can
be adapted to Kolbs Im sure.
First thing I recall is that all your normal cues for situation awareness, perspective
and judgement are all different. The horizon is not a distant flattish
line with surrounding countryside basically flat or gentle undulations. Instead
its replaced by slopes and curves and contours and valleys etc. Really upsets
the judgement. I think you have found that out already, having to do two
go-rounds from your approach attempts, and congratulations for not pressing on
and landing elsewhere.
Good airmanship !
When you are on your normal descent profile to a standard level-ish strip you have
a picture in your mind of how the perspective of the strip should look and
you make your corrections against this datum. Now if you tip up the ground to
a significant up-slope, such as your strip, the natural tendency is maintain
that same view out the window. The only way this can be done is if your approach
is flatter by the same amount that the strip is steep. This is courting trouble,
because whilst things look
normal you tend to have other parameters normal too, like power setting (Im not
sure if you use some power on the approach or not) But youll end up flying more
or less level (because it looks right), but with reduced power (cause if feels
right) as if youre descending (but your not), so the speed will drop off
quickly and youre setting yourself up for a stall-spin accident. I think thats
how you got to this statement;
"The first two attempts are too low... so low that the view of the runway disappears
behind the trees"
What you should see is an Im Too High / Space Shuttle Approach perspective . .
. but your not because the view will be your normal descent profile plus the
steep strip profile. The two added together give this result. Its really deceptive
until you get used to it. We had to be checked into these sort of strips
at least 5 take off and landings with a check pilot before released to do it yourself.
Your aiming point should be the same, as I recall, so Im not sure what Larry ment
with his advice to keep your eyes further up the runway. You still have to
touch down at the start of the strip so thats what youve got to keep your eye
on. Perhaps Larry could elucidate on that statement. Perhaps he ment the flare
manoeuvre where you definitely have to be aware of the extra pitch up required
which would require looking further up the strip (see next paragraph), but at
that point, not during the pre-flare approach.
Then in the flare instead of just flaring to a level attitude you have to continue
to pitch up to a slight climb equivalent to the strip slope, otherwise your
touch-down will be (ahem) positive. This extra flaring in turn takes more energy
requiring either a little power instead of closing the throttle or extra
airspeed to store the required energy for the manoeuvre.
After touchdown you then have to increase power, up to full throttle, just to get
up to the top of the strip.
When you park, if you havent got a level place, park sideways to the slope. There
are several wrecks of the side of PNG airstrips that prove the undeniable fact;
Gravity will always win ! One example being a Royal Australian Air Force
De Havilland Caribou that was to costly to recover after the said event, so they
stripped it of all useful bits and left it to the locals. Some local natives
moved in to their new house. Much better that mud huts ! Roomier too !
So theres a few thoughts from the dim distant past. Hope its of some use. Is there
anywhere you can get some practice on a longer, but still sloped strip without
too many obstacles to worry about before you try yours ?
By the way, loved the analogy to Coyotes and (obviously) Road Runner. Ive already
got a picture of you in my minds eye about to launch off :-)
Have Fun & Fly Safe !
David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132047#132047
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
Your aiming point should be the same, as I recall, so I?Tm not sure what
Larry ment with his advice to keep your eyes further up the runway. You
still have to touch down at the start of the strip so that?Ts what you?Tve
got to keep your eye on. Perhaps Larry could elucidate on that statement.
Perhaps he ment the flare manoeuvre where you definitely have to be aware of
the extra pitch up required which would require looking further up the strip
(see next paragraph), but at that point, not during the pre-flare approach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am afraid its all guesswork to those who cannot see just what the strip
looks like on the ground. However my statement was intended to point out
that looking at the ground with your direct straight on vision will not give
you the depth perception that using your peripheral vision will. You will
most always flare too soon and then things will get a lot more exciting
quickly. None of us can tell him the perfect fool proof way to land in that
situation, he is going to have to find it for himself. These are all merely
suggestion and should be ignored if they don't fit the situation. Perhaps I
was foolish to have made any suggestion at all.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
None of us can tell him the perfect fool proof way to land in that
> situation, he is going to have to find it for himself. > Larry C
Hi Larry:
I'll buy that.
Landing a 206 in New Guinea probably does not compare with a FF in Hawaii,
or any other place.
I remember some one getting wrapped around the axle because us Kolb pilots
did not buy his 747 style approach in a FS. There comes a time when Kolbs
and big ass airplanes have very little in common. If you have been flying
big airplanes most of your flying career, this will be hard to understand.
If you have been flying Kolbs most of your flying career, it is much easier
to understand and accept.
To land in that little up hill strip the first time, I think I would prepare
something like this. Find me a nice dirt road. Mark it off same usable
length as the mountain strip. Whether it is up hill, down hill, or level,
would not matter. Length is what matters. Fly that landing until I could
pin it every time with room to spare. Then tackle the mountain strip.
Unless the air was really turbulent, or had a tailwind, should be a piece of
cake, especially landing uphill. The way all Kolbs react to elevator input,
overcoming the uphill strip should be pretty easy. However, anytime we put
tall trees at the end of the strip, plus trees on the approach end, it tends
to intimidate me. Easy to try and rush things. Sometimes, most of the
time, Kolbs and other airplanes, do not want to be rushed. ;-)
Anyhow, I think that is the way I would approach it, if I "had" to land in
that strip. If I did not have to land in that strip, I'd find me another
home.
I have been flying out of a 750' strip with poor approach and departure for
23 years. Actually, I have about 600' useable. Any shorter than that and I
would be looking for another home.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
Just curious - I assume you have landed the MKIII or other light Kolbs on
steep uphill slopes?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
DNA
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Acme Gravity Catapult
>
> None of us can tell him the perfect fool proof way to land in that
>> situation, he is going to have to find it for himself. > Larry C
>
>
> Hi Larry:
>
> I'll buy that.
>
> Landing a 206 in New Guinea probably does not compare with a FF in Hawaii,
> or any other place.
>
> I remember some one getting wrapped around the axle because us Kolb pilots
> did not buy his 747 style approach in a FS. There comes a time when Kolbs
> and big ass airplanes have very little in common. If you have been flying
> big airplanes most of your flying career, this will be hard to understand.
> If you have been flying Kolbs most of your flying career, it is much
> easier to understand and accept.
>
> To land in that little up hill strip the first time, I think I would
> prepare something like this. Find me a nice dirt road. Mark it off same
> usable length as the mountain strip. Whether it is up hill, down hill, or
> level, would not matter. Length is what matters. Fly that landing until
> I could pin it every time with room to spare. Then tackle the mountain
> strip. Unless the air was really turbulent, or had a tailwind, should be a
> piece of cake, especially landing uphill. The way all Kolbs react to
> elevator input, overcoming the uphill strip should be pretty easy.
> However, anytime we put tall trees at the end of the strip, plus trees on
> the approach end, it tends to intimidate me. Easy to try and rush things.
> Sometimes, most of the time, Kolbs and other airplanes, do not want to be
> rushed. ;-)
>
> Anyhow, I think that is the way I would approach it, if I "had" to land in
> that strip. If I did not have to land in that strip, I'd find me another
> home.
>
> I have been flying out of a 750' strip with poor approach and departure
> for 23 years. Actually, I have about 600' useable. Any shorter than that
> and I would be looking for another home.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month. |
John,
We are planning to do the Cookout Thur but if you show on Wed I will cook
for you.
Steve
Firefly 007/Floats
do not archive
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
> Just curious - I assume you have landed the MKIII or other light Kolbs on
> steep uphill slopes?
>
> Richard Pike
Richard P:
Not sure if the above is addressed to me or not. Your comment didn't
indicate.
If it is, yes I have landed on some extremely steep uphill airstrips.
Also landed on some extremely steep downhill slopes.
One of the best uphill slopes is landing to the west at Homer Kolb's strip.
I'll dig out some photos, if I can find them, that show this end of the
strip. The difficult part of that approach is losing a lot of altitude over
the trees and down over the lake. Another way to do it is fly between the
house and the trees, turn right and west to land up slope.
Those that have flown Homer's airstrip will be very familiar with what I am
trying to describe here.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ready for the Kolb Homecoming in a month. |
Up in the Air, so to speak, Early enough for the Kolb crew to be there
and late enough for the Earlybirds to stumble in.
Steve
Firefly 007/Floats
do not archive
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
>> Just curious - I assume you have landed the MKIII or other light Kolbs
on
>> steep uphill slopes?
>>
>> Richard Pike
Richard P:
Forgot about Larry C's airstrip. We do a lot of upslope and downslope take
offs and landings on the south end of his strip by the house. Here is a
photo I like of one landing there. John Williamson took these.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
Don't have the slope in the picture, but this is what John means "...fly between
the house and the trees, turn right and west...." In this picture, he was getting
ready to roll out of the turn (in Homer's Firestar).
Taken at the gathering at Homer's place on June 16, 2007. More to come.....
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> One of the best uphill slopes is landing to the west at Homer Kolb's strip.
> I'll dig out some photos, if I can find them, that show this end of the
> strip. The difficult part of that approach is losing a lot of altitude over
> the trees and down over the lake. Another way to do it is fly between the
> house and the trees, turn right and west to land up slope.
>
>
--------
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132139#132139
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolb_150_medium_973.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
> Don't have the slope in the picture, but this is what John means "...fly
between the house and the trees, turn right and west...." In this picture,
he was getting ready to roll out of the turn (in Homer's Firestar).
>
> Taken at the gathering at Homer's place on June 16, 2007. More to
> come.....
Thanks, George A:
Not an easy maneuver coming through there when the wind is blowing a pretty
good clip.
If you can get the airplane down pretty close to the pond, the hill is so
steep you can slow right down and turn right to go to the hanger.
I don't know what Richard P was scratching for, unless he thought I was
running my mouth without having experienced what I was talking about. I try
not to do that. Reserve the BS for the experts. ;-)
Richard has an intimidating strip at his place. I have flown in and out of
it in his mkIII with him flying, but I have not actually shot a landing or
done a T/O from there. It is like an obstacle course, over the high tension
transmission lines and towers, then across the fence, then up the hill until
you hit the tree and stop. Just what Kolbs are designed and built for.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
I was just surprised that in your earlier post today to Larry C, you did not
mention the need to possibly maintain or add some throttle to "fly uphill"
at touchdown. Having seen more than one U/L pilot make an approach to some
of our various local uphill strips with the throttle closed, and then not
have enough energy or thrust to be able to match the slope angle just prior
to flare, and with a resulting "extra-firm" arrival, I expected you to bring
that out. The rest of your instructions were complete and detailed, so it
just struck me as odd that you didn't mention that. Seemed out of character
for you, so I was trying to figure out why. No big deal.
There is a local guy named Bill Williams that lives about 15 miles north of
here, and his strip is only about 250' long, but is at almost a 30 degree
angle. Talk about a big dose of throttle on short final... Wow. I need to
make a video.
PS: I like the part about "until you hit the tree and stop." So far, I
haven't had to do that. So far...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Acme Gravity Catapult
> I don't know what Richard P was scratching for, unless he thought I was
> running my mouth without having experienced what I was talking about. I
> try not to do that. Reserve the BS for the experts. ;-)
>
> Richard has an intimidating strip at his place. I have flown in and out
> of it in his mkIII with him flying, but I have not actually shot a landing
> or done a T/O from there. It is like an obstacle course, over the high
> tension transmission lines and towers, then across the fence, then up the
> hill until you hit the tree and stop. Just what Kolbs are designed and
> built for.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | 912 Mandatory Service Bulletin |
Got a notice of this from the Rotax owners site a few minutes ago. Notice it
effects a very narrow range of engine serial numbers and manufacturing
dates.
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/serviceb/SB-912-055.pdf
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SFTester2" <sftester2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | New guy with questions |
I've been looking at various ultralight-like flying things lately, and the
various Kolbs are looking more than a little interesting, but before I spend
all my beer money on something I figure it's best to do a bit of research. I
haven't found anything locally (just north of Houston), but there's a
Firestar KXP and Twinstar MkII close enough to both my location and price
range that I could fly them home in a couple of days. They seem to have just
about everything I want, pusher, tailwheel, and easily folded wings, but the
question is whether I'll fit in 'em. I'm 6'4" and 265 pounds. Is it possible
to cram me into a Kolb and still get off the ground?
And is there anyone in/around Houston with a Firestar (preferably a KXP) or
a Twinstar MkII that would be willing to show me their plane and answer a
half million questions?
--
Steve
"If you're normal the crowd will accept you, but if you're deranged the
crowd will make you their leader." -Titus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Acme Gravity Catapult |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Speaking of hilly runways...
I don't recall where I got this photo but it worth a quick look. Not certain where
this was taken but believe I remember it might have been somewhere in Paupau
New Guinea.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132203#132203
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/hilly_departure_902.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Mandatory Service Bulletin |
Rick:
That url is for certified engines. The one below it,
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/getdoc.asp?USERID=jhauck&DOCID=
SB-912-055UL&S_TYPE=NW is for UL engines.
Sounds like someone didn't tighten the oil filters correctly.
john h
mkIII
Got a notice of this from the Rotax owners site a few minutes ago.
Notice it effects a very narrow range of engine serial numbers and
manufacturing dates.
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/serviceb/SB-912-055.pdf
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Mandatory Service Bulletin |
I still like K & N oil filters for that nice lug on the bottom with the
safety wire holes, John.;-)
Rick
On 9/1/07, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Rick:
>
> That url is for certified engines. The one below it,
>
> http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/getdoc.asp?USERID=jhauck&DOCID=SB-912-055UL&S_TYPE=NW
> is for UL engines.
