Kolb-List Archive Browser

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-hc
December 14, 2007 - January 09, 2008

> well...just because I can. > >> And a great bunch of people to hang with as well. > > The one statement I won't disagree with. > > By now you're all steamed up thinking I'm a stuck-up GA type > with his big, nasty, fast complex airplane who looks down on > anyone who can't muster at least 160kts. My Kolb FS2 sits in the > same hangar, and sees about as much use, as that evil 4-place > beast. Each has its purpose and fills a specific need. Would I fly > the FS2 to PA and back to OK in four days? Sure, only if I > wanted to stay 20 minutes before leaving again. Would I drag > out the Viking for an evening flight around the countryside at 100 > feet? Not likely. > > Just a quick calc shows that it would take me about 95 gals to > get to PA, one way....that's at an honest 55 mph, no wind, and > would take 23:20 to cover 1034 miles, RNAV direct. That's flying > time. Not counting the 16+ stops that each eat up at least 40 > minutes or more. Have to stop for the night unless registered > and lighted. Sometimes, time is the most valuable thing you > have. > > > Jim Baker > 580.788.2779 > Elmore City, OK > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Real Airplanes
From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2007
For what it's worth, I flew my (now Bob's) FSII out of a class D field for a while with nary a snide comment from anyone. In fact, the controllers were absolutely enthralled by it as it was quite a break from the jets and cessna trainers they normally watched all day. Course, I tried to be a good citizen who always behaved, followed the rules and did what the controllers told him. So if I may say so myself, at least my airport has a good taste in their mouth left over from Kolbs. Even the titan I fly now gets called "ultralight" from time to time, and he goes 100mph...... But when the tower says go there I go there...... that really helps our image a lot. I too don't understand how any non-living thing that flies through the air can't be considered a "real airplane". Bad behavior by a few bad apples can indeed sully that image, but a well behaved Kolb is, in my experience, acceptable even at a busy class D.... LS -------- LS FS II Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152108#152108 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bolts with AFC X marking on them??
They're AN bolts. The "X" means they're grade 6. Go to: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/airsec/Aircraft/Hardware/Bolts.html click on undrilled and look at the picture. Rick On Dec 13, 2007 8:04 PM, grantr wrote: > > What kind of bolt has AFC and a X on the head? > > Thats the only marking on various sized bolts. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152060#152060 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Oh Wise Ones, Can someone enlighten me to what the advantage(s) are of licensing a plane as ELSA, compared to the regular experimental catagory? I must admit, I failed to recognize the difference. Currently, I am building a MkIII. I have a plain old private pilot's license which allows me to fly my Cessna 172 (which is for sale in Trade a Plane). As far as I cared, I was just going to license this MkIII as "experimental". If I could license it as ELSA (it's probably too late for me now, anyway) does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a "sport license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? I would appreciate some basic clarification. Thanks Mike Welch Kolb MkIII _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Poly Fiber 101
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Tip of the day I have just recovered my fuselage with Poly Fiber. That stuff is amazing! One thing I was VERY concerned about was the heat settings on the iron for shrinking the fabric. I bought a candy thermometer, and tried to "calibrate" the iron. It was NOT very accurate. I bounced around all over the place with marks. One mark would indicate 250. Did another temperature, made a new mark. Came back, and then the first mark said 300. Back and forth, back and forth! After messing with it for an hour, I said "NO stinking way am I going to shrink my fabric with these setting"!!! I called a new friend I met up at the local airport, who is virtually finished building his FirestarII. (He's not much into computers, and is not a member of this list) I asked if he had something to get me on the right track. He says "oh yeah!" and then he lends me his hand-held infrared digital thermometer. I go home, quickly calibrate my iron, and commence shrinking. And this time, I had absolutely NO fear of destroying my hard work. I found it best to keep the " temperature gun" in your other hand, while you iron. Every minute or so, check the surface of the iron to verify the proper heat temp, and you can just "fly" through the shrinking job, having the full confidence you are on the right track. You will see things like....the surface of the iron varies by as much as 50+ degrees, depending on where you point the lazer spot, and the iron loses about 25+ degrees, as you skim across the surface of the fabric. Here is an example of what I'm referring to on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Infrared-IR-Thermometer-w-Laser-Guide-Great-Tool-HVAC_W0QQitemZ220182537999QQihZ012QQcategoryZ50974QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Just in case you haven't done the Poly Fiber Fabric yet, if you heat the fabric with a "TOO HOT" iron, the fabric will shrink as much as possible, and then completely "relax" and sag, where it will not tighten again. And if that happens you're in deep doo doo. You must then removed the entire panel and start over. Having just used this this infrared temperature gauge gun, I can safely say this is something I am no longer afraid of doing. This item should be mandatory in the application of Poly Fiber fabric. There ya go!! Your Poly Fiber tip for the day!! From lousy novice to expert, in only one hour: Mike Welch Kolb MkIII with tight-ass fabric. PS I bought one of these for me, for the remainer of my fabric shrinking needs! Plus, I can drive my cat nuts with the lazer dot. _________________________________________________________________ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_122007 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 14, 2007
> does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a "sport license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? > > I would appreciate some basic clarification. Thanks > > Mike Welch Kolb MkIII Mike W: I am no expert on this, and do not follow the regs closely as pertains to it. However, the way I understand the system, if you do not take your next scheduled Class III Medical and you have a Private ticket, you are automatically a Sport Pilot if you have a valid drivers license. And, you can fly your experiemental MKIII as a Sport Pilot. If you take the medical and flunk it, then you have to jump through all the hoops and prove to the FAA that you are medically fit to fly again, and you do not automatically become a Sport Pilot. I asked my old country doc who gives me my flight physical, to let me know if he thinks I am not going to pass my next Class III, and I won't fill out the Med History and flunk it. He told me not to worry, I wasn't going to flunk the Class III any time soon. Take care, john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Poly Fiber 101
Date: Dec 14, 2007
> Just in case you haven't done the Poly Fiber Fabric yet, if you heat the > fabric with a "TOO HOT" iron, the fabric will shrink as much as possible, > and then completely "relax" and sag, where it will not tighten again. > > Mike Welch Kolb MkIII with tight-ass fabric. MikeW: I think you may be mistaken on the above. I don't think you can get the polyester dacron hot enough with the iron to "melt" the fabric. That is the only way I could think of that would allow the fabric to relax and sag permanently. In sub-freezing weather the fabric will relax a little, one reason the insure the fabric is shrunk to the max. Hotter weather encourages the fabric to stay tight. I shrink fabric on my Kolbs to the max. When I start to get tube distortion, then I quit shrinking. I want the fabric tight. john h mkIII - May not be the way you all do it, but it works for me. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Mike, not a "wise one" (maybe a wise***) but you already have a light sport license by default. As long as you drive airplanes under 1320 lbs and no more than two seats you can dispense with the useless flight physical. Unfortunately you still have to comply with the biennial flight review. The ELSA hocus pocus has something to do with using the plane for commercial purposes which doesn't appear to be largely in Kolb territory. Stick with experimental. BB On 14, Dec 2007, at 11:01 AM, Mike Welch wrote: > > > Oh Wise Ones, > > Can someone enlighten me to what the advantage(s) are of > licensing a plane as ELSA, compared to the regular experimental > catagory? I must admit, I failed to recognize the difference. > > Currently, I am building a MkIII. I have a plain old private > pilot's license which allows me to fly my Cessna 172 (which is for > sale in Trade a Plane). As far as I cared, I was just going to > license this MkIII as "experimental". If I could license it as > ELSA (it's probably too late for me now, anyway) > does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a > "sport license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? > > I would appreciate some basic clarification. Thanks > > Mike Welch Kolb MkIII > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! > http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Bolts with AFC X marking on them??