>
> Sounds like someone didn't tighten the oil filters correctly.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
> Got a notice of this from the Rotax owners site a few minutes ago. Notice
> it effects a very narrow range of engine serial numbers and manufacturing
> dates.
>
> http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/serviceb/SB-912-055.pdf
>
> Rick
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
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: 912 Mandatory Service Bulletin |
Rick:
I have a lot more trouble getting them off than making sure they stay
on. The Fram TG3614 sticks like glue. 3/4 turn tight and it takes an
oil filter wrench with some effort to break it loose. Pain in the butt
when changing oil on long cross country flights. Usually end up driving
a screw driver through the filter to break it loose. I know, I could
take the oil filter wrench with me, but that is just one more thing to
pack and fly with.
john h
mkIII
I still like K & N oil filters for that nice lug on the bottom with the
safety wire holes, John.;-)
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | I Miss Flying In Alaska |
Morning Gang:
Three years ago was the last time Miss P'fer (pronounced peefer (P fer
plane) and I were scooting through the skies of Northern Canada and Alaska.
Was going through some old photos and suddenly realized I missed being up
there this summer. Here is one taken at the Valdez Airport, 1994, just
prior to takeoff for McCarthy and Kennecott.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | More Alaska 2004 |
Hi Gang:
Previous should have said 2004, not 1994. But what is 10 years now days.
This photo is long final over the town of Valdez. Look out in the distance,
upper left of the photo, you can see the asphalt runway.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | No Roads Up Here |
Hi Gang:
No roads up here, between Valdez and McCarthy, AK.
Felt marginally comfortable doing this with the mkIII and 912ULS. Would not
have considered it with any other power plant on my airplane.
With approximately (don't feel like digging out the log book to get the
exact numbers) 2,500 hours in front of a 912UL and two 912ULS's, I have
never had one shut down on me except two occassions of contaminated fuel in
the 912UL back in 1994 and 1998. That was strictly pilot error, not the
912UL.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Gang:
One more. Found this one as I was closing up the files. The Wrangle-St
Elias Range north of Kennecott Copper Mine, Alaska. There is nothing but
ice, gravel, water, and extremely rough terrain under the airplane from the
airstrip at McCarthy to the mountains in the foreground, and back to the
airstrip. Not a hay field in sight. ;-)
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Steve, I'm not quite as heavy at 225 in summer flying gear, and 6'1" so I
can't advise you on how well you'll fit except to say that I'm quite comfy
in my MkIII and I think you'd be okay in it.
What I will advise you is to make sure any aircraft you consider, that does
not qualify as an ultralight, and neither of those you've mentioned does, is
registered and has an airworthiness certificate as an experimental light
sport aircraft (E-LSA). While there may still be time to get all the
paperwork done and the process done, the deadline of Jan. 31, 2008 is
approaching rapidly.
Here's some tips to get a better price on the aircraft if you decide to buy
an unregistered, illegal aircraft.
Pick out an "N" number and order it online from FAA.gov, today.
Get the EAA or Rainbow Aviation Services registration kit immediately and
mail off form 8050-88A and 8050 -1 to the FAA as soon as humanly possible.
Don't forget to have 8050-88A notarized.
There's no law that says you can't do this before you buy the aircraft.
Now you have a hammer to beat the owner's price down. Don't tell him/her
that you've started the registration process, just remind the owner that
their aircraft is going to be either a pile of parts, or a really cool lawn
ornament after 1-31-2008 and you're taking a real chance (and you are)
buying their aircraft.
If you can't get the FAA to come out and do the paperwork, and the chances
of that in your area are slim and nil, a designated airworthiness
representative (DAR) is going to charge you $300 to $500 for those papers.
If your DAR demands a current conditional inspection, and some are as a CYA
move, add another $300 to $500 for that service. Then there's all the work
to have your aircraft legal, Weight and Balance, $75 to $100, if you can't
do that yourself. Placarding and instrument marking, the DEA tag, and the
rest. All of which will cost you time and/or money.
Deduct all of the above from the asking price plus any bargaining money and
keep reminding the owner about the drop dead date for getting it registered.
DO NOT let anyone tell you you can just register it as experimental-amateur
built (E-AB) if you miss the date. A look at form 8050-88 will immediately
reveal why YOU CAN'T.
Rick
On 9/1/07, SFTester2 wrote:
>
>
> I've been looking at various ultralight-like flying things lately, and the
> various Kolbs are looking more than a little interesting, but before I
> spend
> all my beer money on something I figure it's best to do a bit of research.
> I
> haven't found anything locally (just north of Houston), but there's a
> Firestar KXP and Twinstar MkII close enough to both my location and price
> range that I could fly them home in a couple of days. They seem to have
> just
> about everything I want, pusher, tailwheel, and easily folded wings, but
> the
> question is whether I'll fit in 'em. I'm 6'4" and 265 pounds. Is it
> possible
> to cram me into a Kolb and still get off the ground?
>
> And is there anyone in/around Houston with a Firestar (preferably a KXP)
> or
> a Twinstar MkII that would be willing to show me their plane and answer a
> half million questions?
> --
> Steve
> "If you're normal the crowd will accept you, but if you're deranged the
> crowd will make you their leader." -Titus
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
THESE CAME THRU BLANK!
On Sep 1, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Larry Bourne wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SFTester2" <sftester2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Richard Girard wrote:
> Steve, I'm not quite as heavy at 225 in summer flying gear, and 6'1"
> so I can't advise you on how well you'll fit except to say that I'm
> quite comfy in my MkIII and I think you'd be okay in it.
That's what I'm thinking. I figure that if I can fit in a 150 for more than
a few hours in a row, a Kolb should be spacious.
> Pick out an "N" number and order it online from FAA.gov, today.
I think I still have N205FT reserved, can't remember if I renewed it. I
reserved it when I bought a set of KR-1 plans a couple of years ago.
> Get the EAA or Rainbow Aviation Services registration kit immediately
> and mail off form 8050-88A and 8050 -1 to the FAA as soon as humanly
> possible. Don't forget to have 8050-88A notarized.
> There's no law that says you can't do this before you buy the
> aircraft.
> Now you have a hammer to beat the owner's price down. Don't tell
> him/her that you've started the registration process, just remind the
> owner that their aircraft is going to be either a pile of parts, or a
> really cool lawn ornament after 1-31-2008 and you're taking a real
> chance (and you are) buying their aircraft.
> If you can't get the FAA to come out and do the paperwork, and the
> chances of that in your area are slim and nil, a designated
> airworthiness representative (DAR) is going to charge you $300 to
> $500 for those papers. If your DAR demands a current conditional
> inspection, and some are as a CYA move, add another $300 to $500 for
> that service. Then there's all the work to have your aircraft legal,
Yeah, with all the homebuilders around here and the (usually fortunate) lack
of polyester on the ramps, I had planned on needing a DAR. I desperately
need to find and make friends with the local EAA guys, and not just for this
project.
> Weight and Balance, $75 to $100, if you can't do that yourself.
Fortunately W/B is easy. Annoying, but not tough. Hardest part is getting
the race shop to let me borrow their scales for a few hours, though they may
think it's worth it to have an airplane in their parking lot ;)
> Placarding and instrument marking, the DEA tag, and the rest. All of
> which will cost you time and/or money.
> Deduct all of the above from the asking price plus any bargaining
> money and keep reminding the owner about the drop dead date for
> getting it registered. DO NOT let anyone tell you you can just
> register it as experimental-amateur built (E-AB) if you miss the
> date. A look at form 8050-88 will immediately reveal why YOU CAN'T.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that says you can't
register it as EXAB. The only difference between a fat UL and a kitplane is
that it's been flown (illegally) before it's registered. What's really
interesting is that the first choice is:
"More than 50% of the above-described aircraft was built from miscellaneous
parts and I am the owner."
It doesn't mention where those parts came from or who put them together,
just that they're parts and who owns them and the pile they were thrown in.
So find one item on the 51% checklist, complete it, and call it an EXAB,
apply for the repairman's cert, and fly off the 40 hours. Not arguing, just
stating how I understood the process, and hoping someone can point out the
flaw in my logic. Also, if it's already been registered, couldn't one just
unbuild 51% of it, by the checklist, rebuild it (documenting all steps), and
register it as newly built? The 40 hrs would have to be flown off again, but
it would be new by the FAAs rules.
--
Steve
"If you're normal the crowd will accept you, but if you're deranged the
crowd will make you their leader." -Titus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a
receipt from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft
vendors. How are you going to get those? A receipt from the builder won't do
as it makes it plain to anyone with two neurons to rub together that you are
not the builder. One or two receipts from Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't
cut it either since they won't add up to an airplane.
Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that together?
Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built pride and joy still
out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and PolyFiber.
You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or ignore
the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of money in the
balance.
Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at the
federal level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his
certificates permanently.
Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's
General. ;-)
Rick
On 9/1/07, SFTester2 wrote:
>
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
> > Steve, I'm not quite as heavy at 225 in summer flying gear, and 6'1"
> > so I can't advise you on how well you'll fit except to say that I'm
> > quite comfy in my MkIII and I think you'd be okay in it.
>
> That's what I'm thinking. I figure that if I can fit in a 150 for more
> than
> a few hours in a row, a Kolb should be spacious.
>
> > Pick out an "N" number and order it online from FAA.gov, today.
>
> I think I still have N205FT reserved, can't remember if I renewed it. I
> reserved it when I bought a set of KR-1 plans a couple of years ago.
>
> > Get the EAA or Rainbow Aviation Services registration kit immediately
> > and mail off form 8050-88A and 8050 -1 to the FAA as soon as humanly
> > possible. Don't forget to have 8050-88A notarized.
> > There's no law that says you can't do this before you buy the
> > aircraft.
> > Now you have a hammer to beat the owner's price down. Don't tell
> > him/her that you've started the registration process, just remind the
> > owner that their aircraft is going to be either a pile of parts, or a
> > really cool lawn ornament after 1-31-2008 and you're taking a real
> > chance (and you are) buying their aircraft.
> > If you can't get the FAA to come out and do the paperwork, and the
> > chances of that in your area are slim and nil, a designated
> > airworthiness representative (DAR) is going to charge you $300 to
> > $500 for those papers. If your DAR demands a current conditional
> > inspection, and some are as a CYA move, add another $300 to $500 for
> > that service. Then there's all the work to have your aircraft legal,
>
> Yeah, with all the homebuilders around here and the (usually fortunate)
> lack
> of polyester on the ramps, I had planned on needing a DAR. I desperately
> need to find and make friends with the local EAA guys, and not just for
> this
> project.
>
> > Weight and Balance, $75 to $100, if you can't do that yourself.
>
> Fortunately W/B is easy. Annoying, but not tough. Hardest part is getting
> the race shop to let me borrow their scales for a few hours, though they
> may
> think it's worth it to have an airplane in their parking lot ;)
>
> > Placarding and instrument marking, the DEA tag, and the rest. All of
> > which will cost you time and/or money.
> > Deduct all of the above from the asking price plus any bargaining
> > money and keep reminding the owner about the drop dead date for
> > getting it registered. DO NOT let anyone tell you you can just
> > register it as experimental-amateur built (E-AB) if you miss the
> > date. A look at form 8050-88 will immediately reveal why YOU CAN'T.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that says you can't
> register it as EXAB. The only difference between a fat UL and a kitplane
> is
> that it's been flown (illegally) before it's registered. What's really
> interesting is that the first choice is:
>
> "More than 50% of the above-described aircraft was built from
> miscellaneous
> parts and I am the owner."
>
> It doesn't mention where those parts came from or who put them together,
> just that they're parts and who owns them and the pile they were thrown
> in.
> So find one item on the 51% checklist, complete it, and call it an EXAB,
> apply for the repairman's cert, and fly off the 40 hours. Not arguing,
> just
> stating how I understood the process, and hoping someone can point out the
> flaw in my logic. Also, if it's already been registered, couldn't one just
> unbuild 51% of it, by the checklist, rebuild it (documenting all steps),
> and
> register it as newly built? The 40 hrs would have to be flown off again,
> but
> it would be new by the FAAs rules.
> --
> Steve
> "If you're normal the crowd will accept you, but if you're deranged the
> crowd will make you their leader." -Titus
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SFTester2" <sftester2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Richard Girard wrote:
> Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a
> receipt from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft
> vendors. How are you going to get those? A receipt from the builder
> won't do as it makes it plain to anyone with two neurons to rub
> together that you are not the builder. One or two receipts from
> Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't cut it either since they won't add
> up to an airplane.
> Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that
> together? Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built
> pride and joy still out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and
> PolyFiber.
> You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or
> ignore the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of
> money in the balance.
> Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at
> the federal level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his
> certificates permanently.
> Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's
> General. ;-)
I hate beaurocracy.
What's irritating me is that they aren't making this information easy, or
even difficult, to find. It's bloody near impossible. And if you go by
what's on the forms you're apparently not doing it right. 8050-88
specifically says that you certify that the airplane was built from less
than half preassembled parts, and that you own it. Nowhere does it say
anything about having built it.
I think I'm about to chuck it all and find a new hobby.
--
Steve
"If you're normal the crowd will accept you, but if you're deranged the
crowd will make you their leader." -Titus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Steve, Go to FAR 21.191h and 21.191i (1-3) That spells out the difference
between E-AB, E-LSA and S-LSA, at least as far as the registration process.
As far as the info being hard to find, the EAA packet or the Rainbow
Aviation Services makes the LSA registration process easily understandable.
To me it's a half full, half empty argument. Part 103 and ultralights were a
gift, a darn nice gift at that. People cheated until the issue was forced
and instead of repealing, The FAA gave us another gift, Light Sport
Aircraft, a truly spectacular gift. A whole new starting point for climbing
up the ladder of ratings and a whole new range of affordable aircraft.
I certainly didn't mean to put you off, just try to keep you from getting
taken by an unscrupulous aircraft seller and a way to negotiate a better
price on a yet to be registered aircraft.
If that's all it takes to frustrate you and make you want to quit, then
perhaps it's for the best.
Rick
On 9/1/07, SFTester2 wrote:
>
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
> > Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a
> > receipt from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft
> > vendors. How are you going to get those? A receipt from the builder
> > won't do as it makes it plain to anyone with two neurons to rub
> > together that you are not the builder. One or two receipts from
> > Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't cut it either since they won't add
> > up to an airplane.
> > Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that
> > together? Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built
> > pride and joy still out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and
> > PolyFiber.
> > You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or
> > ignore the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of
> > money in the balance.
> > Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at
> > the federal level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his
> > certificates permanently.
> > Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's
> > General. ;-)
>
> I hate beaurocracy.
>
> What's irritating me is that they aren't making this information easy, or
> even difficult, to find. It's bloody near impossible. And if you go by
> what's on the forms you're apparently not doing it right. 8050-88
> specifically says that you certify that the airplane was built from less
> than half preassembled parts, and that you own it. Nowhere does it say
> anything about having built it.
>
> I think I'm about to chuck it all and find a new hobby.
> --
> Steve
> "If you're normal the crowd will accept you, but if you're deranged the
> crowd will make you their leader." -Titus
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
In a message dated 9/1/2007 5:24:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sftester2(at)gmail.com writes:
I think I'm about to chuck it all and find a new hobby.
--
Steve, Don't give up, just join the Dark side, You know, The Ultralight
guys. We have very few restrictions and a lot of fun.
The Firefly is an amazing Aircraft.
Steve B
Firefly 007
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a receipt
from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft vendors. How are
you going to get those? A receipt from the builder won't do as it makes it
plain to anyone with two neurons to rub together that you are not the builder.
One or two receipts from Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't cut it either since
they won't add up to an airplane.
> Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that together?
> Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built pride and joy still
out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and PolyFiber.
> You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or ignore
the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of money in the balance.
> Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at the federal
level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his certificates permanently.
> Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's General.
;-)
>
> Rick
>
Well remember, you don't have to show necessarily that _you_ were the builder to
get an Exp A/B AW certificate for the plane. As long as you can show 51% of
it was built by _an_ amateur for recreation/education you can get the AW cert.
Documentation that you built it is only required if you want the repairman's certificate
for it.
If it's a Kolb, the chances are vert very very good it was built from a pile of
parts or a kit, and practically as good that it was built by an amateur. A builder's
log for the plane would certainly be worth its weight in gold in this
respect for sure, so of course look for that being available for the plane if
you intend to buy it.
But Exp A/B still seems very doable for most unregistered fat-UL's from what I
can see, though the repairmans certificate might be a lot harder to obtain...
LS
It's
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132298#132298
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane
look freshly built. Good luck with that one.
Rick
On 9/1/07, lucien wrote:
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a
> receipt from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft
> vendors. How are you going to get those? A receipt from the builder won't do
> as it makes it plain to anyone with two neurons to rub together that you are
> not the builder. One or two receipts from Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't
> cut it either since they won't add up to an airplane.
> > Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that together?
> > Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built pride and joy
> still out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and PolyFiber.
> > You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or
> ignore the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of money in
> the balance.
> > Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at
> the federal level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his
> certificates permanently.
> > Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's
> General. ;-)
> >
> > Rick
> >
>
>
> Well remember, you don't have to show necessarily that _you_ were the
> builder to get an Exp A/B AW certificate for the plane. As long as you can
> show 51% of it was built by _an_ amateur for recreation/education you can
> get the AW cert.
>
> Documentation that you built it is only required if you want the
> repairman's certificate for it.
>
> If it's a Kolb, the chances are vert very very good it was built from a
> pile of parts or a kit, and practically as good that it was built by an
> amateur. A builder's log for the plane would certainly be worth its weight
> in gold in this respect for sure, so of course look for that being available
> for the plane if you intend to buy it.
>
> But Exp A/B still seems very doable for most unregistered fat-UL's from
> what I can see, though the repairmans certificate might be a lot harder to
> obtain...
>
> LS
>
>
> It's
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132298#132298
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Getting through ELSA |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
I am in the process of getting my FS II through the ELSA hoops. Has anyone else
completed the process yet ? I realize Arty Trost did her drifter recently but
, I was looking for more of a Kolb specific info and was wondering what your
inspectors were looking for during their inspections.
Unfortunately, the FAA is delegated this process to DAR's. This may may have its
good points but, I'm not real happy that I may have to pay for this service
that the FAA once did for free.
For me, I have two planes (I have a Drifter 447 as well) to get through the process.
So I take a hit twice, and depending upon the DAR, this can be in excess
of $1000.00 by the time it is all said and done, :-(
So I'm trying to gather information about the process so that I can get through
it the first time with hopefully very little difficulty.
Thank You for your Help
Carlos
AKA BaronVonEvil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132309#132309
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Kolb Mark III Classic |
Sacramento tail dragger pilots: Partner to furnish runway and shelter
and I will provide FAA certified experimental airplane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
| Subject: | Getting through ELSA |
Carlos and all, I went through the ELSA process last year. The inspector
looked at everything that is listed on the EAA pre-inspection sheet, (too
much to list here). He checked that every bolt he could see was the correct
length for it`s application, and that there were two threads sticking out
past the nut.
He found two things I had to do before he passed my FSII. First he
required that I strap down my 12 volt battery, up to that time it was in a
battery box and was held in place by the battery cables. He felt if I ever
crashed or went inverted, the battery may come free and fly around the
cockpit. Second he required that I put torque seal on all the self locking
nuts, so that I could tell if they were coming loose during my preflight
inspection.
I thought both of these suggestions were valuable, and completed them as
soon as I could.
The FAA inspector I had was there to help me get through the process, not
to make my life miserable. He was concerned with my safety and the
airworthiness of the aircraft. By the same token, If my FSII was unsafe, he
would not hesitate to refuse to issue the airworthiness
certificate. Lanny Fetterman November five niner eight lima
foxtrott. ( I`m practicing my radio skills ).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting through ELSA |
Baron, It depends on the DAR. How much variance can there be between DAR's?
How long is a piece of string? Some just want your paperwork in order and
cha ching. Other's, the good ones, IMHO, spend an hour or two with you and
the aircraft.
At least one, with whom I have personal experience, wanted a conditional
inspection in the aircraft's log book, and never even went into the hangar
to look at the aircraft. I know, because I did the conditional inspection
and I was sitting in the office and saw the whole thing. He came in, handed
the owner the paperwork, took the cash, chatted for a bit, got back in his
car and drove away. 20 minutes for $400. Of course he did the paperwork at
home and is a slow typist, so maybe he earned his money, at least in his own
mind, if not anyone else's.
Another I know, does a thorough inspection, not only to see that you have
all the requirements, placards, instrument markings, and such, but
effectively does a conditional inspection, since he sees his sign off as the
equivalent, which, for legal purposes, it is.
He scared the **** out of one aircraft's owner with a long list of the
things he recommended fixing. You should have seen the owner's face light up
when his instructor, from whom he bought the aircraft, explained that the
DAR was real anal about the details. The list came with the certificate, so
relax.
Another example, the E-LSA trike I flew to get my logbook endorsement while
I was at Sun n Fun, had the most common, glaring error one can make, and got
away with it.
When I inspected the aircraft's documents, prior to my first flight, using
the standard AROW method, I saw that the manufacturer was listed as Air
Creations on both the registration and the airworthiness certificate.
Now, common knowledge is that the builder of any experimental aircraft is
the manufacturer, right? I thought the instructor had put trick documents in
the aircraft to see if I would catch it, so I asked how in the world that
had gotten through? It seems the aircraft had been put through the process
in 2004, just after the LSA rule became law. The registration was done by
Lockwood Aviation, from whom my instructor bought the trike, and it had
slipped through. Their were no DAR's with the function code for E-LSA then
and the inspection had been done by the FAA. The process was brand new and
it slipped by since all the paperwork was in agreement. Go figure.
Because there is this kind of leeway in the process, the best thing you can
do is ask the DAR. For the kind of money he/she is getting, a DAR should be
willing to take the time to explain anything of personal interest, so when
he/she does come out, everything goes smoothly.
If it's the paperwork you're worried about, I recommend the pack from
Rainbow Aviation Services. It's five bucks well spent, because Carol puts in
sample forms so you can see how they all must tie together.
The #1 failure, as documented by others on this forum, is not having EXACTLY
the same entry in boxes requiring the same information on different forms.
Simple stuff like calling your plane a Baron Von Evil Firestar II on one
form and a Baron Von Evil FS II on another is a failure.
Hope this helps.
Rick
On 9/1/07, The BaronVonEvil wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am in the process of getting my FS II through the ELSA hoops. Has anyone
> else completed the process yet ? I realize Arty Trost did her drifter
> recently but , I was looking for more of a Kolb specific info and was
> wondering what your inspectors were looking for during their inspections.
>
> Unfortunately, the FAA is delegated this process to DAR's. This may may
> have its good points but, I'm not real happy that I may have to pay for this
> service that the FAA once did for free.
>
> For me, I have two planes (I have a Drifter 447 as well) to get through
> the process. So I take a hit twice, and depending upon the DAR, this can be
> in excess of $1000.00 by the time it is all said and done, :-(
>
> So I'm trying to gather information about the process so that I can get
> through it the first time with hopefully very little difficulty.
>
> Thank You for your Help
>
> Carlos
> AKA BaronVonEvil
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132309#132309
>
>
--
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: New guy with questions |
Lucien et al, The guinea hens woke me up at dawn, again, and in the early
morning clarity I thought of a very simple way to settle this debate.
All those who think an existing, i.e. built and flying, illegal aircraft can
be certificated Experimental - Amateur Built, do this.
Create a legal binding contract with the person to whom you are giving this
advice that says you will buy the aircraft, at it's full purchase price plus
any money spent on DAR fees, N numbers and the like, if you're wrong.
My guess is the silence will be deafening.
Rick
On 9/1/07, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane
> look freshly built. Good luck with that one.
>
> Rick
>
> On 9/1/07, lucien wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > > Steve, The answer is on form 8050-88, the form for E-AB. It requires a
> > receipt from the kit manufacturer or a pile of receipts from aircraft
> > vendors. How are you going to get those? A receipt from the builder won't do
> > as it makes it plain to anyone with two neurons to rub together that you are
> > not the builder. One or two receipts from Aircraft Spruce and Wick's won't
> > cut it either since they won't add up to an airplane.
> > > Then there's the builder's log. How are you going to put that
> > together?
> > > Last, a used airplane looks used, not your freshly built pride and joy
> > still out gassing the aroma of resins, glues and PolyFiber.
> > > You might be able to find a willing DAR to fake all of the above, or
> > ignore the lack, but that's a mighty big might with an awful lot of money in
> > the balance.
> > > Last there's that little bugaboo of both of you committing perjury at
> > the federal level. How much will a DAR charge to risk loosing all his
> > certificates permanently.
> > > Personally, I recommend leaving perjury to the pros, like Attorney's
> > General. ;-)
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well remember, you don't have to show necessarily that _you_ were the
> > builder to get an Exp A/B AW certificate for the plane. As long as you can
> > show 51% of it was built by _an_ amateur for recreation/education you can
> > get the AW cert.
> >
> > Documentation that you built it is only required if you want the
> > repairman's certificate for it.
> >
> > If it's a Kolb, the chances are vert very very good it was built from a
> > pile of parts or a kit, and practically as good that it was built by an
> > amateur. A builder's log for the plane would certainly be worth its weight
> > in gold in this respect for sure, so of course look for that being available
> > for the plane if you intend to buy it.
> >
> > But Exp A/B still seems very doable for most unregistered fat-UL's from
> > what I can see, though the repairmans certificate might be a lot harder to
> > obtain...
> >
> > LS
> >
> >
> > It's
> >
> > --------
> > LS
> > FS II
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132298#132298
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane look
freshly built. Good luck with that one.
>
> Rick
>
Huh? It doesn't have to have been freshly built, whatever that means.
Again, for the AW certificate, all you need is documentation that the plane was
amateur built by some amateur builder for recreation/education. Doesn't matter
when it was built or who built it (the builder doesn't even have to be alive
anymore).
You're probably still thinking of the repairman's cert, which can only be granted
to the original builder.
But even if you don't have the repairman's cert., that only means you can't do
the annual condition inspection unless you're an AnP.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132334#132334
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Lucien, I'm not confused about anything we're talking about on the issue of
E-AB certification as a substitute for E-LSA certs. Let me put my post from
early this morning in very plane English. pun intended.
You're guessing you're right, and you're wrong, period.
Except as an aberration, no DAR or FAA official is ever going to sign off a
fat ultralight, ultralight trainer, or other previously built and flown
illegal aircraft as E-AB because someone missed the 1-31-08 deadline.
First, go to the EAA and let them tell you how wrong your guesses are. Their
experts know as much about E-AB requirements as anyone on the planet. That's
their business and they're very, very good at it.
Then have the decency to come back and apologize to the forum.
If you're too lazy to check with the experts and still insist on passing out
this rubbish in the guise of good advice, put your money where your mouth
is.
Sign a legally binding binding contract with Steve, or anyone else willing
to take your misinformed guessing as good advice, saying you'll buy the
aircraft, at its full purchase price,
when you're proven wrong.
Rick
On 9/2/07, lucien wrote:
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Lucien, You still don't address how you're going to make an old airplane
> look freshly built. Good luck with that one.
> >
> > Rick
> >
>
>
> Huh? It doesn't have to have been freshly built, whatever that means.