AN bolts are not grade 6, though they may be roughly comparable in strength to SAE grade 6 (a class which was discontinued years ago). The "X" means it's an AN bolt, non corrosion resistant (as opposed to a dash for a stainless bolt or a double dash for an aluminum bolt). The spec allows the manufacturer to add their own head markings, which is probably what the "AFC" is. See http://tinyurl.com/2xu7as for the official AN specification. -Dana At 10:59 AM 12/14/2007, Richard Girard wrote: >They're AN bolts. The "X" means they're grade 6. > >Go to: ><http://www.chiefaircraft.com/airsec/Aircraft/Hardware/Bolts.html>http://www.chiefaircraft.com/airsec/Aircraft/Hardware/Bolts.html > > >click on undrilled and look at the picture. > >Rick > >On Dec 13, 2007 8:04 PM, grantr ><grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> wrote: >>< grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> >> >>What kind of bolt has AFC and a X on the head? >> >>Thats the only marking on various sized bolts. -- Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com>
Subject: Poly Fiber 101
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Yes, you CAN get the fabric too hot and melt the fabric. Been there and done that just a month ago on a Challenger wing. It made a loud 'pop' when the fabric melted and let go. I had a hole the size of the iron. Fortunately, it was in a small section that was boxed between ribs, leading edge and leading edge wrap. It was easy to patch and you can't tell it was ever there. I had a cheapie iron that was all over the place with temps, even though I was monitoring it with a digital laser thermometer. I now use a higher quality iron that's more stable and check it more frequently. J.D. Stewart UltraFun AirSports, LLC http://www.ultrafunairsports.com Challenger e-mail list http://challenger.inebraska.com Titan e-mail list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Titanaircraft/ > > > > > Just in case you haven't done the Poly Fiber Fabric yet, > if you heat > > the fabric with a "TOO HOT" iron, the fabric will shrink as > much as possible, > > and then completely "relax" and sag, where it will not > tighten again. > > > Mike Welch Kolb MkIII with tight-ass fabric. > > MikeW: > > I think you may be mistaken on the above. > > I don't think you can get the polyester dacron hot enough > with the iron to "melt" the fabric. That is the only way I > could think of that would allow the fabric to relax and sag > permanently. > > In sub-freezing weather the fabric will relax a little, one > reason the insure the fabric is shrunk to the max. Hotter > weather encourages the fabric to stay tight. > > I shrink fabric on my Kolbs to the max. When I start to get > tube distortion, then I quit shrinking. I want the fabric tight. > > john h > mkIII - May not be the way you all do it, but it works for me. > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Tightening Poly Fabric
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Hello John H. While I haven't experienced it (ruining the fabric), I was only going by what the Poly Fiber Installation Book said. On page 14 is says: *250 degrees is used for the initial tightening and to smooth wrinkles from seams before final heat tightening. *350 degrees is for the final tightening. *Above 350 degrees the fabric gets looser, permanently looser! Next, they qualify the excess temperature with this explanation: "At about 350 degrees polyester filaments start to thermo-soften and lose all measurable tension. At 415 degrees they start to disinegrate. Not good at all. You can see why calibration is so important. Don't guess or assume your iron's dial is accurate." I guarantee my iron will get hotter than 415 degrees!! I admit I am not a Poly Fiber expert, and have yet to complete ONE finished product. It's just that I really want to go by the book in this case, and don't want to assume ANYTHING. Especially, my abilities to guess at a temperature. All I'm saying is I felt very confident in tackling the shrinking job, once I had something in hand that showed me instantaneous temperature readings. Have a nice day, Mike Welch Re: Sport Pilot license advice...thanks. I think before long I will be giving up on the factory models. There may be a Firefly in my future, someday. _________________________________________________________________ im is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
At 11:01 AM 12/14/2007, Mike Welch wrote: > Can someone enlighten me to what the advantage(s) are of licensing a > plane as ELSA, compared to the regular experimental catagory?... If I > could license it as ELSA (it's probably too late for me now, anyway) >does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a "sport >license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? If you're building it now, you can't license it as ELSA. ELSA is only for "grandfathered" fat ultralights, and new approved LSA kits. E-AB is your only option. However, if it meets the LSA requirements (2 seats, weight, etc.), a sport pilot can fly it, as can a Private with no medical (exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot). -Dana -- Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 14, 2007
I'm not a expert on the regulations but I didn't renew my medical when it came due and I have since gotten a biannual flight review in a 172. Since I now fly only LSA "airplanes" I have no need to get a medical but can get one if I ever decide to fly anything else and I don't risk loosing everything if I have a bad medical. I still have a private pilot license so there is no paper work required but I'm not current (as a private Pilot) due to the lack of a medical. The private license gives me a bunch of advantages when flying a LSA. I can fly any LSA make and model without being type certified, I can fly into controlled airspace without an additional endorsement, I can fly the faster LSAs without additional ratings , and I can get my biannual in any LSA or most any GA aircraft I choose to fly. About the only down side (that I can think of) of not having a medical is that I can't fly at night. It seems like that is a limitation of the LSA category. This is the way I remember it. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Experimental vs. ELSA > > > > does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a "sport > license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? >> >> I would appreciate some basic clarification. Thanks >> >> Mike Welch Kolb MkIII > > > Mike W: > > I am no expert on this, and do not follow the regs closely as pertains to > it. > > However, the way I understand the system, if you do not take your next > scheduled Class III Medical and you have a Private ticket, you are > automatically a Sport Pilot if you have a valid drivers license. And, you > can fly your experiemental MKIII as a Sport Pilot. > > If you take the medical and flunk it, then you have to jump through all > the hoops and prove to the FAA that you are medically fit to fly again, > and you do not automatically become a Sport Pilot. > > I asked my old country doc who gives me my flight physical, to let me know > if he thinks I am not going to pass my next Class III, and I won't fill > out the Med History and flunk it. He told me not to worry, I wasn't going > to flunk the Class III any time soon. > > Take care, > > john h > mkIII > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 14, 2007
As a card-carrying greybeard, I had concerns about blowing the Class II medical, but just passed it. The Doc said if she found anything disqualifying, she'd simply stop; and mark the form "airman did not finish exam". The forms are all numbered and she has to turn it in -- but at least you wouldn't have flunked the physical. Talk it over first! On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:55 AM, John Hauck wrote: > > > > does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a > "sport license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? >> >> I would appreciate some basic clarification. Thanks >> >> Mike Welch Kolb MkIII > > > Mike W: > > I am no expert on this, and do not follow the regs closely as > pertains to it. > > However, the way I understand the system, if you do not take your > next scheduled Class III Medical and you have a Private ticket, you > are automatically a Sport Pilot if you have a valid drivers > license. And, you can fly your experiemental MKIII as a Sport Pilot. > > If you take the medical and flunk it, then you have to jump through > all the hoops and prove to the FAA that you are medically fit to > fly again, and you do not automatically become a Sport Pilot. > > I asked my old country doc who gives me my flight physical, to let > me know if he thinks I am not going to pass my next Class III, and > I won't fill out the Med History and flunk it. He told me not to > worry, I wasn't going to flunk the Class III any time soon. > > Take care, > > john h > mkIII > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Poly Fiber 101
Date: Dec 14, 2007
> Yes, you CAN get the fabric too hot and melt the fabric. > > J.D. Stewart JD: My comments were referring to good, reliable equipment, although I probably did not indicate it. Anything is possible to screw up if you work at it hard enough. A funny mistake I made very early on covering Kolbs, was to rid a piece of tightened fabric of an unsightly thread. Lit the thread with a cigarette lighter and promptly had a hole the size of a silver dollar to patch. ;-( Vaguely, in the cob webs of my mind, I remember reading something in the old Stitts Manual reference melting fabric. I believe it stated an iron set at 350 deg could be left sitting on a panel of polyester dacron without melting it. Said it would leave a brown image of the iron plate, but would not harm the fabric. I make a lot of mistakes, but have never left a hot iron on fabric, walked off, and forgot it was there. Take care, john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bolts with AFC X marking on them??
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2007
yes that is the bolt head. I keep reading that AN bolts have numbers on them to determine what size they are. Why don't these have a "an3-4" or similar number? I need some new bolts but these are the only markings. I can always measure them. :D Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152194#152194 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Real Airplanes
Date: Dec 14, 2007
> I see what you mean Rick, and the GA community will also be seen as a > nuisance and dangerous undisciplined pilots by the Very Light Jet Aircraft > pilots that can use the same 3,000' GA strips. Hi Boyd Y: Chickens have been doing it for millenniums. Called the "pecking order" I believe. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Shrinking Poly Fiber
Date: Dec 14, 2007
John H. Yes, you are correct. The Poly Fiber Manual says a 350 degree iron can be left in one spot for a long time. It is NOT the time that does the shrinking, it is the temperature. 350 degrees will shrink the fiber to it's maximum, and even if you leave the iron in one place for quite awhile, nothing else will happen. A long time ago (6+ years), when I was much further along building this MkIII than I am now, I had covered the fuselage. I was never really sure if it was as tight as I could get it. But, even then I didn't have the most accurate temperature calibrating method. It is entirely possible I was only using 275 degrees. To be honest, I don't really know. That's why I say I feel more assured of checking the iron every minute or two with the IR Thermometer. I like being able to look at a spot on the surface of the iron and know it is "349 degrees", or whatever it is. Of course, with your experience level, you may not feel the need for such accuracy, but I don't have a fraction of your covering experience. Like the good advice I received from everyone in regards to cutting and drilling Lexan, I am tired of doing things twice!! I like latching onto "fail safe" methods that keep me from screwing things up. That way, when my plane is finished, it can look like I knew what I was doing, instead of the truth...which is asking for a lot of advice and pointers. Undoubtedly, my Kolb MkIII will be a better finished product due to the help offered by the members here in this forum. Mike Welch MkIII in SW Utah _________________________________________________________________ im is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: slow in the air only