>
> Again, for the AW certificate, all you need is documentation that the
> plane was amateur built by some amateur builder for recreation/education.
> Doesn't matter when it was built or who built it (the builder doesn't even
> have to be alive anymore).
>
> You're probably still thinking of the repairman's cert, which can only be
> granted to the original builder.
>
> But even if you don't have the repairman's cert., that only means you
> can't do the annual condition inspection unless you're an AnP.....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132334#132334
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, I'm not confused about anything we're talking about on the issue of
E-AB certification as a substitute for E-LSA certs. Let me put my post from early
this morning in very plane English. pun intended.
> You're guessing you're right, and you're wrong, period.
>
Sorry, but you need to review the rules for experimental a/b certification.
If you can show it was amateur built, you can get it certificated as experimental
amateur built.
I don't know where you're getting your information that all this has changed, but
I'd suggest not consulting those sources anymore. All this is in the regs....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132343#132343
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Richard G/Lucien:
Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
paragraph, and line?
Think that would end your arguments.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> Richard G/Lucien:
>
> Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
> paragraph, and line?
>
> Think that would end your arguments.
>
> john h
> mkIII
The relevant FARs for Experimental certificates are in FAR part 21 subpart H.
The rules concerning amateur built certification start in 21.191 and continue on
from there.
Like I said, this is all in the regs, when in doubt read the rules....
I think steve is simply confusing the difference between ELSA and EAB regarding
the EAA's comments about the grace period that expires in Jan.
The rules for EAB have changed very little with the introduction of ELSA to my
knowledge and it's still available for anything that flies through the air and
can be shown to have been 51% built by an amateur for recreation/education.
Dem's the facts....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132347#132347
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
John, Tried that once, maybe the second time is the charm. FAR 21.191 covers
the issuance of experimental certificates. 21.191g is E-AB. 21.191i (1)
covers E-LSA before 1-31-2008. (2) and (3) covers after that date.
Rick
PS going out to build a new radiator mount for the Mk III. Much more
interesting.
On 9/2/07, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Richard G/Lucien:
>
> Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
> paragraph, and line?
>
> Think that would end your arguments.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
--
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: New guy with questions |
Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook
the construction process solely for their own education or recreation.
No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete and
ready to fly"
Rick
On 9/2/07, lucien wrote:
>
>
> John Hauck wrote:
> > Richard G/Lucien:
> >
> > Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include page,
> > paragraph, and line?
> >
> > Think that would end your arguments.
> >
> > john h
> > mkIII
>
>
> The relevant FARs for Experimental certificates are in FAR part 21 subpart
> H.
>
> The rules concerning amateur built certification start in 21.191 and
> continue on from there.
>
> Like I said, this is all in the regs, when in doubt read the rules....
>
> I think steve is simply confusing the difference between ELSA and EAB
> regarding the EAA's comments about the grace period that expires in Jan.
>
> The rules for EAB have changed very little with the introduction of ELSA
> to my knowledge and it's still available for anything that flies through the
> air and can be shown to have been 51% built by an amateur for
> recreation/education.
> Dem's the facts....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132347#132347
>
>
--
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: New guy with questions |
See also AC 20-27F, downloadable in PDF format. Paragraph 7 g (1) discusses
kit built aircraft.
Notice the matrix of eligibility and the big fat X in the INELIGIBLE column
for the scenario "You hired someone to build the aircraft for you, and
hiring this person means you DID NOT FABRICATE AND ASSEMBLE THE MAJOR
PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT. Note: Capitalization mine.
Now, I'm not sure how you can construe buying a used, unregistered,
previously flown aircraft as anything other than you paid to have the
aircraft constructed for you.
Also note that 7 f (2) and 7 g (3) concerns taking over projects, f is for
plans built aircraft, g is for kit built. Both describe keeping the previous
builder's log and adding your efforts to them. Both end with the sentence,
"This information may help us to determine that your aircraft is eligible
for amateur-built certification."
What are you going to show the DAR or FAA. "Here's a picture of me pulling
the airplane from the hangar." Here's a picture of me putting it on the
trailer". Or, alternately, "Here's a picture of me flying the aircraft
away."
Whoa, boy, worked up a sweat doing that part of the fabrication and
assembly.
You keep saying the rules are the rules, Well there you have them.
Rick
9/2/07, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
> 21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
> 21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the
> major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
> undertook the construction process solely for their own education or
> recreation.
>
> No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete
> and ready to fly"
>
> Rick
>
> On 9/2/07, lucien < lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > John Hauck wrote:
> > > Richard G/Lucien:
> > >
> > > Would it not be sufficient to post your reference reg, to include
> > page,
> > > paragraph, and line?
> > >
> > > Think that would end your arguments.
> > >
> > > john h
> > > mkIII
> >
> >
> > The relevant FARs for Experimental certificates are in FAR part 21
> > subpart H.
> >
> > The rules concerning amateur built certification start in 21.191 and
> > continue on from there.
> >
> > Like I said, this is all in the regs, when in doubt read the rules....
> >
> > I think steve is simply confusing the difference between ELSA and EAB
> > regarding the EAA's comments about the grace period that expires in Jan.
> >
> > The rules for EAB have changed very little with the introduction of ELSA
> > to my knowledge and it's still available for anything that flies through the
> > air and can be shown to have been 51% built by an amateur for
> > recreation/education.
> > Dem's the facts....
> >
> > LS
> >
> > --------
> > LS
> > FS II
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132347#132347
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
OK - I saw the deadlines that you posted.
I am sitting here looking at my package from EAA
"How to Register and Certify You Ultralight".
I assume I am supposed to send in form 8050-1
and form 8050-88A to get an N-number (don't care which one).
I have a "Bill of Sale" from the kit manufacturer
so I guess I will check that box.
Then after the N-number is assigned the DAR comes out, right?
Our club has a DAR that does all our planes......so
have I missed any deadlines yet or was the August 15th
just a suggestion.
I would hate to continue to be illegal after 25 years, would like
to come from the cold. I'm gonna kinda stick out with no N-numbers
after Jan. 31. I guess that's the point in doing all of this.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> See also AC 20-27F, downloadable in PDF format. Paragraph 7 g (1) discusses kit
built aircraft.
> Notice the matrix of eligibility and the big fat X in the INELIGIBLE column for
the scenario "You hired someone to build the aircraft for you, and hiring this
person means you DID NOT FABRICATE AND ASSEMBLE THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE
AIRCRAFT. Note: Capitalization mine.
>
No, this statement addresses building the plane _for hire_. It does _not_ suggest
a general requirement that _you_ have to be the original builder of the aircraft.
>
> Now, I'm not sure how you can construe buying a used, unregistered, previously
flown aircraft as anything other than you paid to have the aircraft constructed
for you.
Huh? Easy - if the plane was originally built by an amateur solely for the purpose
of recreation/education AND you can document that, the plane was amateur-built.
Where are you getting this stuff?
>
> Also note that 7 f (2) and 7 g (3) concerns taking over projects, f is for plans
built aircraft, g is for kit built. Both describe keeping the previous builder's
log and adding your efforts to them. Both end with the sentence, "This
information may help us to determine that your aircraft is eligible for amateur-built
certification."
> What are you going to show the DAR or FAA. "Here's a picture of me pulling the
airplane from the hangar." Here's a picture of me putting it on the trailer".
Or, alternately, "Here's a picture of me flying the aircraft away."
> Whoa, boy, worked up a sweat doing that part of the fabrication and assembly.
> You keep saying the rules are the rules, Well there you have them.
>
Yep, you really do need to reread them, it doesn't sound like you've looked at
them too carefully to me.
Nothing you've presented supports anything you're saying.
Nobody ever said the regs allowed getting an EAB certificate for a plane WITHOUT
satisfying the requirements for that certification. You still have to do that,
clearly.
And finally.....
> Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
> 21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
> 21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion
of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the
construction process solely for their own education or recreation.
>
> No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete and
ready to fly"
>
Exactly and nobody ever said otherwise.
Now, notice the regs ONLY say "which has been fabricated and assembled by persons.....
soley for their own education and recreation"........
The reg does NOT say "only if you built the plane can you get the AW cert" or some
such.....
It only has to have been amateur built and can be documented as such....
hence my point....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132392#132392
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
Kolbers,
Yesterday, I flew up to Marion, Indiana to a fly-in. When I got there I
found they had closed the cross wind runway and I could not merge into the
GA traffic pattern. To get down, I cross the main runway at mid field and
made a right hand pattern for the parallel taxiway. On the first pass a
Varieze took the first ramp and I had to abort. On the second attempt I had
the taxiway made, and the engine quit.
At this point I made a poor decision to restart and diverted my attention
from landing. Thinking back, I wonder why I did this because I have
finished many flights with a quiet engine. I just dropped the nose a little
and made a nice approach and restarted the engine on the runway and taxi on
in. I glanced at the airspeed indicator and it said 40 mphi and I knew I
was in trouble because I was close to gross weight and I would not have
chance of making a good flare. I dropped the nose and picked up a little
more speed and flared. Impact was soft but I ended up with two bent landing
gear legs. Restarted the engine and taxied up to the fly-in proper. Ended
up with a prime spot, and talked with loads of people. Most did not notice
the bent gear. I was the only Kolb there.
Cranked up and carefully taxied it out and flew it back to Winchester. No
problems at all.
Now I have two legs to straighten because, I didn't continue to fly the
plane, got too slow, and I didn't make use of the flaperons. I purchased a
shop press for the hangar. I figure I may have to use it again, and having
it there will remind me to forget the unimportant things and keep flying the
FireFly.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Wichester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Lucien, This is getting pointless. The EAA will get back to me in a day or
two and I'll post their reply. I need to check in with my airworthiness guy
at the FSDO anyway, so I'll ask Jim, too, get his take and publish.
If I'm wrong, and I'm not, I'll buy you a cold one sometime.
Rick
On 9/2/07, lucien wrote:
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > See also AC 20-27F, downloadable in PDF format. Paragraph 7 g (1)
> discusses kit built aircraft.
> > Notice the matrix of eligibility and the big fat X in the INELIGIBLE
> column for the scenario "You hired someone to build the aircraft for you,
> and hiring this person means you DID NOT FABRICATE AND ASSEMBLE THE MAJOR
> PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT. Note: Capitalization mine.
> >
>
>
> No, this statement addresses building the plane _for hire_. It does _not_
> suggest a general requirement that _you_ have to be the original builder of
> the aircraft.
>
>
> >
> > Now, I'm not sure how you can construe buying a used, unregistered,
> previously flown aircraft as anything other than you paid to have the
> aircraft constructed for you.
>
>
> Huh? Easy - if the plane was originally built by an amateur solely for the
> purpose of recreation/education AND you can document that, the plane was
> amateur-built. Where are you getting this stuff?
>
>
> >
> > Also note that 7 f (2) and 7 g (3) concerns taking over projects, f is
> for plans built aircraft, g is for kit built. Both describe keeping the
> previous builder's log and adding your efforts to them. Both end with the
> sentence, "This information may help us to determine that your aircraft is
> eligible for amateur-built certification."
> > What are you going to show the DAR or FAA. "Here's a picture of me
> pulling the airplane from the hangar." Here's a picture of me putting it on
> the trailer". Or, alternately, "Here's a picture of me flying the aircraft
> away."
> > Whoa, boy, worked up a sweat doing that part of the fabrication and
> assembly.
> > You keep saying the rules are the rules, Well there you have them.
> >
>
>
> Yep, you really do need to reread them, it doesn't sound like you've
> looked at them too carefully to me.
>
> Nothing you've presented supports anything you're saying.
>
> Nobody ever said the regs allowed getting an EAB certificate for a plane
> WITHOUT satisfying the requirements for that certification. You still have
> to do that, clearly.
>
> And finally.....
>
>
> > Lucien, Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. And I quote:
> > 21.191 Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
> > 21.191(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the
> major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
> undertook the construction process solely for their own education or
> recreation.
> >
> > No where does it say "for the purpose of a used aircraft bought complete
> and ready to fly"
> >
>
>
> Exactly and nobody ever said otherwise.
>
> Now, notice the regs ONLY say "which has been fabricated and assembled by
> persons..... soley for their own education and recreation"........
>
> The reg does NOT say "only if you built the plane can you get the AW cert"
> or some such.....
>
> It only has to have been amateur built and can be documented as such....
>
> hence my point....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132392#132392
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, This is getting pointless. The EAA will get back to me in a day or two
and I'll post their reply. I need to check in with my airworthiness guy at the
FSDO anyway, so I'll ask Jim, too, get his take and publish.
> If I'm wrong, and I'm not, I'll buy you a cold one sometime.
>
> Rick
>
I don't agree that it's a pointless discussion, since it's kind of an important
point - it's relevant to us in particular because we fly amateur built aircraft,
so knowing the correct interp of the rules is pretty crucial for us.
In any case, you can't be right that noone other than the original builder of an
amateur built aircraft can apply for the AW cert. for it, not only because aircraft
have been certificated in these circumstances in the past but also because
the regs don't require this to be case to my knowledge.
You are, of course, quite right that EAB is NOT available for any aircraft that
CAN'T be shown to have been 51% amateur built - I don't want that point to get
lost in the shuffle of this, and I fully support your point on that.
I also agree that there are probably a fair number of "fat-UL" uncertificated planes
out there that won't pass EAB muster in this respect either.
This is a fact of the expiration of the so-called "(i) 1" ELSA provision that we've
been discussing.