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Theoretical VNE 100 MPH (aileron flutter @75) maybe this year I'll stick those balancers on :) DSCN1486.JPG VNE 150 DSCN1487.JPG

________________________________________________________________________________
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Gang, My 447 Firefly Has always been plagued by EGT's at or over 1200* between 4000 rpm and 5400 rpm. If I put in more pitch, that cools EGT's a bit but causes CHT's to increase. CHT's are already as high as 400* at times so adding more pitch is not the answer. I have the prop pitched for 6250 static. The EGT temps are higher now that I am flying in 50* weather. My main jet is 165 , needle jet.270, jet needle 15k2, with clip in the lowest position. I have searched the archives all afternoon and have not found a solution. It seems that going to a .272 needle would help. Anyone have a similar problem and solve it ? Ed ( Firefly 062) **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Kulp" <undoctor(at)ptd.net>
Subject: Re: Real AirplanesReal Airplanes
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Real Airplanes You have missed my point. I agree with everything you said but Kolbs ARE real airplanes. We need to present that image to the aviation community. Most uninformed General Aviation pilots look at the Kolb boom tube and are convinced that they are ultra lights.Golly, Rick, you're going to be really chaffed if you look at page 1-38 in the current JeppesenPrivate Pilot Textbook. I got a kick out of it... they ask the question, "What is an ultralight", and guess what the wizards put a picture of!! Check it out.Dave KulpBethlehem, PAFireFly 098 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Yep, I had the same problem with mine. I had to change the main jet needle from the stock one- 15k2 to the next size which is 15E5U to get the mid range right. Cost is about $7 bucks art CPS. It was controllable after I replaced the stock one. Larry C ----- Original Message ----- From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:High Egt's Gang, My 447 Firefly Has always been plagued by EGT's at or over 1200* between 4000 rpm and 5400 rpm. If I put in more pitch, that cools EGT's a bit but causes CHT's to increase. CHT's are already as high as 400* at times so adding more pitch is not the answer. I have the prop pitched for 6250 static. The EGT temps are higher now that I am flying in 50* weather. My main jet is 165 , needle jet.270, jet needle 15k2, with clip in the lowest position. I have searched the archives all afternoon and have not found a solution. It seems that going to a .272 needle would help. Anyone have a similar problem and solve it ? Ed ( Firefly 062) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2007
From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
At 06:58 PM 12/14/2007, you wrote: > > Gang, > > My 447 Firefly Has always been plagued by EGT's at or over > 1200* between 4000 rpm and 5400 rpm. If I put in more pitch, that > cools EGT's a bit but causes CHT's to increase. > CHT's are already as high as 400* at times so adding more pitch > is not the answer. I have the prop pitched for 6250 > static. The EGT temps are higher now that I am flying in 50* > weather. My main jet is 165 , needle jet.270, jet needle 15k2, > with clip in the lowest position. I have searched the archives all > afternoon and have not found a solution. It seems that going to a > .272 needle would help. > Anyone have a similar problem and solve it ? The "old manual" on the 447 said that the correct EGT cruising temp was 1200 - that meant it was not too rich (using too much gas) and not to lean (would hurt the engine). I you want to check it at 1200, pull the enricher (choke) if you have one and see if it doesn't drop your RPMs. I know it's not the same on a 503. I think you could even find it on "Airwolf's" old web site. That's just my recollection - I had one for 6 or 7 years and that's what I would run on trips. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Real AirplanesReal Airplanes
Date: Dec 14, 2007
Dave No that doesn't surprise me a bit. Exactly what make and model airplane is it? If you could send me the exact title and copy right date off the list I will discuss this with them. Thanks. No not archive Rick Neilsen Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kulp To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:18 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Real AirplanesReal Airplanes Subject: Re: Real Airplanes You have missed my point. I agree with everything you said but Kolbs ARE real airplanes. We need to present that image to the aviation community. Most uninformed General Aviation pilots look at the Kolb boom tube and are convinced that they are ultra lights. Golly, Rick, you're going to be really chaffed if you look at page 1-38 in the current JeppesenPrivate Pilot Textbook. I got a kick out of it... they ask the question, "What is an ultralight", and guess what the wizards put a picture of!! Check it out.Dave KulpBethlehem, PAFireFly 098 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2007
From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
>>My main jet is 165 , needle jet.270, jet needle 15k2, with clip in >>the lowest position. I have searched the archives all afternoon and >>have not found a solution. It seems that going to a .272 needle would help. >> Anyone have a similar problem and solve it ? > >The "old manual" on the 447 said that the correct EGT cruising temp >was 1200 - that meant it was not too rich >(using too much gas) and not to lean (would hurt the engine). I you >want to check it at 1200, pull the enricher (choke) >if you have one and see if it doesn't drop your RPMs. I know it's >not the same on a 503. I think you could even find >it on "Airwolf's" old web site. >That's just my recollection - I had one for 6 or 7 years and that's >what I would run on trips. Here it is: http://www.800-airwolf.com/pdffiles/ARTICLES/part12.pdf The old finicky single carb 447 is not tuned the same as a dual carb CDI 503. At cruise speed "5800 RPM" - I think 1200 is fine. It should drop as you back off the throttle. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DAquaNut(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Bill, I always run Exxon mid or low octane with 10% alcohol. I can't get gas without alcohol here. The last time I looked at the plugs they were a light brown color. Maybe It would run cooler with higher octane???? At 5800 rpms it runs about 1100 EGT. Its only around 4100---- 5400 rpms it goes over 1200. Was not as bad till temps got in the 50's here. I may try a different needle as the problem seems to be in the midrange. Fly safe, Ed Diebel **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re:High Egt's
In a message dated 12/14/2007 7:07:03 P.M. Central Standard Time, lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com writes: Yep, I had the same problem with mine. I had to change the main jet needle from the stock one- 15k2 to the next size which is 15E5U to get the mid range right. Cost is about $7 bucks art CPS. It was controllable after I replaced the stock one. Larry Larry. I am going to get a new needle ASAP and give "R a try. Thanks. Ed **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Landing in High Grass
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2007
My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot elevation difference from one end to the other. I take off downhill and land uphill due to obstructions near the uphill end. I mow the strip about 20 feet wide and have smooth ground next to the mowed part with about 6 inch high grass. Sometimes when I come back from a flight, the wind has come up, and I have as much as a 10 mph tailwind, which makes stopping, even uphill a bit of a challenge. I've been thinking of using the mowed portion for takeoff, but landing in the grass next to the mowed portion to help stop. I'm not sure how high the grass would have to be to become a noseover danger while rolling out. Here's the question: How high can the grass be before it becomes too high to safely land on? I'm sure there is a lot of experience out there, good and bad - sure would like to hear the stories. -------- Dave Bigelow Kamuela, Hawaii FS2, HKS 700E Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152300#152300 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Real Airplanes
Date: Dec 15, 2007
There are a few privately owned ones that have been the recipients of fed funds. If so they cannot refuse entry to a legal N-numbered aircraft.>> We had this problem with ultralights being unwelcome at airfields a few years ago but it seems to have sorted itself out now. It was usually a perceived problem with the mixtures of speeds in the ciruit. Most ultralight pilots have learned to keep their speed well up until the last moment and the trouble seems to have taken care of itself. Many airfields now advertise `Ultralight welcome` Of course the problem is not helped by idiots flying as slowly as possible in the pattern just to prove some imagined point. Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Firefly
Date: Dec 15, 2007
I think I would increase the wing area so I could use a stock 447, 3-blade prop, brakes, and any other accessories you wanted. Bigger flaps might be an easy way to do it. If that was insufficient I'd extend the wing span.>> Hi Jim, you don`t quote which post you are replying to but if it was my post about UK new sub 115kg class you could do all of those things. But watch the total empty weight. That is what makes the whole thing self regulating. You put in a bigger engine, you need a bigger wing. The bigger wing weighs more. You want the extra weight of flaps then it has to be saved somewhere else. Bigger tanks...ditto. Cheers Pat. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: Dec 15, 2007
We still have folks with Kolbs that want to talk about Challengers for some very odd reason.>> and a Merry Christmas to you too John. Pat :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Mike, I'm not sure Matt's system allows attachment of .pdf files, but if it does, you can see the attached .pdf file that does a good job of explaining the differences among the ELSA, SLSA, and Exp. A/B rules for flight, training, maintenance etc. If Matt's system does not allow this type of attachment let me know and I'll send it to you directly. This should eliminate the speculation on the differences. -------- Thom in Buffalo N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Finance is the art of passing money from hand to hand until it finally disappears. - Robert W. Sarnoff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152316#152316 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/lsa_sp_rules_table_111.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
From: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Dana wrote: > At 11:01 AM 12/14/2007, Mike Welch wrote: > > > > Can someone enlighten me to what the advantage(s) are of licensing a > > plane as ELSA, compared to the regular experimental catagory?... If I > > could license it as ELSA (it's probably too late for me now, anyway) > > does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a "sport > > license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? > > > > > > If you're building it now, you can't license it as ELSA. ELSA is only for > "grandfathered" fat ultralights, and new approved LSA kits. E-AB is your > only option. However, if it meets the LSA requirements (2 seats, weight, > etc.), a sport pilot can fly it, as can a Private with no medical > (exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot). > > -Dana > -- > Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope) E-LSA is for any Light Sport eligible aircraft including experimentals. If you built it, you can register it E-AB or E-LSA. E-AB allows the builder to inspect his own plane himself, whereas the E-LSA requires taking a 16- hour course to inspect your plane or any other E-LSA's that you own. The deadline for registering E-LSA is January 31st, 2008. The EAA has petitioned the FAA to extend the deadline to June 30th if you have your registration by the deadline. One advantage of E-LSA over E-AB is the plane may be worth more at the time of sale, because the buyer can inspect it without an A&P as E-AB would require. There is no deadline for E-AB registration, so if you miss the E-LSA deadline, you can register it E-AB. Ralph B -------- Ralph B Original Firestar N91493 E-AB 21 years flying it Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152322#152322 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ElleryWeld(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KolbFlyerJim(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re: Duplication