But I am quarrelling with the misinterpretations that
a) EAB is not available for _any_ "fat-UL", _even if it can be shown to satisfy
the EAB cert. requirements_ merely as a consequence of the expiration of "(i)
1" at the end of Jan. That's simply wrong, as none of the EAB regulations have
changed substantively with the introduction of the ELSA category.
b) Noone other than the original builder can apply for and get an EAB cert. for
an amateur built a/c (provided that documentation exists for that plane that
it was in fact amateur built). Again I am reasonably sure that the regs support
me on this, which is why I'm arguing the point.
Of course, I could always be wrong in these cases, and I don't think I am, but
if so I will of course retract my argument. Either way, hopefully the correct
interp will come out in the end.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132416#132416
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flymichigan(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Rick,
Suppose I build a Kolb from a kit. It is complete, but I have not registered it
yet, or gotten an air worthiness cert. Then I get hit by a bus and die. Is
it your opinion that the plane can never be registered?? Someone buying the
plane did not hire it built. They bought a plane that was built for recreational
purposes.
Bryan Dever
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I glanced at the airspeed indicator and it said 40 mphi and I knew I was in trouble
because I was close to gross weight and I would not have chance of making
a good flare. I dropped the nose and picked up a little more speed and flared.
Impact was soft but I ended up with two bent landing gear legs.
Jack, I have the same question. How come you couldn't land on the runway? Were
you short on fuel? Did anyone say anything about landing on a taxiway? I would
think this would not be good, especially at a fly-in. Coming in at 40 is ok.
That's best glide speed for your Firefly. How did you happen to bend the gear?
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132425#132425
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
>
>Two questions....
>
>1. Why couldn't you use the runnway ???
>
>2. Is it "legal" to land on a taxi way.....
>
Mike,
When I crossed mid field I could see planes on the downwind to my right as
far as I could see and when I looked to the left they proceeded on out of
sight to turn base. I could not keep up with the radio chatter as to who
was ahead or behind. I flew in tight and came about and tried to pace them
to see if I could merge, but full throttle was not enough. So, I climbed
and passed back over mid field and landed on the end of the parallel taxi
way. Not many GA planes will land on the approach and turn off on the end
ramp.
Since the FireFly is an ultralight vehicle, I do not worry much about
landing on taxiways. It seems prudent to use them this way knowing that no
GA pilot would consider doing the same. I have not had a complaint. I am
nervous in this situation due to an experience at Perryville Municipal
Airport in Missouri. I was flying the runway to land just before the first
turn off. No chatter on the radio. I looked down and a jet passed by below
on the runway. He turned off at the same ramp, but to the other side. I
slipped over to a short parallel taxiway and landed. I assume he didn't see
me, and so I try to avoid mixing it up with aircraft that fly much faster
than the FireFly. Let them have the runway.
Next year, I will call and see if they will let me use the closed cross runway.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Since the FireFly is an ultralight vehicle, I do not worry much about landing on
taxiways.
Jack, ultralight vehicles are not exempt from the FARs, especially at airports
and at a fly-in. This is what gives ultralighters a bad name because they think
they are except from the rules.
In your situation, I would have have made sure I had plenty of reserve fuel and
circled at a safe distance from the airport. When there was a lull in traffic,
go in, make your pattern, and land.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 ExAB
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132431#132431
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
"I could not keep up with the radio chatter as to who
was ahead or behind."
This is your main problem. Forget abuot your bent landing gear.
Get a better headset, get a better radio, change the position of your
antenna or don't go to airports where you cant deal with the "chatter".
Mainly because we are exchanging important information that everyone needs
to understand so the concert of planes lands saftly on the runway in a
predictable fasion.
You land on a taxiway in Dallas Tx and you're going to have a lot of
explaining to do and you probably wont have your license after a stunt like
that.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Getting through ELSA |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
Thank you for the info. I guess I'm a little miffed about the whole ELSA business.
I'll get through it eventually.
Best Regards
Carlos
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132442#132442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
I landed my Hummer ultralight on a taxi way one day and got a severe
chewing out by the controllers. No fine, but a memorable situation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
If I were buying it, I'd ask your widow to get the experimental certificate,
then I'd buy it. The other option would be to take off the covering and redo
it, so I'd have a builder's log.
Look at it another way. You can go out and buy a Quicksilver kit, assemble
it all yourself and the FAA would not give you an E-AB experimental
certificate. You didn't do enough of the work to qualify as 51%. That's why
you don't see Quicksilver listed on the approved kit list.
If Lucien's logic was correct, why would there be an approved kit list at
all?
Rick
On 9/2/07, flymichigan(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Suppose I build a Kolb from a kit. It is complete, but I have not
> registered it yet, or gotten an air worthiness cert. Then I get hit by a
> bus and die. Is it your opinion that the plane can never be
> registered?? Someone buying the plane did not hire it built. They bought a
> plane that was built for recreational purposes.
>
> Bryan Dever
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Rick and Lucien,
Warning - Long Post.
Most of the posts by Rick are well thought out and I tend to agree with his conclusions/interpretations
most of the time. However, on this one, I truly believe
Lucien is correct. If Rick's interpretation was correct then no one could buy
a completed (or nearly so) pile of parts that has never been registered, then
do the last few things to make it flyable and then get the E-A/B A/W certificate,
because the guy who bought the un-registered vehicle (not yet an airplane)
did not do 51% of the work.
How many Kolbers have done something like this, i.e. bought someone else's partially
finished kit and did less than 51% of the work and registered it as E-A/B?
My guess is a lot have done this. If this were not the case there would be
zero market for partially completed kits, which of course is not the case. The
person who registers the aircraft as E-A/B does not have to be the builder. The
person applying for the repairman certificate for this particular E-A/B does
have to be the one or primary builder, if done by a group.
Another thing to remember/note. A flying vehicle (fat or skinny ul) that has never
been registered is not an aircraft (by FAA's definition) until it is registered
with the FAA and issued an A/W certificate of some kind. The fact that it
has been flying (perhaps illegally, perhaps under the UL trainer exemption,
perhaps as a legal UL) for years has nothing to do with whether it qualifies as
a 51% aircraft when it is eventually registered. The option to register it and
have its A/W certificate issued as an E-LSA expires next January. There is
no time limit or expiration date for registering a qualifying 51% amateur built
aircraft as such. Anyone flying this machine after that date if it is not registered
with the FAA and/or not certificated in some way by the FAA, is operating
illegally. Actually operating it today unless it is a legal UL or under the
training exemption is illegal, as it always has been. The fact that a flying
machine has been operated/flown illegally at any time in its past does not disqualify
it for registration and certification as an E-A/B at some future date
if it qualifies.
One more thing: What a particular person at a particular FSDO says is virtually
meaningless unless that person is the one who is doing the certification on the
aircraft in question. Ignorance in the FSDOs is abundant, especially in the
LSA area.
Lets not forget that E-A/B has not changed in any significant way in recent years.
The E-LSA business is now a limited time only OPTION for those that can meet
the requirements but not an obligation on the part of the owner of the flying
machine in question. One might think of it as a limited time amnesty opportunity.
The existence of this limited time only E-LSA option has nothing at all
to do with the ongoing E-A/B rules. One has nothing to do with the other.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132465#132465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flymichigan(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: heatin & beatin |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Kolbers,
I wish to publicly thank my good friend, Bob Bean, for his magnanimous help with
the FS cage repairs. I'll be buying him beer for the rest of his/my life...
sort of an annuity on his labor investment.
Still a lot of work yet to be done but something this non-welder(me) can probably
accomplish.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Albert Einstein
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132469#132469
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
Since we're talking abstract scenarios, how about the guy who built an RV
and tried to get it classified as a motor glider. He thought it was a great
way to get around having to worry about a medical and still be able to fly
fast. The RV flew, his hair brained idea, didn't.
Show me the rule there. The RV had a motor, and every landing would have
involved gliding. Why didn't he get the classification he wanted?
On the theoretical side........
I set up the Aeronautical Education Foundation. I'm the only paid employee,
but I never touch the aircraft. I staff it with high school kids who are all
unpaid interns. Can I pump out Cessna 150 clones and sell them to people
ready to fly, without any kind of paperwork except a kit on how to license
an E-AB? Why not?
I'm a mad scientist and I figure out how to implant the design knowledge of
Burt Rutan and the airplane building skills of Tony Bingelis into
chimpanzees. The high school kids wised up and I had to restaff the
foundation. Now can I build 150 clones and sell them to people ready to fly,
without any kind of paperwork except a kit on how to license an E-AB? Why
not?
We could spend all day dreaming up far fetched ideas to try and beat the
system, like talking heads on the noise trying to justify torturing
detainees.
Say, isn't this how ultalights got fat, grew an extra seat and the LSA rules
came about?
Rick
On 9/3/07, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> If I were buying it, I'd ask your widow to get the experimental
> certificate, then I'd buy it. The other option would be to take off the
> covering and redo it, so I'd have a builder's log.
> Look at it another way. You can go out and buy a Quicksilver kit, assemble
> it all yourself and the FAA would not give you an E-AB experimental
> certificate. You didn't do enough of the work to qualify as 51%. That's why
> you don't see Quicksilver listed on the approved kit list.
> If Lucien's logic was correct, why would there be an approved kit list at
> all?
>
> Rick
>
> On 9/2/07, flymichigan(at)comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > Suppose I build a Kolb from a kit. It is complete, but I have not
> > registered it yet, or gotten an air worthiness cert. Then I get hit by a
> > bus and die. Is it your opinion that the plane can never be
> > registered?? Someone buying the plane did not hire it built. They bought
a
> > plane that was built for recreational purposes.
> >
> > Bryan Dever
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
--
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: | IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
I am Mr. Narimba Baliushima. My uncle, the Air Minister of Nigeria, recently
died and left a warehouse full of Mig 21's. I was referred to the fine
people on the Kolb Forum for their good moral fiber and upstanding
character. My brother, Nimbwitsu, and I need help in recovering the
investment of the Nigerian people. For only three payments of $29.95. plus
shipping and handling, we will send you a Mig and a kit on how to license it
as an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. Please send your VISA card number
and authenticity code along with your choice of desert or jungle camouflage
paint scheme........................
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JR" <jrsmith2(at)triad.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
HaHaHa... I get these all the time, but you put an amusing twist to it !
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: IMPORTANT MESSAGE
I am Mr. Narimba Baliushima. My uncle, the Air Minister of Nigeria,
recently died and left a warehouse full of Mig 21's. I was referred to
the fine people on the Kolb Forum for their good moral fiber and
upstanding character. My brother, Nimbwitsu, and I need help in
recovering the investment of the Nigerian people. For only three
payments of $29.95. plus shipping and handling, we will send you a Mig
and a kit on how to license it as an Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft. Please send your VISA card number and authenticity code along
with your choice of desert or jungle camouflage paint
scheme........................
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
9/1/2007 4:20 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
JR, As my friend Scotty taught me 30 odd years ago, and they were some very
odd years, "You might as well laugh, it ain't getting any better."
Rick
On 9/3/07, JR wrote:
>
> HaHaHa... I get these all the time, but you put an amusing twist to it !
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2007 8:46 AM
> *Subject:* Kolb-List: IMPORTANT MESSAGE
>
> I am Mr. Narimba Baliushima. My uncle, the Air Minister of Nigeria,
> recently died and left a warehouse full of Mig 21's. I was referred to the
> fine people on the Kolb Forum for their good moral fiber and upstanding
> character. My brother, Nimbwitsu, and I need help in recovering the
> investment of the Nigerian people. For only three payments of $29.95. plus
> shipping and handling, we will send you a Mig and a kit on how to license it
> as an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. Please send your VISA card number
> and authenticity code along with your choice of desert or jungle camouflage
> paint scheme........................
>
> --
> 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: 9/1/2007 4:20 PM
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
>
>You land on a taxiway in Dallas Tx and you're going to have a lot of
>explaining to do and you probably wont have your license after a stunt like
>that.
>
David,
When I fly into a controlled air space airport, I have to get permission. I
have found that they usually want some ultralight vehicles on display. If I
am told to stay away, I do. I call a day before the fly-in. Then I call
again just before departing for the fly-in. We discuss how I am to approach
the airport, and how they will pick me up. Often they have me circle a
landmark on the edge of the airport at a given altitude. One time the
controller called me every fifteen minutes and described land features on
the flight path and I could click the mic button to indicated yes or no, so
he could determine my progress. They have been very courteous and I follow
the controller's instructions for landing and taxiing. I explain that if
there is much surface wind, I need to pay attention to the FireFly and
not be fiddling with the radio. When I leave I cell phone call or buddy with
someone else that is leaving who has a radio.
Using the radio to break into to a seemingly continuous landing queue would
be illegal. As an ultralight vehicle, the only thing with more priority is
an ultralight vehicle glider. And, since I have an ultralight vehicle, I do
not have a license to take away. The FAA has determined that the FireFly is
not an aircraft, so I believe it is the best policy to be as unobtrusive as
possible. I have never had a complaint about landing on a taxiway. If you
use the taxiway and approach in a tight pattern rotation on the same side as
the taxiway from the main runway, it is impossible to be responsible for a
runway incursion. If there is a cross wind, you do have to be careful of
wing tip and propeller wash from the main runway. But if you land on the
very end of the parallel taxiway, this is minimized.
The nice thing about a Kolb is that it is very easy to pick up other traffic
in front and to the sides, up and down. But I do get nervous about my back
when close to an airport. When flying into a non-tower airport, I use my
radio to announce my intentions, but as most of you know that is no
guarantee that everyone else is using or listening to a radio. There are
lots of GA aircraft flying without radios and a few others that do not
bother to use them in uncontrolled airspace. I remember how confined the
view was from the cockpit of Cessna or Cherokee. It would be very easy to
come up from behind on a landing approach and to be unable to see a FireFly.