Hi all Jim here I get every nessage at least 4 times is there any way to prevent this? Jim UltraStar N2613M **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Patrick: Merry Xmas to you and Windy. When is the big day to fly your Kolb? john h mkIII and a Merry Christmas to you too John. Pat :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 15, 2007
> My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot elevation difference from one end to the other. > Dave Bigelow Dave B: I'd opt for better braking which I have control over. Length of grass, I have no control over the amount of drag once I am committed. If the grass has too much drag, you may find yourself on your nose or back. I moved the main gear and positioned of the axles 8" forward of their original position on my MKIII. This improves my ability to use maximum braking without fear of going up on the nose. It also gives me the ability to negotiate tall grass, weeds, brush, soft sand, mud, and other obstacles, and keep the tail wheel on the ground. In addition, I can do a full power run up and keep the tail on the ground. On the negative side, with a little over 100 lbs on the tail wheel, I no longer have the gentle ground handling characteristics found on standard Kolbs. I have a true tail dragger. If you doze at the controls, it will sway ends. However, with a little experience and practice, a good set of differential brakes, it has not proven a problem for me, but a tremendous asset. Take care, john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Dave I have a one way strip with about the same elevation change but my strip is almost 1400'. I do down wind takeoffs or down wind landings all the time with no problems but the length of the strip helps. I actually prefer down win landings over up wind because up wind landings can surprise you with decreasing air speed just as you get near the ground. As for the length of maximum grass length. I don't think anyone can answer this for you. It depends on the rolling resistance of the grass, the CG of you plane at the time, the size of your tires, your landing technique, to name just a few. I frequently land at a friends strip that I swear the grass is a foot tall at times but it is a new strip so the grass is patchy and thin. This strip never causes me any problems. I had a forced landing in a bean field a few years ago that was a challenge. The beans were only 6-8" tall and I was able to put the main gear in the rows between the beans and the tail wheel down first in the beans. The tail got snagged by the beans and pulled me to a stop in 15-20 ft with no nose over. I was lucky!!!!! My $.02 worth Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:34 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Landing in High Grass > > My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot elevation difference from one > end to the other. I take off downhill and land uphill due to obstructions > near the uphill end. I mow the strip about 20 feet wide and have smooth > ground next to the mowed part with about 6 inch high grass. > > Sometimes when I come back from a flight, the wind has come up, and I have > as much as a 10 mph tailwind, which makes stopping, even uphill a bit of a > challenge. > > I've been thinking of using the mowed portion for takeoff, but landing in > the grass next to the mowed portion to help stop. I'm not sure how high > the grass would have to be to become a noseover danger while rolling out. > > Here's the question: How high can the grass be before it becomes too high > to safely land on? I'm sure there is a lot of experience out there, good > and bad - sure would like to hear the stories. > > -------- > Dave Bigelow > Kamuela, Hawaii > FS2, HKS 700E > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152300#152300 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 15, 2007
> If you doze at the controls, it will > sway ends. > Gang: The above should have read "swap ends", not "sway ends." john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DBforfun(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Put in a larger Main jet. This will bring your temps down. Order a Parts Catalog from California Power Systems. They are a Rotax authorized dealer and in their catalog there is a very big section devoted to the "Care and Feeding of Rotax engines". The articles in this section are excellent for trouble shooting and fixing most problems with Rotax engines. They are very well written and are in plain English that almost anyone can understand. _http://www.800-airwolf.com/_ (http://www.800-airwolf.com/) Good luck. In a message dated 12/14/2007 4:03:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, DAquaNut(at)aol.com writes: Gang, My 447 Firefly Has always been plagued by EGT's at or over 1200* between 4000 rpm and 5400 rpm. If I put in more pitch, that cools EGT's a bit but causes CHT's to increase. CHT's are already as high as 400* at times so adding more pitch is not the answer. I have the prop pitched for 6250 static. The EGT temps are higher now that I am flying in 50* weather. My main jet is 165 , needle jet.270, jet needle 15k2, with clip in the lowest position. I have searched the archives all afternoon and have not found a solution. It seems that going to a .272 needle would help. Anyone have a similar problem and solve it ? Ed ( Firefly 062) **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 15, 2007
> I actually prefer down > win landings over up wind because up wind landings can surprise you with > decreasing air speed just as you get near the ground. > > Rick Neilsen Rick N: Don't reckon the wind affects your airplane downwind, but does up wind? Isn't that why we carry a little more airspeed on approach when the wind is brisk and unpredictable, to compensate? john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JAMES BEARD" <JAMESBEARD305(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Your problem is no doubt due to the proliferation of your name. ....Jim Beard Mk lllx Jackalope in AZ ----- Original Message ----- From: KolbFlyerJim(at)aol.com<mailto:KolbFlyerJim(at)aol.com> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:51 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Duplication Hi all Jim here I get every nessage at least 4 times is there any way to prevent this? Jim UltraStar N2613M ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- See AOL's top rated recipes<http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004 > and easy ways to stay in shape<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop0003000000 0003> for winter. http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List igator?Kolb-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Date: Dec 15, 2007
DBforfun: Won't that down EGT across the board? Ed D said his EGT is 1100 at 5800, but high in midrange rpm. I would think changing needle position or needle or needle jet size would influence change in midrange. john h mkIII - A bit rusty on 2 cycle tuning. Flying 4 strokes since 1994. Put in a larger Main jet. This will bring your temps down. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2007
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
I was under the impression that "grandfathered" could include fat ultralights built (and registered, inspected) up through Jan 31, 2008. So in theory if an owner/builder completed an LSA plane today, mailed in the registration request forms today, and got inspected, certified before Jan 31, he'd have an ELSA plane. Not a likely scenario given the short time remaining. Experimental Amateur Built has no deadline and the plane could be LSA like or bigger, faster, slower, whatever. As to pro/con of E-AB vs E-LSA airplane (separate from the pilot rating) the differences are minor. Either can get its annual inspection by the builder (with Repairman's certificate for that airplane), but if not that person, the E-LSA can also be done by someone who has passed a 16 hour course on LSAircraft inspection, or by A&P. For the E-AB, if not builder/Repairman it must be an A&P. So, long term and secondary owners, annual inspections might be a little cheaper/easier for the E-LSAircraft. One other issue according to EAA is that a E-AB would likely see the normal 40 hour initial flight test area restriction, compared to something like a 5 hour for E-LSA, and there have been some grandfathered, previously flying ultralights getting 0 hour restriction based on their already having many flight hours. -Ben Dana Hague wrote: > > At 11:01 AM 12/14/2007, Mike Welch wrote: > >> Can someone enlighten me to what the advantage(s) are of licensing >> a plane as ELSA, compared to the regular experimental catagory?... If >> I could license it as ELSA (it's probably too late for me now, anyway) >> does that mean I could let my pilot's license "transform" into a >> "sport license" if I don't get a bi-annual physical? > > If you're building it now, you can't license it as ELSA. ELSA is only > for "grandfathered" fat ultralights, and new approved LSA kits. E-AB > is your only option. However, if it meets the LSA requirements (2 > seats, weight, etc.), a sport pilot can fly it, as can a Private with > no medical (exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot). > > -Dana > -- > Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Excellent plan, but let me suggest an important modification, based on some personal experience- Had done some work on the gas tank and thought I had cleaned all the fiberglass dust out of it. Bad mistake. Took from off a friends strip and got a couple major power surges off the departure end of the strip as the fuel filter clogged up. Did a 180 and landed downwind, hot and long. His strip had hay growing on both sides, two or three feet tall. I waited until I had the mains planted well and then just steered it off the mowed part into the hay, it stopped in about ten feet. Which was a much better option than running off the end of the strip, a little further on - I would not land in tall grass, that starts to pull at the gear and lever the airplane over just at the point where the elevators are starting to become ineffective, I would get it on the ground and get the weight settling on the gear and then run it off into the tall grass. From the way you describe your strip, It sounds as if you might be able to do something similar, just let the grass on either side of the upper end get about 3' high. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Dave Bigelow wrote: > > My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot elevation difference from one end to the other. I take off downhill and land uphill due to obstructions near the uphill end. I mow the strip about 20 feet wide and have smooth ground next to the mowed part with about 6 inch high grass. > > Sometimes when I come back from a flight, the wind has come up, and I have as much as a 10 mph tailwind, which makes stopping, even uphill a bit of a challenge. > > I've been thinking of using the mowed portion for takeoff, but landing in the grass next to the mowed portion to help stop. I'm not sure how high the grass would have to be to become a noseover danger while rolling out. > > Here's the question: How high can the grass be before it becomes too high to safely land on? I'm sure there is a lot of experience out there, good and bad - sure would like to hear the stories. > > -------- > Dave Bigelow > Kamuela, Hawaii > FS2, HKS 700E > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152300#152300 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DBforfun(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re:High Egt's
My thought would be to increase the main jet and then lower the needle. Why not buy the adjustable main jet kit for the carb. This allows you to adjust the carb. anytime as the weather changes or if you have the remote adjustment you can readjust the carb. ( lean the mixture) while you are flying as you climb to higher altitudes. Also check if the carb. slide will open past the FULL open position. If the slide will go past the FULL open position then the fuel flow will be increased during FULL throttle but no additional air and will richen the mixture during FULL throttle application. This automatically gives a slightly rich mixture during take off and climb when you are using full throttle. In a message dated 12/15/2007 10:34:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes: DBforfun: Won't that down EGT across the board? Ed D said his EGT is 1100 at 5800, but high in midrange rpm. I would think changing needle position or needle or needle jet size would influence change in midrange. john h mkIII - A bit rusty on 2 cycle tuning. Flying 4 strokes since 1994. **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2007
From: TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
DAquaNut(at)aol.com wrote: > > Gang, > > My 447 Firefly Has always been plagued by EGT's at or over 1200* > between 4000 rpm and 5400 rpm. If I put in more pitch, that cools > EGT's a bit but causes CHT's to increase. > CHT's are already as high as 400* at times so adding more pitch is > not the answer. I have the prop pitched for 6250 static. The EGT > temps are higher now that I am flying in 50* weather. My main jet is > 165 , needle jet.270, jet needle 15k2, with clip in the lowest > position. I have searched the archives all afternoon and have not > found a solution. It seems that going to a .272 needle would help. > Anyone have a similar problem and solve it ? > > Ed ( Firefly 062) > Ed, Two things to consider. Your gauges are probably not certified for accuracy and can vary. Even the senders can vary. Second - I changed my needle to an 11G2 a long time ago because of the advice of a gentleman on this list. Check the archives. It gave me better mid range performance as he said it would. I run it in the third notch from the top. As my guru ( Willie) 2 cycle flying buddy keeps telling me, forget the gauges and read the plugs. They tell all ! Might want to adjust you prop for a little higher static rpm. I run a fixed Tennessee wood prop at a flying dynamic of 6450 rpm. Terry - FireFly #95 770 hr.s ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2007
From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
At 12:02 PM 12/15/2007, you wrote: >Put in a larger Main jet. This will bring your temps down. > >Order a Parts Catalog from California Power Systems. They are a >Rotax authorized dealer and in their catalog there is a very big >section devoted to the "Care and Feeding of Rotax engines". The >articles in this section are excellent for trouble shooting and >fixing most problems with Rotax engines. They are very well written >and are in plain English that almost anyone can understand. > ><http://www.800-airwolf.com/>http://www.800-airwolf.com/ > >Good luck. The articles are also on line now http://www.800-airwolf.com/articles.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 15, 2007
John H wrote: In addition, I can do a full power > run up and keep the tail on the ground. John, others, My standard Mk -3 can also do full power runups without tipping on its nose. As long as the stick is held back I'll bet no Kolbs will nose over at full power run ups, plenty of elevator authority with all that prop blast. Denny Rowe PS: A couple of years back I took a full power pass through a patch of ragweed with two up in my bird. Miss judged the take off distance in a friends field on a hot day and could not out climb the rising weeds at the departure end, entered the waist high jungle with the mains about knee high, "ohh ohh", did not cut power till the weeds pulled me to nearly stopped, figured I would need all the elevator possible to keep it from nosing over. I suppose if I had tried to land in there with the power off I would have wound up upside down as the elevator would have had a lot less authority. As far as leaving a patch of grass longer for slowing down on landing, my buddy John Tevelonis has done that for years at his home strip, works great. I would recommend 6 to 10 inches at the far end of the landing zone, touch down in the regular cut and roll into the longer stuff, even helps slow down Pterodactyls with their tall skinny tires. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Date: Dec 15, 2007
John, I agree with you, the main jet is probably fine. Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: John Hauck To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:High Egt's DBforfun: Won't that down EGT across the board? Ed D said his EGT is 1100 at 5800, but high in midrange rpm. I would think changing needle position or needle or needle jet size would influence change in midrange. john h mkIII - A bit rusty on 2 cycle tuning. Flying 4 strokes since 1994. Put in a larger Main jet. This will bring your temps down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 12/14/2007 11:29 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net>
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Subject: Re:High Egt's
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: > Welcome to the wonderful world of Adolf's revenge.... Except for the fact that the Germans perfected the type.... Sir Dugald Clark (1854 - 1932) designed the first two-stroke engine in 1878 and patented it in England in 1881. So much for English friends. (I really do like my two strokes tho!) Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Subject: Re:High Egt's
Date: Dec 15, 2007
Gang, I had the same problem that he was describing with his 447. I could get it under control everywhere except the mid range. When I cut the power the EGT would spike. I finally had to learn to land at higher RPM's until I found that I could lower the EGT's by pulling on the enrichner circuit when I cut the power to the midrange part of the needle. I finally bought the next size jet needle and had no more trouble. From what I have read he has done all the things that would normally work with no success. His only recourse is to get a midrange jet that delivers more fuel. I always attritibuted the problems that I had to the altitude. This change of the needle jet may well affect the main jets that you will use as well. With a silencer on mine I ended up using a 147 main jet, and a (I think) 157 without. I will assure you that he is not imagining things. Mine was a real pain in the butt. The 503 that I now have was a piece of cake to get adjusted. Larry C ----- Original Message ----- From: John Hauck To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:High Egt's DBforfun: Won't that down EGT across the board? Ed D said his EGT is 1100 at 5800, but high in midrange rpm. I would think changing needle position or needle or needle jet size would influence change in midrange. john h mkIII - A bit rusty on 2 cycle tuning. Flying 4 strokes since 1994. Put in a larger Main jet. This will bring your temps down. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: Dec 16, 2007
When is the big day to fly your Kolb?>> Ouch! John you really know how to hurt. As soon as I can get a starter motor fitted, the couple of inches of water drained from my strip, visibility of more than a couple of hundred yards. Any time now in fact. Har Har Have a good holiday Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 16, 2007
> OK John H, I guess my comment deserves an explanation. > > Rick Neilsen Rick N: Cut some of those trees on the east end of your strip and you will be able to land and take off into the wind, either east or west. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: Dec 16, 2007
Patrick: What is wrong with the starter motor? Will you be flying a Prince P Tip Prop? I can not remember which prop you are flying. john h mkIII As soon as I can get a starter motor fitted, the couple of inches of water drained from my strip, visibility of more than a couple of hundred yards. Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Real Airplanes
From: "Dave Rains" <RangeFlyer72(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2007
As you know, I own/fly a C175 and occasionally fly Will's Firestar II. Each has it's place, I use the Cessna to go places, and for work, but nothing beats a Kolb for pure enjoyment :D By the way, I can reduce power in the Skylark to 5 gph at 90 mph [Wink] or cruise 125k at 9.5 gph. Not bad for a spam can. I pull all my own maintenance with a IA sign off, and annual inspections run about $450.00 a year. Also, we have many UL's based at T27, and they are all treated with the same respect as any other aircraft. See you at Monument Valley! Skeeter -------- Dave Rains N8086T Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152494#152494 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2007
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Dave, The nice part about it being your own field is that you can experiment, and also know how it is each time. I've nosed over in ~10" grass and most of it wasn't very thick. This on 17" tundra tires, taxiing from shorter (~6") and sparser grass where I landed. The nose-over was nearly nothing because of very slow speed. A very similar thing happened long ago on dry mud; I broke through a crust layer when slowing down to nearly stopped. It's a big concern to me, partly for the nose-over at speed, and partly for what may be obstructed by the grass. It definitely pays to check with sure visuals and some touches on fields not designed for anything besides jackrabbits, especially when they are green instead of dry. (Green almost always means soft dirt or mud too.) Again, great advantage in simply gaining some experience on your own field -- if it wants to nose over at slow taxi, I wouldn't want to land on it. Obviously, the high thrust line works against us for taxi, so in a way knowing that point of trouble means landing and no power on the same stuff is likely within bounds. -Ben FS KXP Dave Bigelow wrote: > > My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot elevation difference from one end to the other. I take off downhill and land uphill due to obstructions near the uphill end. I mow the strip about 20 feet wide and have smooth ground next to the mowed part with about 6 inch high grass. > > Sometimes when I come back from a flight, the wind has come up, and I have as much as a 10 mph tailwind, which makes stopping, even uphill a bit of a challenge. > > I've been thinking of using the mowed portion for takeoff, but landing in the grass next to the mowed portion to help stop. I'm not sure how high the grass would have to be to become a noseover danger while rolling out. > > Here's the question: How high can the grass be before it becomes too high to safely land on? I'm sure there is a lot of experience out there, good and bad - sure would like to hear the stories. > > -------- > Dave Bigelow > Kamuela, Hawaii > FS2, HKS 700E > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152300#152300 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: Dec 16, 2007
What is wrong with the starter motor?>> Hi John, wouldn`t turn the prop in spite of fully charged battery. When removed it was impossible to turn by hand. It is with the Jabiru importers at the moment. Should be back anytime. Will you be flying a Prince P Tip Prop? I can not remember which prop you are flying.>> When I have done some flying with the standard prop I may change. Mick Moulai, our importer speaks highly of the P Tip. Just to add to the list of reasons why I am not flying .. When the physio gets me free of the trapped sciatic nerve which has been giving me gee up for the last 10 days. As I am up to my eyeballs with pain killers with strict orders not to drive or operate any machinery I think flying will be on the back burner for a day or two. Christmas parties have started too. 3 in the last 24 hours So alcohol and pain killers dont mix...heh ..heh Pity though. About half way through the morning today the sun came out and transformed everything. Blue sky ,nil wind, vizibility improved. Temps just above freezing. I wish it would freeze hard enough to freeze my strip solid, we have had torrential rain in the last couple of weeks and the ground is saturated. It only takes a light shower and the fields are running with water. No doubt it will all come good soon. Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LEE CREECH <dcreech3(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 16, 2007