At altitude in cruise the forward view is much better. On the way at 1,500
feet agl to and from the fly-in, GA aircraft caught up and passed by me.
One pilot waggled the wings as if to say "hello" or maybe it was "that crazy
idiot". I like to think the former. I felt sorry for them in that they had
to fly inside on such a beautiful day and miss so much of the view.
I am rambling.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
In re using radios -- of course they're not necessary, and the vast
majority of US airports don't have or require them . But if you have
one in your aircraft by all means keep it on and tuned to UNICOM or
the common advisory freq. This will keep things SAFER. You might
miss hearing something like "Gulfstream making a straight-in for
runway XX with both engines out" -- and you would like to know that.
Doesn't take any effort to LISTEN to what everyone else is doing.
Used to have permission to land on the grass area of our paved, tower-
controlled airport, as I could simply land, turn 90* and taxi to my
tiedown, without adding to the traffic flow at all.. All it took was
asking tower and the airport mgr. He's a self-important type, but
when it turned out I had more taildragger time than he had total
time, he gave his permission!
Point is, if you ask, most any reasonable request is usually granted.
Better than doing non-standard and unexpected maneuvers. And tower or
not, listen to the other guys flying with you.
Don't they say, "forewarned is forearmed"?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
planecrazzzy wrote:
> Two questions....
>
> 1. Why couldn't you use the runnway ???
>
> 2. Is it "legal" to land on a taxi way.....
>
> I don't understand why you couldn't enter the pattern ,
>
> I know you have a radio......?
>
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike & "Jaz" in MN
> .
> .
> .
Ust my .02,
I've flown various types of UL's and fat UL's at uncontrolled fields and now fly
my firestar II out of a class D airport. What I've found to be good practices:
- a generally accepted pattern procedure for ultralights is a pattern in the same
direction as the normal one but fly inside and below it. This way you're visible
to the other planes and you can sequence in with them in the normal way
by simply adjusting how high and far out from the runway you are.
- use the active runway at all times. Don't use the taxiway at all unless it's
just totally deserted and no one is around ;). The other guys will simply freak
out if you land on anything other than the runway they're using...
- wake turbulence is a huge deal in an ultralight. Even a C150's wake can put a
UL into the dirt. Extend your downwind a bit if someone's landing. This will
piss some guys off a little since you're plugging up the works, but if you dump
it on short final due to the wake they'll be a lot madder.
- go ahead and use a radio and learn the normal comm procedures. More than anything
this will keep tempers down and fascination with your plane up.
I've never flown an ultralight into a controlled field but I can almost not imagine
not using one if I did even with permission. If you're in contact with the
controller in the usual way the entry should be a non-event.
LS
-
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132502#132502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
A couple comments from a retired controller -
If you are flying out of a controlled field and you are concerned about wake
turbulence - ask for a short approach and a long landing. That way you will
be above wake turbulence from whoever else is landing. Of course, it the
traffic in question is a touch and go, disregard this advice.
If you are flying out of an uncontrolled field and you are concerned about
wake turbulence, make a short approach and a long landing, staying above the
wake turbulence of the landing aircraft. This reduces your extended
vulnurability on final, you are less likely to get "cold-nosed." Once again,
if the traffic in question is touch and go, disregard.
If you are flying a Firestar II into a controlled field, then you are not
flying an ultralight, you are flying an experimental, and you need to advise
the controller accordingly. How I would have handled an ultralight and how I
would have handled an experimental aircraft requesting to come in and land
are miles apart. U/L vehicles are not aircraft (legally) and cannot be
treated as such, neither can you treat an U/L vehicle driver as you would a
pilot. Why? Because a vehicle is not reqauired to have a compass, an
altimeter, or an airspeed indicator, neither is the driver required to know
how to use them. So how do you give vectors, assign headings or altitudes,
or provide seperation services to U/L's? Legally, you can't. Practically,
maybe, but if it goes wrong, the controller is really out on a limb.
Be glad to expand on this if anyone cares.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Did It Again.
> Ust my .02,
>
> I've flown various types of UL's and fat UL's at uncontrolled fields and
> now fly my firestar II out of a class D airport. What I've found to be
> good practices:
>
> - a generally accepted pattern procedure for ultralights is a pattern in
> the same direction as the normal one but fly inside and below it. This way
> you're visible to the other planes and you can sequence in with them in
> the normal way by simply adjusting how high and far out from the runway
> you are.
>
> - use the active runway at all times. Don't use the taxiway at all unless
> it's just totally deserted and no one is around ;). The other guys will
> simply freak out if you land on anything other than the runway they're
> using...
>
> - wake turbulence is a huge deal in an ultralight. Even a C150's wake can
> put a UL into the dirt. Extend your downwind a bit if someone's landing.
> This will piss some guys off a little since you're plugging up the works,
> but if you dump it on short final due to the wake they'll be a lot madder.
>
> - go ahead and use a radio and learn the normal comm procedures. More than
> anything this will keep tempers down and fascination with your plane up.
>
> I've never flown an ultralight into a controlled field but I can almost
> not imagine not using one if I did even with permission. If you're in
> contact with the controller in the usual way the entry should be a
> non-event.
>
> LS
>
>
> -
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132502#132502
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
OP
Not to challenge a retired controller, but how can any pilot
"disregard this advice" about wake turbulence following a touch-&-go
aircraft?
It generates the same wake turbulence whether it stops on the
runway or keeps rolling.
Any pilot of any aircraft should have been briefed on wake
turbulence, preferably by seeing the FAA's free film on same;
educational and mildly terrifying
He should know to land BEYOND the aircraft ahead's touchdown point,
and lift off BEFORE the point where the other aircraft does
Or he shouldn't be flying from airports at all.
On Sep 3, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Richard Pike wrote:
>
> A couple comments from a retired controller -
> If you are flying out of a controlled field and you are concerned
> about wake turbulence - ask for a short approach and a long
> landing. That way you will be above wake turbulence from whoever
> else is landing. Of course, it the traffic in question is a touch
> and go, disregard this advice.
>
> If you are flying out of an uncontrolled field and you are
> concerned about wake turbulence, make a short approach and a long
> landing, staying above the wake turbulence of the landing aircraft.
> This reduces your extended vulnurability on final, you are less
> likely to get "cold-nosed." Once again, if the traffic in question
> is touch and go, disregard.
>
> If you are flying a Firestar II into a controlled field, then you
> are not flying an ultralight, you are flying an experimental, and
> you need to advise the controller accordingly. How I would have
> handled an ultralight and how I would have handled an experimental
> aircraft requesting to come in and land are miles apart. U/L
> vehicles are not aircraft (legally) and cannot be treated as such,
> neither can you treat an U/L vehicle driver as you would a pilot.
> Why? Because a vehicle is not reqauired to have a compass, an
> altimeter, or an airspeed indicator, neither is the driver required
> to know how to use them. So how do you give vectors, assign
> headings or altitudes, or provide seperation services to U/L's?
> Legally, you can't. Practically, maybe, but if it goes wrong, the
> controller is really out on a limb.
>
> Be glad to expand on this if anyone cares.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 11:48 AM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Did It Again.
>
>
>> Ust my .02,
>>
>> I've flown various types of UL's and fat UL's at uncontrolled
>> fields and now fly my firestar II out of a class D airport. What
>> I've found to be good practices:
>>
>> - a generally accepted pattern procedure for ultralights is a
>> pattern in the same direction as the normal one but fly inside and
>> below it. This way you're visible to the other planes and you can
>> sequence in with them in the normal way by simply adjusting how
>> high and far out from the runway you are.
>>
>> - use the active runway at all times. Don't use the taxiway at all
>> unless it's just totally deserted and no one is around ;). The
>> other guys will simply freak out if you land on anything other
>> than the runway they're using...
>>
>> - wake turbulence is a huge deal in an ultralight. Even a C150's
>> wake can put a UL into the dirt. Extend your downwind a bit if
>> someone's landing. This will piss some guys off a little since
>> you're plugging up the works, but if you dump it on short final
>> due to the wake they'll be a lot madder.
>>
>> - go ahead and use a radio and learn the normal comm procedures.
>> More than anything this will keep tempers down and fascination
>> with your plane up.
>>
>> I've never flown an ultralight into a controlled field but I can
>> almost not imagine not using one if I did even with permission. If
>> you're in contact with the controller in the usual way the entry
>> should be a non-event.
>>
>> LS
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> --------
>> LS
>> FS II
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132502#132502
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
>>>>>>When I fly into a controlled air space airport, I have to get
>>>>>>permission. I
have found that they usually want some ultralight vehicles on display. If I
am told to stay away, I do. I call a day before the fly-in. Then I call
again just before departing for the fly-in. We discuss how I am to approach
the airport, and how they will pick me up. Often they have me circle a
landmark on the edge of the airport at a given altitude. One time the
controller called me every fifteen minutes and described land features on
the flight path and I could click the mic button to indicated yes or no, so
he could determine my progress. They have been very courteous and I follow
the controller's instructions for landing and taxiing. I explain that if
there is much surface wind, I need to pay attention to the FireFly and
not be fiddling with the radio. When I leave I cell phone call or buddy
with
someone else that is leaving who has a radio.
Using the radio to break into to a seemingly continuous landing queue would
be illegal. <<<<<
Ok I understand more now. You had permission and my plane can go faster. At
a crowded airport I get in line fly at 80 mph and keep it that way till
short final and let the faster planes bedhind me deal with it, while I do
what I was ask to do, what is llegal, predictable and expected. I'm not sure
your last sentence is right, I haven't seen anything that says using the
radio to break into a continuous landing quee is illegal and between landing
on taxiway or breaking in line I'd break in line. Rather have a problem with
another pilot than the FAA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Richard Pike wrote:
> A couple comments from a retired controller -
> If you are flying out of a controlled field and you are concerned about wake
> turbulence - ask for a short approach and a long landing. That way you will
> be above wake turbulence from whoever else is landing. Of course, it the
> traffic in question is a touch and go, disregard this advice.
>
> If you are flying out of an uncontrolled field and you are concerned about
> wake turbulence, make a short approach and a long landing, staying above the
> wake turbulence of the landing aircraft. This reduces your extended
> vulnurability on final, you are less likely to get "cold-nosed." Once again,
> if the traffic in question is touch and go, disregard.
>
This is what I'd do at our airport except it's virtually always the case that the
landing traffic is touch-and-go. So unless the controller needs me to do a
short approach or I'll otherwise keep him too busy, I typically request extending
my downwind and/fly the pattern really slow (did the pattern at 60mph in the
titan last night after a beech jet landed in front of me).
But if the controller needs me to do X, I damn sure comply and do X unless I'm
unable or in my judgement as PIC it'll be a hazard....
I.e. day before yesterday we were cleared for takeoff, but there was a Mig holding
short of the active in front of us waiting to takeoff too...... so I kind
of had to tell the tower about that one ;).
>
> If you are flying a Firestar II into a controlled field, then you are not
> flying an ultralight, you are flying an experimental, and you need to advise
> the controller accordingly. How I would have handled an ultralight and how I
> would have handled an experimental aircraft requesting to come in and land
> are miles apart. U/L vehicles are not aircraft (legally) and cannot be
> treated as such, neither can you treat an U/L vehicle driver as you would a
> pilot. Why? Because a vehicle is not reqauired to have a compass, an
> altimeter, or an airspeed indicator, neither is the driver required to know
> how to use them. So how do you give vectors, assign headings or altitudes,
> or provide seperation services to U/L's? Legally, you can't. Practically,
> maybe, but if it goes wrong, the controller is really out on a limb.
>
> Be glad to expand on this if anyone cares.
>
That's a good point that I didn't think about.... BTW, my FSII is registered experimental
A/B so he's properly equipped and legal at our airport. But I sort
of take a compass, ASI, alt and comm for granted, didn't think about what a controller
would have to deal with if one of more of those wasn't available in an
incoming plane......
Interesting....
I should also mention the controllers are pretty enthralled by my Firestar, they
mostly look at spam cans and jets all day so I'm pretty different....
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132512#132512
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
russ(at)rkiphoto.com wrote:
> OP
> Not to challenge a retired controller, but how can any pilot
> "disregard this advice" about wake turbulence following a touch-&-go
> aircraft?
> It generates the same wake turbulence whether it stops on the
> runway or keeps rolling.
> Any pilot of any aircraft should have been briefed on wake
> turbulence, preferably by seeing the FAA's free film on same;
> educational and mildly terrifying
> He should know to land BEYOND the aircraft ahead's touchdown point,
> and lift off BEFORE the point where the other aircraft does
> Or he shouldn't be flying from airports at all.
>
Actually, no it doesnt, in my experience. Another wake is created further upwind
as the plane takes off again in a TnG situation. In a full stop, you just have
the wake created on landing. So above and beyond the path of the landing a/c
will keep you out of the wake in that case, but you can still hit the wake created
on departure in the TnG situation.
Don't ask me how I know this.....
But in case of a full stop on landing traffic in front of me in calm conditions,
I'll ask the tower for a long landing, even in the titan....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132515#132515
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
In case anyone is interested, Bev and I will arrive at Kolb Factory around
noon Wedneday in the RV with Slingshot in tow. Gotta take Mamma on this
one. I still have the 582 on the Slingshot. Will demo it and be willing to
take it off plane if purchased. Am picking up 912 at homecoming for
installation so the 582 with everything attached is up for grabs. Has oil
injection, radiator either a brand new warp three blade or ivo. all you
gotta do is drop it on your own plane and put the wires and gas line to it
and you are ready to go with a really good running blue head. about 180
hours on it. hope to see you all there. I could sell it earlier but then I
would not have anything to fly while I was there. If you arent really big,
I could take you for flight to show you the power of the engine. If you are
building a plane and want to cut your time, effort and $$ down considerably
this is the power plant for you. I have done all the work. $5500 with the
IVO and $6000 with the Warp. if interested, call 1-334-480-0822 or email me
off list. Ted Cowan, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
Because if the aircraft you are following is doing a touch and go, then you
have to be able to stay above his flight path of his final, touch down just
beyond where he touched down, and not so far along that you get into his
fresh wake generated by his liftoff. And I prefer not to tell anybody how to
do that, because if they mess up, it would not be a smiley-face day.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Kinne" <russ(at)rkiphoto.com>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Did It Again.