For what it's worth, I once (inadvertently) landed my Firestar II in thick knee-high fescue with no ill effects. There was a lot of the stuff wrapped around the axles, brake cables and stablizer wires, but no noseover. It pr obably helped that it was a power-off, full-stall landing into a short fiel d. And yes, it was a VERY short rollout, but still probably not a procedur e to be recommended. Lee > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:22:19 -0800> From: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> To: kol b-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Landing in High Grass> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Ben Ransom > > Dave,> The nice part about it being your own field is that you can experiment, > and also know how it is each time. > I've nosed over in ~10" grass and most of it wasn't very thick. This on > 17" tundra tires, taxiing from shorter (~6" ) and sparser grass where I > landed. The nose-over was nearly nothing beca use of very slow speed. A > very similar thing happened long ago on dry mud ; I broke through a crust > layer when slowing down to nearly stopped. It's a big concern to me, > partly for the nose-over at speed, and partly for w hat may be obstructed > by the grass. It definitely pays to check with sure visuals and some > touches on fields not designed for anything besides jac krabbits, > especially when they are green instead of dry. (Green almost al ways > means soft dirt or mud too.) Again, great advantage in simply gainin g > some experience on your own field -- if it wants to nose over at slow > taxi, I wouldn't want to land on it. Obviously, the high thrust line > wor ks against us for taxi, so in a way knowing that point of trouble > means l anding and no power on the same stuff is likely within bounds.> -Ben> FS KX > >> > My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot e levation difference from one end to the other. I take off downhill and land uphill due to obstructions near the uphill end. I mow the strip about 20 f eet wide and have smooth ground next to the mowed part with about 6 inch hi gh grass.> >> > Sometimes when I come back from a flight, the wind has come up, and I have as much as a 10 mph tailwind, which makes stopping, even up hill a bit of a challenge.> >> > I've been thinking of using the mowed port ion for takeoff, but landing in the grass next to the mowed portion to help stop. I'm not sure how high the grass would have to be to become a noseove r danger while rolling out.> >> > Here's the question: How high can the gra ss be before it becomes too high to safely land on? I'm sure there is a lot of experience out there, good and bad - sure would like to hear the storie s.> >> > --------> > Dave Bigelow> > Kamuela, Hawaii> > FS2, HKS 700E> >> > > >> >> > Read this topic online here:> >> > http://forums.matronics.com/vi =======================> > > _________________________________________________________________ i=92m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Vincent" <emailbill(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Kolb-list test message
Date: Dec 16, 2007
I am experiencing problems sending the Kolb list messages, they are not going through. I have unsubscribed - then-subscribed---received the confirmation letter of the subscription and still the messages I had sent the last 2 days have not gone through. Hopefully this one will and the problem will be solved. Bill Vincent FS II ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 17, 2007
....I'll bet no Kolbs will nose over at full power run ups, plenty of elevator authority with all that prop blast.. Denny, I'm guessing you've never flown an early Firestar with 377. It would nose over with the least bit of encouragement.Even on smooth pavement, take-off required gradual throttle advancing to prevent nose-over. My current early FS has longer than standard main gear legs and 447 and suffers no such problem. Thom in Buffalo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
Date: Dec 17, 2007
Thom: A couple comments to wake the List up. Sounds to me like you are either exagerating or need to improve your piloting technique. Not hard for a low time, ham fisted pilot to put one on its nose. For that matter, I have put my old FS, factory MKIII and FF on their noses, when flying with a fat passenger and/or had momentary brain lock. MKIII and FF nose overs always seem to occur in front of a crowd, especially at Sun and Fun. However, I don't believe the Kolbs are nearly as prone to nose over as you describe. Maybe initially, but with a little time the pilot soon learns to compensate and think ahead of the airplane. "Even on smooth pavement, take-off required gradual throttle advancing to prevent nose-over." With the stick back, the elevator has plenty of authority to keep from nosing over. In my case during a lapse of pilot technique, I stuck the tail in the wind, forgot to get the stick forward, then let a little power, forward weight, and tail wind wake me up. john h mkIII "I'm guessing you've never flown an early Firestar with 377. It would nose over with the least bit of encouragement.Even on smooth pavement, take-off required gradual throttle advancing to prevent nose-over. My current early FS has longer than standard main gear legs and 447 and suffers no such problem. Thom in Buffalo" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 17, 2007
Richard Now I'm confused. you write " I legally fly my E-AB Kolb MKIIIC without a medical." I didn't think this was legal. Did you just let the medical lapse? I've been told if you fail to PASS a medical, you can't fly a thing, but if it expires you can still fly ELSA & gliders. What's the straight scoop? I sure don't know, but I'd like to. Russ Kinne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 17, 2007
> " I legally fly my E-AB Kolb MKIIIC without a medical." > I didn't think this was legal. > Russ Kinne MKIII falls into the SP category, I believe, along with a lot of other experimental homebuilts. A J3 is GA, but you can fly it with SP license. Correct me if I am thinking wrong.; john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
Date: Dec 17, 2007
That's right I legally fly a E-AB that falls in the LSA category without a medical. I let my medical lapse but can if I choose to fly a GA aircraft again I can get a medical and use all my private pilot privileges again. I let my medical lapse about 18 months ago and got my biannual check ride in a C172 shortly after. Before the LSA rules went into effect my instructor would check to make sure my medical was up to date or at least scheduled. He did remind me I wasn't legal in anything other than a LSA airplane. Your right I were to fail a medical I would be all done flying. It's one less hoop I have to jump through and no chance of a fail. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "russ kinne" <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA > > Richard > Now I'm confused. you write > " I legally fly my E-AB Kolb MKIIIC without a medical." > I didn't think this was legal. Did you just let the medical lapse? I've > been told if you fail to PASS a medical, you can't fly a thing, but if > it expires you can still fly ELSA & gliders. > What's the straight scoop? I sure don't know, but I'd like to. > Russ Kinne > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2007
From: "Bryan Dever" <indyaviator(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
>This Challenger's empty weight is nearly 800 pounds (!!), Surely this cannot be right. Empty weight of a Challenger is usually less than 400lbs. Dioes he have a Chevy bigblock for and engine?? Bryan Dever ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
Date: Dec 17, 2007
Bet you could get all that info and even more over at the Challenger List. Challenger wannabie! Surely this cannot be right. Empty weight of a Challenger is usually less than 400lbs. Dioes he have a Chevy bigblock for and engine?? Bryan Dever ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Experimental vs. ELSA
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 17, 2007
BB is correct about the BFR in the sense that if there is only one pilot that is current and legal in the aircraft being used for the BFR, then that person must be the official PIC for that flight. Therefore, a Sport Pilot who has never set foot in anything other than an LSA type aircraft can legally get his/her BFR in a C-172 if the instructor agrees to be the PIC for that flight. Some CFIs will and others won't and there is no law that requires any particular CFI to do that if they don't want to. Of course this has nothing at all to do with the subject "Experimental vs. ELSA". -------- Thom in Buffalo N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152780#152780 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 17, 2007
John, Yes and No. My first early FS would nose over very easily. No exaggeration, just fact. And Yes, I learned to deal with it after about two nose-overs and it was no longer a problem for me, but the tendency to nose-over did not change, just the pilot's experience. One of the contributing factors was that particular early FS was very light with only about 35 lb. on the tail in three-point. Another was that the pilot at that time was weighing in at 235 lb. I'm not quite so heavy now and my longer FS legs plus heavier tail make a big difference. As you know, every homebuilt airplane is unique, sometimes in subtle ways, other times in major ways. -------- Thom in Buffalo N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152781#152781 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2007
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
I was a little rattled/embarrassed on my first too, even tho nobody for miles around. That didn't last a minute tho when I realized it was corrected by sticking my foot out the left side and pushing on the dirt ....settle, clunk, back on the tail. Now I have side lexan farings on the cockpit so have to be more careful. ;) -Ben Thom Riddle wrote: > > John, > > Yes and No. My first early FS would nose over very easily. No exaggeration, just fact. And Yes, I learned to deal with it after about two nose-overs and it was no longer a problem for me, but the tendency to nose-over did not change, just the pilot's experience. One of the contributing factors was that particular early FS was very light with only about 35 lb. on the tail in three-point. Another was that the pilot at that time was weighing in at 235 lb. I'm not quite so heavy now and my longer FS legs plus heavier tail make a big difference. As you know, every homebuilt airplane is unique, sometimes in subtle ways, other times in major ways. > > -------- > Thom in Buffalo > N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL > N197BG FS1/447 > -------------------- > Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. > - Buddha > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152781#152781 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
Date: Dec 17, 2007
Hi Bryan: Wound tight!!! Naw. Not me. I have a feeling you took my signature block the wrong way, as me calling you a Challenger Wannabie. Not at all. I was down in Wetumpka at my gal friend's eating pork chops tonight. Was reading my mail and saw my post to the Kolb List. Figured somebody was gonna take the sig block the wrong way. Sorry about that. Should have redone it, more like: signed: Challenger Wannabie or Anonymous Challenger Wannabie BTW: I don't think there is much to compare between a Kolb and a Challenger. Guess that is why a Challenger never appealed to me. And.........if I wanted to know more about Challengers, I think I would go over to the Challenger List to find out. All this Challenger info in the recent past, and I have not learned anything about a Challenger that I wanted. john h mkIII You sure are wound tight aren't you. It seems as though every group has at least one. Bryan Dever Challenger wannabie! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
Then you might enjoy this - years ago, before I bought the MKIII, took the long-suffering wife with me and went to a Challenger dealer in NW North Carolina to take a look at a Challenger. Had never really looked at one before, knew they had been around for a while, so why not? Weather was too cruddy to fly, so we looked at several that were in various hangars at his grass strip, and he offered us to have us climb into the 2 seater. I was able to get in the front w/o too much trouble, but the back seat - wow. You have to climb over and between the lift struts, slide one leg alongside the far side of the front seat while swinging the other leg over the side and alongside the front seat. A good test of agility, but then came getting out. Not too bad, but required typical male upper body strength. Which meant Sweet Thing was in deep trouble. She valiantly struggled her way in without drawing blood, and pronounced it reasonably comfortable. But then it was time to get out. Configured as she for comfort rather than for speed, and being in her golden years, her struggle to lift her weight up, get her legs out from beside the front seat, and get her heinie over the side of that fuselage was a struggle worthy of a contestant on Ninja Warrior. It crossed my mind that all I would need to do would be to get her to go with me to several fly-ins a year, have her climb in and out while I sold tickets, and I could pay it off in six months... Decided I really wanted a good airplane more than spousal abuse and bought a MKIII. Don't know if you wanted to know that about a Challenger or not, but as Beauford says, it's worth what ye paid fer it. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) John Hauck wrote: > > All this Challenger info in the recent past, and I have not learned > anything about a Challenger that I wanted. > > john h > mkIII > > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
Date: Dec 18, 2007
John, You sure are wound tight aren't you.>> Bryan, if you REALLY want to get John going ask him about Vortex Generators........ Cheers Pat :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger

Date: Dec 18, 2007
This Challenger's empty weight is nearly 800 pounds (!!),>> Good grief, no wonder he can`t climb. I weigh 0ver 200lbs, probably more with my flying kit on, and my Challenger with a 503 delivered a climb of better than 500 ft per min. for the first 500ft and just a little less to 1000ft.. It is no good just applying rudder in a Challenger. She just ignores it. You have to get some stick into it as well. I should get your friend to embark on a course of Full English Breakfasts. Eggs,bacon, sausage,black pudding,fried bread, tomatoes. Followed by toast and marmalade. After about 3 weeks he will have added another 20 lbs to his weight and won`t be able get the Challenger off the ground at all and will probably prolong his life quite a bit. As he is it is an accident waiting to happen. Cheers Pat :-). ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2007
Richard, That was a great story. Thanks for sharing. As we age and grow circumferentially, boarding and un-boarding (if that is a word) become more important decision criteria for sure. Several years ago I saw a pretty Taylorcraft for sale that sort of interested me. I took the trouble to get into it and out of it and said no thank you. Too much work. -------- Thom in Buffalo N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152963#152963 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Good flying videos
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=stearman81n&p=r Check out this guys flying videos pretty good dead stick demonstration. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152979#152979 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2007
From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Good flying videos
At 06:31 PM 12/18/2007, you wrote: > >http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=stearman81n&p=r > >Check out this guys flying videos pretty good dead stick demonstration. You're in trouble now. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Good flying videos
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2007
In trouble now????? :? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152999#152999 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
At 05:02 PM 12/18/2007, Thom Riddle wrote: >...Several years ago I saw a pretty Taylorcraft for sale that sort of >interested me. I took the trouble to get into it and out of it and said no >thank you. Too much work. Actually the Taylorcraft (I used to own one) is very easy to get in and out of, but if and only if you use the right sequence. -Dana -- Software isn't released, it's allowed to escape. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2007
From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Good flying videos
At 08:40 PM 12/18/2007, you wrote: > >In trouble now????? :? Just kidding - it's a ____ ultralight. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Good flying videos
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2007
Its not a Ultralight Its a light sport airplane :D Ultralights are not real airplanes LOL 8) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153036#153036 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Poly Fiber 101
> >I found out that you need to use exactly just enough Poly-tak as even slightly more than enough will result in ugly surface protrusions that can not be sanded since its rubbery when dry. > Ray, If you have rough edge and/or surface after poly-tak ing, use a small brush and wet the surface with MEK and then rub it smooth with a gloved finger. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 19, 2007
Subject: Re: Poly Fiber 101
In a message dated 12/19/2007 11:41:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jb92563(at)yahoo.com writes: I found out that you need to use exactly just enough Poly-tak as even slightly more than enough will result in ugly surface protrusions that can not be sanded since its rubbery when dry. Hi Ray, As I understand the Poly-Fiber instructions, the Poly-Tak is only supposed to be used as a glue to attach fabric to the airframe structure, while Poly-Brush is used as a glue to attach fabric to fabric (and it is also used to seal the fabric). As you found, the Poly-Tak is rubbery and can only be smoothed by heating, which can get very messy, sticking to your iron, etc. You could use a thick coating of the silver Poly-Spray to smooth out the rough area as it is sand-able. That's my limited knowledge on the subject. Bill Varnes Original Kolb FireStar Audubon NJ Do Not Archive **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 19, 2007
Subject: Re: winter flying pictures
In a message dated 12/19/2007 9:36:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes: Here is a picture of the plane before takeoff on Saturday. Hi Ralph, Very nice pictures. What is the retangular area cleared off on the ice? Maybe for ice skating? Also, I'd like to see a close-up picture of how you treated the tail wheel for use on ice/snow. Looks like some sort of shield in front of the tail wheel. Your FireStar looks very nice and light. Bill Varnes Original Kolb FireStar Audubon NJ Do Not Archive **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: gary aman <gaman(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: winter flying pictures
Ralph, a nice pair of battery powered electric socks would make a nice Christmas gift! Drop a hint or two! WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com wrote: In a message dated 12/19/2007 9:36:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes: Here is a picture of the plane before takeoff on Saturday. Hi Ralph, Very nice pictures. What is the retangular area cleared off on the ice? Maybe for ice skating? Also, I'd like to see a close-up picture of how you treated the tail wheel for use on ice/snow. Looks like some sort of shield in front of the tail wheel. Your FireStar looks very nice and light. Bill Varnes Original Kolb FireStar Audubon NJ Do Not Archive --------------------------------- See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: winter flying pictures
From: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2007
> WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.co"]In a message dated 12/19/2007 9:36:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time > > Hi Ralph, > > Very nice pictures. What is the retangular area cleared off on the ice? Maybe for ice skating? > > Also, I'd like to see a close-up picture of how you treated the tail wheel for use on ice/snow. Looks like some sort of shield in front of the tail wheel. Your FireStar looks very nice and light. > Bill Varnes > Original Kolb FireStar > Audubon NJ > Do Not Archive > Bill, that rectangular area is where the lake shore property owners cleared an area for skating. I will get a close up picture of the wooden block that is strapped to the tailwheel rod with hose clamps. It has two purposes; keeps ice from hitting the tailwheel, and it offsets the weight and balance to account for the additional clothing I wear during the winter. In 1990, the tailwheel weld broke due to the stress of ice and snow hitting it. This is what I came up with for a solution. There is no need for a tailwheel ski as it glides over the snow because it's so light. It was funny on that flight as the tailwheel assembly came off on takeoff without my knowledge. I returned and some guy comes up to me and says this thing fell off my plane (holding the tailwheel). I thought it was taxiing a little higher in front that day. I was having so much fun that I continued to fly with it gliding on the tailwheel rod. -------- Ralph B Original Firestar N91493 E-AB 21 years flying it Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153246#153246 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Poly Fiber 101
From: "Tom O'Hara" <tohara(at)alphagraphics.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2007
Just a comment from a "flyer not a builder" who knows nothing about Polyfiber or shrinking temperatures. That said I am familiar with"heating fabric" as I flew hot air for 26 years before going to a MkIII. Balloons are constructed with either nylon or dacron depending upon manufacturer. Nylon yellow line is 250 with red line at 275. Dacron is 25 degrees higher. There are "tell tales" at the top which you check on pre-flighting. If the "red line tell tail" shows positive you MUST not fly and must take the aircraft to FAA inspection station and have tensile and porosity tests done prior to putting aircraft into service. I have got to think that over temping Polycoat would also be detrimental to it's final strength. Occasionally one can get some "special smoke" from the fabric when you hit it with direct burner flame when inflating. Read "special" as EXPENSIVE!! LOL Note: One can fly 10 minutes in the hour in the yellow before having to take to the repair station. Have a good holiday and thanks for all the knowledge that is passed through this board. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153297#153297 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2007
John Hauck wrote: > > Guess that is why a Challenger never appealed to me. And.........if I wanted to know more about Challengers, I think I would go over to the Challenger List to find out. > > Don't go an do something rash ! Besides, the you would just scare yourself learning about Challengers... Just reading about Challengers makes me want to give up flying take up something safe like motorcycle racing. 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=153304#153304 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: M3X tailwheel weight