>
> OP
> Not to challenge a retired controller, but how can any pilot "disregard
> this advice" about wake turbulence following a touch-&-go aircraft?
> It generates the same wake turbulence whether it stops on the runway or
> keeps rolling.
> Any pilot of any aircraft should have been briefed on wake turbulence,
> preferably by seeing the FAA's free film on same;
> educational and mildly terrifying
> He should know to land BEYOND the aircraft ahead's touchdown point, and
> lift off BEFORE the point where the other aircraft does
> Or he shouldn't be flying from airports at all.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
>
>Using the radio to break into to a seemingly continuous landing queue would
>be illegal. <<<<<
David,
I was at an non control tower field (MZZ). As I am flying an ultralight
vehicle, I am supposed to give way to all other flying aircraft.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New guy with questions |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Bryan, We're not talking about taking over projects, that's done all the time.
We're talking about buying a used, previously flying, unregistered aircraft
and the buyer being allowed to get an E-AB certificate for it.
>
> Rick
>
Well I'll be interested to hear what your sources say about this, but I don't see
anything in the regs that special-case this, provided documentation exists
for it that it was originally amateur built.
My titan was flown the first few hours as a registered UL trainer under the exemptions,
but was later granted an Exp A/B AW cert. This was done by the original
owner, but I don't see why it couldn't have been done by someone else later
as long as the builders log and etc. changed hands in the sale.....
Anyway, this thread is probably dead now, so....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132645#132645
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | E-AB and the FAA |
All, I called my local FSDO this morning and talked to them about the issue
that's been the hot topic here for the last few days.
"Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it
certificated as Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB)?"
And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise.
To be absolutely sure, I also called the FAA Light Sport Branch in Oklahoma
City. (405)954-6400. I asked the same question,
"Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it
certificated as E-AB?"
And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise, again.
And what was the source they quoted? FAR 21.191g and AC 20-27f.
So, for those who can't see why not. Here's why not.
THE FAA WON'T DO IT.
Now this thread is truly closed.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
The FAA says "no", but we all know that it's been done. My DAR told me to have
a builders log and photos to show him prior to the inspection. Well, he never
asked to look at them when it was inspected. I had to bring it up and show him.
There is a local guy who registered his Sky Ranger as E-AB and he bought the plane
built. The DAR gave him an airworthiness cert with no questions asked.
When I submitted my paperwork for my repairmans cert at the local FSDO, they FAA
never asked for my builders log or photos even though they asked me to bring
them along.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 ExAB
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132689#132689
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Just pull the wings, wheels, tail other parts and reassemble with some pics. When
it is assembled at a certain point it can qualify. Just say you rebuilt it.
Worked for me.
Kind of a pain, but it works and meets the rule for building.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132697#132697
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Things to see from a Kolb in the air |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
<< El Mirage Dry lake California where I will be test flying my Kolb
soon.
... 5 miles of pavement flat salty runway ahead down there...perfect for
test flying or extended crow hops - Ray >>
Ray -
Although those salt flats appear landable, be careful about landing on
"dry" lake beds. Guess how I know?
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
Impact was soft but I ended up with two bent landing
> gear legs.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack B:
Sorry to hear about your incident.
Those soft impacts will bend Kolb gear legs every time.
Didn't say why your engine would not idle. Got the impression from your
post that engine stoppage at idle happened frequently. Got a fix for it?
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
> 2. Is it "legal" to land on a taxi way.....
>
> I don't understand why you couldn't enter the pattern ,
>
> Mike & "Jaz" in MN
Mike:
My thoughts on your questions. Forgive me for commenting late. Been out of
town for a couple days.
Not legal to land on a taxiway unless it was a dire emergency.
Don't need a radio to enter traffic and land. However, an ultralight
vehicle has last priority in the chain. Everyone else has priorty over an
UL vehicle, legally. I think I could have probable found a way to get in
the pattern and land without landing on the taxiway.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exchanging Airplanes |
Ellery:
Where do you plan to find enough room in an Xtra to stash you gear for a
long cross country?
john h
mkIII
Well I guess I will be parting with the Firestar soon to get into a
Mk3 Extra Kit I want something that has enough room to carry all the
things I would need for a long cross country
Ellery in MAINE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
John, et al, To those of you who wrote to say you did it or know someone who
did it and got away clean, all I can say is, sure. We all know it happens,
there is always someone who gets away with something, ask O.J.
My problem is encouraging someone to do that without suffering the
consequences should that person be the one who hits the stickler guy or the
thorough detail guy.
If we, as the responsible group we are, begin encouraging someone with
advice that is patently false, and that person suffers harm, are we the
responsible upright group we claim to be?
I know there are people who are part of this group who do loops in their
Kolbs, but when a fellow said he wanted to be able to that, he was told get
the Titan.
I know I caught it from some of you when I described my ham handed attempt
to check my ailerons for flutter after I put on the counter weights and
slipped well past the Mk III's VNE. I would never encourage anyone to do
that, and believe me, I'll never do it again, the pucker factor was just too
high. I'd feel darn stupid explaining why I had to deploy the BRS to the
other guys here on the strip. I'd feel darn dead if the BRS hadn't solved
the result of my own ineptitude.
Look at the response to Jack Hart's arrival. A few people took exception to
how he handled it, but most responded with a, "this is how I handled this
situation when it happened to me", story. I've been in Jack's situation, but
I learned something from the replies, and different ways of looking at it. I
especially appreciated Mike's response, coming from a former controller.
As for the IMPORTANT MESSAGE, I just couldn't resist. If I offended someone
with it, you'll have to take my word for it that I didn't mean to. It made
me laugh when I thought of it and I was hoping it would someone else, too.
Rick
On 9/4/07, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> All, I called my local FSDO this morning and talked to them about the
> issue that's been the hot topic here for the last few days.
> "Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it
> certificated as Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB)?"
> And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise.
> To be absolutely sure, I also called the FAA Light Sport Branch in
> Oklahoma City. (405)954-6400. I asked the same question,
> "Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it
> certificated as E-AB?"
> And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise, again.
> And what was the source they quoted? FAR 21.191g and AC 20-27f.
> So, for those who can't see why not. Here's why not.
> THE FAA WON'T DO IT.
> Now this thread is truly closed.
>
> Rick
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
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: Did It Again. |
And then there are the four magic words, if you have a radio. That gets you
to the top of the food chain, post haste. Just be able to prove it
afterward, should you be asked.
Rick
On 9/4/07, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> > 2. Is it "legal" to land on a taxi way.....
> >
> > I don't understand why you couldn't enter the pattern ,
> >
> > Mike & "Jaz" in MN
>
>
> Mike:
>
> My thoughts on your questions. Forgive me for commenting late. Been out
> of
> town for a couple days.
>
> Not legal to land on a taxiway unless it was a dire emergency.
>
> Don't need a radio to enter traffic and land. However, an ultralight
> vehicle has last priority in the chain. Everyone else has priorty over an
> UL vehicle, legally. I think I could have probable found a way to get in
> the pattern and land without landing on the taxiway.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> All, I called my local FSDO this morning and talked to them about the issue that's
been the hot topic here for the last few days.
> "Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it certificated
as Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB)?"
> And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise.
> To be absolutely sure, I also called the FAA Light Sport Branch in Oklahoma City.
(405)954-6400. I asked the same question,
> "Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it certificated
as E-AB?"
> And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise, again.
> And what was the source they quoted? FAR 21.191g and AC 20-27f.
> So, for those who can't see why not. Here's why not.
> THE FAA WON'T DO IT.
> Now this thread is truly closed.
>
You seem to have left out the most important part of the question
"... provided documentation exists that the plane was 51% built by an amateur solely
for his/her education or recreation"
Did you happen to specify this?
Of course they're going to (correctly) answer no to the question you posed....
But that's not the question pertinent to this thread......
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132783#132783
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
The new Sport Aviation mag covers a little bit on this issue.
September 2007 page 10.
"His concern is that people aren't building their own airplanes but
certificicating them as though they had."
"The FAA officials are concerned about what it calls abuses of the 51%
rule."
"I can not acccept a policy that would support amateur-built aircraft
certification for airplanes that are not built by their owners"
I think this covers your case. They call it abuse.
>From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: E-AB and the FAA
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:36:54 -0700
>
>
>jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > All, I called my local FSDO this morning and talked to them about the
>issue that's been the hot topic here for the last few days.
> > "Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it
>certificated as Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB)?"
> > And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise.
> > To be absolutely sure, I also called the FAA Light Sport Branch in
>Oklahoma City. (405)954-6400. I asked the same question,
> > "Can a buyer of a previously uncertificated, complete aircraft get it
>certificated as E-AB?"
> > And the answer is.....NO. Big surprise, again.
> > And what was the source they quoted? FAR 21.191g and AC 20-27f.
> > So, for those who can't see why not. Here's why not.
> > THE FAA WON'T DO IT.
> > Now this thread is truly closed.
> >
>
>
>You seem to have left out the most important part of the question
>
>"... provided documentation exists that the plane was 51% built by an
>amateur solely for his/her education or recreation"
>
>Did you happen to specify this?
>
>Of course they're going to (correctly) answer no to the question you
>posed.... But that's not the question pertinent to this thread......
>
>--------
>LS
>FS II
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132783#132783
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ELT Installation |
| From: | "ropermike" <ropermike2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello guys! Once again I come to draw upon your ultimate wisdom. I am getting my
Mkll ready for my E-LSA flightworthy inspection. I have ordered an AmeriKing
AK-450 ELT. Where is the best place to install it? Thanks in advance....Mike
--------
The next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing!...Mike Hillger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132802#132802
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
I have the same ELT. Need the same info. for my Firestar II. I understand the remote
is not an option - but a requirement. Not sure if I have enough real estate
on my dash.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132804#132804
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
Here is a picture of the ELT location on the FSII. The remote switch is on the
side of the fuselage ahead of the throttle lever, can shoot you a picture tomorrow
if you want.
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/FSII%20Hot%20Box.html
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132806#132806
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
As a faa-ticketed mech, I have installed a bunch of ELTs in GAs, some
were AKs. The main point is to make certain the box is very securely
bolted/fastened to the airframe...Ty-raps are NG. The box has to
"feel" the sudden stop/crash to get a signal out of it. I bolted or
riveted the mount longitudinally to a primary structure. The panel
control can be mounted most anywhere. Until anyone gets over the leg-
bending, maybe they oughta switch to OFF on landing!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exchanging Airplanes |
Ellery:
If you are going to build a new one, now is the time to determine how
you want to configure it for cross country flight.
Most everyone that builds a Kolb never considers fuel and cargo space
until after they get it flying. Then they get tired of flying around
the patch and want to venture out on cross country and extended cross
country flights. Now they want cargo room and fuel.
As far as the other seat is concerned, I don't particularly like putting
cargo in that area. I tried it once. Makes a much nicer flight desk to
carry flight essential "stuff".
I would not want less than 25 gal fuel and enough cargo space to stow
enough gear to keep me going for a long time.
Looking at the new Xtra, there is enough space for a toothbrush and a
couple MRE's.
The open area above and behind the bulk head is a perfect place for a 25
gal fuel tank. Utilizing this normally unused space opens up the lower
rear area for cargo. Individual seats that are hinged in the front
allow stowage of equipment behind and under the seats. I can get 6 to 8
MRW's and 35 sectionals in the nose of my old mkIII. The floorboard in
front of the passenger seat is also a good place to stow a large bag of
supplies, tools, and gear.
Take care,
john h
mkIII - 2,705.1 hours
912ULS -136.6 hours
Well there is enough room To cary more than in My Firestar the other
seat is a big plus for starters
Ellery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
You mentioned VNE. What is the Vne on a Kolb Mark III Classic?. I
accidently hit 100 mph before I understood my new winglets effect in a
power on slight dive. Lots of elevator back pressure required. I cut
the lower cuffs off of the winglets and the problem went away. But
still....how fast can you go before things start falling off, such as
the airlerons.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
Not legal to land or takeoff from a taxi way? Tell that to the Navy and
Marines. They do not obey any laws except their own. A Marine
helicopter took off from a taxiway when I was landing at an airshow and
turned me and my ultralight upside down. I requested that they pay for
the damage of $1200 and they blew me off for the second time. What is
their famous saying?...."Kill them all and let God sort it out."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
I just ordered enough Max-Gain "E" fiberglass 1.5" dia rods for 3 gear
legs. Will let you know if they do the job that the 7075-T6 legs do
not.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
| From: | "ropermike" <ropermike2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks for the help guys. What is this about a required remote switch? My DAR did
not mention this to me.....Thanks, Mike
--------
The next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing!...Mike Hillger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132819#132819
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
> I just ordered enough Max-Gain "E" fiberglass 1.5" dia rods for 3 gear
> legs. Will let you know if they do the job that the 7075-T6 legs do
> not.
Maybe you need to change pilot technique.
I still bend heat treated 4130 legs. Still trying to change my landing
technique. Don't bend'em unless I drop it in.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | APilot(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
You are absolutely right. I should wheel land. Actually, I am not all
that critical of the aluminum legs because I know that they have saved
my fuselage several times. I have also appreciated my tension wires
between the axles. I snapped two of them recently and the gear leg
stayed straight. Lets hope that my experiment with the fiberglass will
solve all the problems. The danger is: If one should break....there
goes a wing. I plan to over sleeve the lower stress riser. We shall
see. I often wonder why Kolb has not tried this over the years and made
a report on it. Max-Gain has supplied many axles/legs for Challengers
with good success. With the gear reliable and with a good 4 cycle
engine such as the 912, Geo, HKS etc., the Kolb will be the most perfect
"Fun" airplane that I have ever flown. So good, in fact, I may go
somewhere in it someday.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
Copy paste from Challenger list:
"Hello. I too have a Challenger II LW and use fiberglass gear legs and
I'm
just delighted about them. They absorb shock very well whereas aluminum
legs
will absorb loads but sometime stay bent.
You can buy them from
SKYES THE LIMIT! - Mike Harrison
Phoenix AZ
602-938-9735
Harrison3(at)cox.net
or in Canada
Turbulence Aviation
http://www.turbulence.ca/an
or better still, you can make your own from stock fiberglass rods at a
fraction of the price, at Max Gain System.
http://www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm
An 8 foot rod would cost you about $60.00." End quote
Main thing is to save the cage..abt 2.5 k or so on the Firefly and
goes up from there.. :-) Herb
> I just ordered enough Max-Gain "E" fiberglass 1.5" dia rods for 3
> gear
> legs. Will let you know if they do the job that the 7075-T6 legs
> do
> not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
dhkey(at)msn.com wrote:
> The new Sport Aviation mag covers a little bit on this issue.
> September 2007 page 10.
>
> "His concern is that people aren't building their own airplanes but
> certificicating them as though they had."
>
> "The FAA officials are concerned about what it calls abuses of the 51%
> rule."
>
> "I can not acccept a policy that would support amateur-built aircraft
> certification for airplanes that are not built by their owners"
>
> I think this covers your case. They call it abuse.
>
No, it doesn't. Getting an EAB AW cert. for an airplane that was 51% built by an
amateur for his/her recreation/education is compliance with, and not abuse of,
the rule. That's the point here....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132832#132832
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <jhm9812(at)yahoo.com> |
In regards to the remote. I was told by a DAR that it is required and it must be
positioned in an area that can be seen "comfortably" from the PIC seat. I read
that to mean the front panel.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132833#132833
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Please send your VISA card number and authenticity code along with your choice
of desert or jungle camouflage paint scheme........................
> --
>
I only want Cub Yellow :D Was going to buy one for that great price, but I just
dont like thier colors.
JetPilot
--------
"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=132840#132840
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
I believe, but can't document any regs on this, that if the switch on the ELT is
reachable in flight, then a remote is not required. The primary reason for the
remote switch is to be able to control it from the pilot's seat and since the
vast majority of Standard Category aircraft have the ELTs located as far aft
as possible, per recommendations, then a remote switch is a requirement to make
it controllable in flight.
Back when I was flying a Cherokee, and the original ELT (located near the tail)
went belly up, we had to replace it plus add the remote switch to be legal.
On our Allegro 2000, which is a factory built S-LSA, the ELT is located just behind
the pilot/passenger seats and reachable in flight. It has no remote switch
and was certificated that way.
--------
Thom in Buffalo
N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
"...as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not
a friend to truth."
Thomas Paine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132847#132847
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
>
>dhkey(at)msn.com wrote:
>> The new Sport Aviation mag covers a little bit on this issue.
>> September 2007 page 10.
>>
>> "His concern is that people aren't building their own airplanes but
>> certificicating them as though they had."
>>
>> "The FAA officials are concerned about what it calls abuses of the 51%
>> rule."
>>
>> "I can not acccept a policy that would support amateur-built aircraft
>> certification for airplanes that are not built by their owners"
>>
>> I think this covers your case. They call it abuse.
>>
One important point taken from the above article is that "The FAA's
particular concerns lie with quick build kits, for which the manufacturer
virtually always fabricates major components."
You can buy an unfinished project from a builder and successfully comply
with the 51% rule.
Examples can be seen on page 82 - "Relief Builder"
On page 76 "Members Forum"
On page 129, three building projects are for sale.
The fact that these articles were written and that these projects are
advertised indicates that the owner does not have to build 51%. It implies
that the FAA is applying a 51% amateur built rule.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
The September 2007 issue of Sport Aviation magazine page 10 clearly suggests
that you registering an plane EAB that was built by someone else [insert
your favorite words here] is considered an abuse. (please read the article)
The atricle says "REGISTERING AN AIRPLANE E-AB THAT WAS BUILT BY SOMEONE
ELSE IS AN ABUSE." It's because YOU are not the builder". The fact that it
was built by someone else is why the spirit of the rule is not in favor of
you registering it.
The phrase "SOMEONE ELSE" is your problem not why it was built.
You have several choices.
You can pretend it doesn't say that.
You can pretend the plane wasn't built by someone else.
You can pretend the FAA guy that was called was wrong.
You can contine to say that the question wasn't ask using the right words.
You can say hey they didn't say my particular name in the rule so maybe I
can.
You can say they didn't say I couldn't register a Kolb built by someone else
EAB.
I am not the one who can tell you you can or can't. So really it makes no
diffrence what I say. Call or write the FAA yourself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
>
>I am not the one who can tell you you can or can't. So really it makes no
>diffrence what I say. Call or write the FAA yourself.
>
David,
I agree with you. BUT until those who monitor the system follow and enforce
the reg's nothing is going to change. If I worked for the FAA and valued my
job, and I recieved such a call about the rules, I would give book answer
too. It is kind of like "Bait and Switch". I will tell you the rules, but
most know how it is really done. If and when the rules are applied as
written, the Sport Aviation mag will have no uncompleted projects for sale,
and the articles will not involve transfer of project ownership. What you
will see is that projects will involve mulitiple owner/builders so that if
one drops out the project can be successfuly completed without with out
financial loss.
Enough
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
Hello
guys! Once again I come to draw upon your ultimate wisdom. I am getting
my Mkll ready for my E-LSA flightworthy inspection. I have ordered an
AmeriKing AK-450 ELT. Where is the best place to install it? Thanks in
advance....Mike
Mike --
In my MkIIIC, I put my AK-450 ELT behind the left seat, mounted on a
tube. The remote control was placed, of course, on the panel. The hard
parts were the ELT mount, which I had to fabricate, and then a place to
put the antenna, which, again, I had to find a place for (I made an
aluminum "box" that fits around my large capacitor) and fabricate a mount.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
dhkey(at)msn.com wrote:
> The September 2007 issue of Sport Aviation magazine page 10 clearly suggests
> that you registering an plane EAB that was built by someone else [insert
> your favorite words here] is considered an abuse. (please read the article)
>
> The atricle says "REGISTERING AN AIRPLANE E-AB THAT WAS BUILT BY SOMEONE
> ELSE IS AN ABUSE." It's because YOU are not the builder". The fact that it
> was built by someone else is why the spirit of the rule is not in favor of
> you registering it.
>
Not interested in what a magazine says. I'm interested in what the _FARs_ say.
I want this assertion of yours backed up by a _regulation_ - then I'll be convinced
it's illegal or improper.
Please cite a _regulation_ that specifically disallows EAB cert. of an airplane
51% built by an amateur for recreation/education.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132875#132875
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
Why haven't you called you local FAA office?
>From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: E-AB and the FAA
>Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:38:36 -0700
>
>
>dhkey(at)msn.com wrote:
> > The September 2007 issue of Sport Aviation magazine page 10 clearly
>suggests
> > that you registering an plane EAB that was built by someone else [insert
> > your favorite words here] is considered an abuse. (please read the
>article)
> >
> > The atricle says "REGISTERING AN AIRPLANE E-AB THAT WAS BUILT BY SOMEONE
> > ELSE IS AN ABUSE." It's because YOU are not the builder". The fact that
>it
> > was built by someone else is why the spirit of the rule is not in favor
>of
> > you registering it.
> >
>
>
>Not interested in what a magazine says. I'm interested in what the _FARs_
>say.
>
>I want this assertion of yours backed up by a _regulation_ - then I'll be
>convinced it's illegal or improper.
>
>Please cite a _regulation_ that specifically disallows EAB cert. of an
>airplane 51% built by an amateur for recreation/education.
>
>LS
>
>--------
>LS
>FS II
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132875#132875
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Homecomming, if I only had 1 day. |
Guys, for those have attended the Kolb Fly-in, Which day would be the
bst to attend if I could only be there 1 day? & what is the best 2nd
day, in case I get 2?
Thanks, Jim Kmet (Planning on flying up in my MK-3C)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homecomming, if I only had 1 day. |
Hi Jim K:
If I had one day, I would plan on Saturday.
If I had two days, Friday and Saturday.
Hope you can make it both days, and have a great flight.
john h
mkIII
Guys, for those have attended the Kolb Fly-in, Which day would be the
bst to attend if I could only be there 1 day? & what is the best 2nd
day, in case I get 2?
Thanks, Jim Kmet (Planning on flying up in my MK-3C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Installation |
| From: | "ropermike" <ropermike2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Larry and everyone else for the help and pictures. I talked to my DAR this
morning and he said if the ELT can be turned on easily from the pilot seat,
the remote was not mandentory. I will decide where to mount it when it comes
in and go from there...thanks again, Mike
Soon to be "N177RM"
--------
The next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing!...Mike Hillger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=132936#132936
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary aman <gaman(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
I have tried the fiberglass gear legs,made up the axle fabrications and really
like the way they level out the ride taxiing on rough ground.But they don't fit
the cage well,ID of the sockets is a bit larger,and after ten Hrs,I took them
off and saw the pressure points wearing on the glass from the sockets.I tried
brass shim stock to line the sockets,and that seemed to cure that.But if you
pull your plane backward into a trailer after every flight as I do, the flex
in the legs makes them toe out as you pull it backwards and it gets real hard
to pull uphill.The final reason I pulled them was I could not get a firm quote
on the breaking point of the 1 1/4 rods at the length we use.
All this probably gives you some insight into my ability to execute
smooth landings with any regularity,but if anyone wants to try them,the legs
are here with the steel fabrications attached,and mountings holes drilled.They
are painted black. You may have them for the come and gett'in
herbgh(at)juno.com wrote:
Copy paste from Challenger list:
"Hello. I too have a Challenger II LW and use fiberglass gear legs and I'm
just delighted about them. They absorb shock very well whereas aluminum legs
will absorb loads but sometime stay bent.
You can buy them from
SKYES THE LIMIT! - Mike Harrison
Phoenix AZ
602-938-9735
Harrison3(at)cox.net
or in Canada
Turbulence Aviation
http://www.turbulence.ca/an
or better still, you can make your own from stock fiberglass rods at a
fraction of the price, at Max Gain System.
http://www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm
An 8 foot rod would cost you about $60.00." End quote
Main thing is to save the cage..abt 2.5 k or so on the Firefly and goes up
from there.. :-) Herb
> I just ordered enough Max-Gain "E" fiberglass 1.5" dia rods for 3
> gear
> legs. Will let you know if they do the job that the 7075-T6 legs
> do
> not.
>
>
> ==========
> Email BR>> Archive and much href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> ==========
> nbsp; available href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E-AB and the FAA |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
dhkey(at)msn.com wrote:
> Why haven't you called you local FAA office?
>
Because the burden of proof isn't on me - I didn't make the claim that there was
some circumstance under which an a/c built by an amateur couldn't get an EAB
AW cert, Richard did.
So, I'm simply asking for support for that claim.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133026#133026
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Did It Again. |
As I am flying an ultralight vehicle, I am supposed to give way to all
other flying aircraft.>>
Hi,
that is a problem that we dont have in the UK. Steam still gives way to
sail at sea but in the air a plane is a plane is a plane.Except that we all
give way to balloons.
Are you persona non grata because you are unregistered? All aircraft are
registered here. Gliders in the UK but not in Europe have been unregistered
for years but even the gliders have lost that distinction recently in our
rush to regularise things across Europe.
Interesting the way our systems differ. As usual there are swings and
roundabouts(carousels). The problems about selling or registering a plane
by someone other than the builder which is a hot topic on the list at the
moment is just something which does not arise here. On the other hand we do
not have the freedom of your Experimental category .
We have moved a little way toward it though by allowing a really light
ultralight to be built without having to receive a C of A. It will have to
have a noise certificate however and be registered.
The dead hand of bureaucracy is everywhere. Lucky you in spite of the
problems seem to have more freedom left than most of us.
Cheers
Pat ( Still waiting for the paperwork to arrive so that I can test fly my
repaired Xtra.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
I am Mr. Narimba Baliushima. My uncle, the Air Minister of Nigeria,>>
Great Richard,
I really laughed at that one
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IMPORTANT MESSAGE |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> I am Mr. Narimba Baliushima. My uncle, the Air Minister of Nigeria, recently
died and left a warehouse full of Mig 21's.
>
Have to admit I got a really good chuckle out of this too.... very good stuff.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133191#133191
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Caution- Pictures and non-Kolb content!--- It's a Girl! |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
I am happy to announce the completion of my first nine month building project.
Elizabeth Anne Hankins was born Sept 4th @ 1:45PM. She was 8lbs-3oz and 20-1/4"long.
We have just come home from the hospital and all is well with the world.
I'm so proud I could bust. Here are some pictures below. Now I need two
seats!
In other news, my E-LSA registration was waiting in the mailbox. Looks like I'll
be N1682C after the rest of the process is finished (there, now this is sort
of Kolb related)
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133200#133200
August 14, 2007 - September 07, 2007
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gw