Folks I am mounting the engine, for placement purposes. Can anyone tell me how much weight max weight there supposed to be on the tail for it to remain within CG. I am trying to locate my heavy installation as far back as possible but still there are CG limits to contend with. Any info will be helpful. Ron Arizona ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2007
jb92563 wrote: > I have been wondering how people have been liking their FireFly Kolbs. > > I am particularly interested in the Part 103 ones that are really legal. > > I understand that if you have the Rotax 447 equiped version you should be able to keep under the required weight, but how does it perform with that engine? My Original Firestar is very much like a Firefly except for the weight (319 lbs.) It came with a Rotax 377 engine and performed well. The 447 engine that I have now gives it a little more punch and I can cruise at a lower RPM to make it last longer. -------- Ralph B Original Firestar N91493 E-AB 21 years flying it Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153357#153357 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: MkIII tail wheel weight
Date: Dec 20, 2007
Ron, Your request for a "maximum tailwheel weight" seems to be missing the point, I would think. If memory serves me (and it still does, mostly), you are using the GEO 4 cyl. engine. Let's say, for the sake of argument, it weighs 220 lbs. so that (mounted in the optimum position), the tailwheel would reflect a specific "weight" for only that engine. Now, let's say we take off that 220 lbs engine for something that weighs ....let's say 180 lbs. (like my GEO 3 cyl.), then the tailwheel will reflect a completely different weight. It would seems to me you would want to take the "weight and balance information" and establish EXACTLY where you want the center of gravity to be, and then mount the engine that produces that result. You could make up a quicky cheapo mount that just holds the engine firmly in place long enough to make calculations. Move it a few times, and when you're happy....voila'!!! Once you've aquired the precise spot that establishes the optimal weight and balance point, THEN build your "high-speed super dooper motor mount.......knowing it sets where the engine belongs...not where it matches the weight on the tailwheel of someone else's rig. In other words....tailwheel weight is engine specific. Just my thoughts. I could be wrong. I have been before. Mike Welch.....taking a Poly Fiber break at the moment. (with no photos) (Ron know's what I mean) _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: M3X tailwheel weight
Ron, I had 75 lb. on the tailwheel when I weighed it before I started the rebuild and that was enough that I was aft of the CG limits with full tanks flying solo. Not much, my extended range tank mounted in the passenger's seat brought it back into limits, but only by a whisker. Rick On 12/20/07, Ron wrote: > > Folks I am mounting the engine, for placement purposes. Can anyone tell me > how much weight max weight there supposed to be on the tail for it to remain > within CG. I am trying to locate my heavy installation as far back as > possible but still there are CG limits to contend with. Any info will be > helpful. > > Ron > Arizona > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Interesting ...I just reweighed my Firestar KXP last wknd and it is 320lbs empty. That is with 447, warp prop, 8" tires, Azusa drum brakes, no streamline struts, (and 7 rib wings). -Ben Ralph B wrote: > > > jb92563 wrote: > >> I have been wondering how people have been liking their FireFly Kolbs. >> >> I am particularly interested in the Part 103 ones that are really legal. >> >> I understand that if you have the Rotax 447 equiped version you should be able to keep under the required weight, but how does it perform with that engine? >> > > > My Original Firestar is very much like a Firefly except for the weight (319 lbs.) It came with a Rotax 377 engine and performed well. The 447 engine that I have now gives it a little more punch and I can cruise at a lower RPM to make it last longer. > > -------- > Ralph B > Original Firestar > N91493 E-AB > 21 years flying it > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153357#153357 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 20, 2007
> A FireFly driver said that with the 447 engine it seemed overpowered and he installed a Victor 1+ instead and its much better behaved. > Ray Ray: Based on that statement, a rubber band might be too much for him. Much better behaved with a Victor??? Horse manure! john h - Who finds the 447 powered FF a delight to fly, a scaled down Sling Shot, a perfect combination of aircraft and engine. mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: tail wheel weight and CG
Date: Dec 20, 2007
I do not know how much my tail weight is, but I am currently flying with a 28 percent CG. It seems to fly very good. When I first tested it a few years ago, it was at 33 percent. It was awful. I was wondering if you know how most Kolbers set up their CG. Maybe the ideal CG is 30 percent. Suggestions are welcomed. Vic in Sacramento ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: MkIII tail wheel weight
Hi Mike In general I think you are right, I was trying to get a ball park figure, there is of course a ratio that I can use even if the motor weight is different. For example if the rear wheel weight is 25% of what the main wheels on your Kolb (standard configuration gear) and the craft is in CG from that I can pretty much figure that 25% aft wheel will give me a good cg on my Kolb. There just so much I can do do with my Kolb right now. I got 3 pages of CG calculations, which are nothing more than best guesses at this stage... . What I have done today is place the motor about as mid position on the rail mount with the RDU still sticking out far enough for the prop to thrush about in clear air. The SPG-2 has a long snout so I am guessing that it will all work out, and if not than the tools will come out and I will do some more tooling. :-) ---- Mike Welch wrote: ============ Ron, Your request for a "maximum tailwheel weight" seems to be missing the point, I would think. If memory serves me (and it still does, mostly), you are using the GEO 4 cyl. engine. Let's say, for the sake of argument, it weighs 220 lbs. so that (mounted in the optimum position), the tailwheel would reflect a specific "weight" for only that engine. Now, let's say we take off that 220 lbs engine for something that weighs ....let's say 180 lbs. (like my GEO 3 cyl.), then the tailwheel will reflect a completely different weight. It would seems to me you would want to take the "weight and balance information" and establish EXACTLY where you want the center of gravity to be, and then mount the engine that produces that result. You could make up a quicky cheapo mount that just holds the engine firmly in place long enough to make calculations. Move it a few times, and when you're happy....voila'!!! Once you've aquired the precise spot that establishes the optimal weight and balance point, THEN build your "high-speed super dooper motor mount.......knowing it sets where the engine belongs...not where it matches the weight on the tailwheel of someone else's rig. In other words....tailwheel weight is engine specific. Just my thoughts. I could be wrong. I have been before. Mike Welch.....taking a Poly Fiber break at the moment. (with no photos) (Ron know's what I mean) _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec -- kugelair.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: M3X tailwheel weight
I did 3 different placements and my tail wheel had 60 pounds 62 pounds and 63 pounds. that is with me in the seat with the nose pod, but no lexan. I figure if I have to I'll stick a battery way up front. I still have instruments and all of that to go forward of the leading edge. It may work out. Ron ===================== ---- Richard Girard wrote: ============ Ron, I had 75 lb. on the tailwheel when I weighed it before I started the rebuild and that was enough that I was aft of the CG limits with full tanks flying solo. Not much, my extended range tank mounted in the passenger's seat brought it back into limits, but only by a whisker. Rick On 12/20/07, Ron wrote: > > Folks I am mounting the engine, for placement purposes. Can anyone tell me > how much weight max weight there supposed to be on the tail for it to remain > within CG. I am trying to locate my heavy installation as far back as > possible but still there are CG limits to contend with. Any info will be > helpful. > > Ron > Arizona > > -- kugelair.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2007
From: "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: tail wheel weight and CG
apilot(at)surewest.net wrote: "I do not know how much my tail weight is, but I am currently flying with a 28 percent CG. It seems to fly very good. When I first tested it a few years ago, it was at 33 percent. It was awful. I was wondering if you know how most Kolbers set up their CG. Maybe the ideal CG is 30 percent." Vic, I haven't had my 503 powered Firestar II for long, but it flies great at typically 34 to 35 percent CG which is near the aft limit of 37. You need to be careful how you calculate percent CG, however. My plans (1996 vintage) say to use a wing chord of 64 inches, so I divide by 64 to get a percent value. The actual wing chord is about 50 inches not including the ailerons and 62 inches with. I suspect the 64 number is the wing chord based on the theoretical wing section which would have a sharp trailing edge. Dan G. in Tucson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Is this a Kolb?
Is this a Kolb? http://www.mtairynews.com/articles/2007/12/08/news/local_news/local05.txt http://www.mtairynews.com/articles/2007/12/09/news/local_news/local01.txt -Dana -- We wonder why the dogs always drink out of our toilets, but look at it from their point of view: why do humans keep peeing into their water bowls? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Is this a Kolb?
Not completely sure, but it looks like a Rans S-12. Lar. Dana Hague wrote: > > Is this a Kolb? > http://www.mtairynews.com/articles/2007/12/08/news/local_news/local05.txt > http://www.mtairynews.com/articles/2007/12/09/news/local_news/local01.txt > > -Dana > -- > We wonder why the dogs always drink out of our toilets, but look at > it from their point of view: why do humans keep peeing into their > water bowls? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
> > > > A FireFly driver said that with the 447 engine it seemed overpowered and >he installed a Victor 1+ instead and its much better behaved. > > Ray > > >Ray: > >Based on that statement, a rubber band might be too much for him. > >Much better behaved with a Victor??? Horse manure! > >john h - Who finds the 447 powered FF a delight to fly, a scaled down Sling >Shot, a perfect combination of aircraft and engine. >mkIII > FireFlyers, The orginal request was made about performance of a Part 103-7 FireFly. And my answer was given in that context. I don't know how many on the List have flown a legal ultra light vehicle FireFly or currently own one, but I have noticed quite a few currently sport N numbers. Anyone can take an experimental and boost the empty weigh by adding more engine or whatever, but it takes some effort to stay within the Part 103-7 bounds. If you have or have built a FireFly with less than 15 inch chord ailerons and it is close to 254 pounds empty with a Rotax 447 mounted, it is overpowered. All the comparisons you want to make to Kolbras and other forms of Kolb heavy metal will not alter that fact. Check out AC 103-7 Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4. It is good that by the end of the year there will be no fat ultra light vehicles as they will change into undocumented experimentals and illegals. It was good to hear from Pat that they are offering the FireFly in UK with a 27 hp engine. It seems to fly very well. The List seems to be dominated by the thought that more power is better. But with the addition of power comes increased weight, wing loading and stall speeds, increased dynamic loading of the air frame, which means things start cracking. These must be bulked up and so more weight is added. If you want to do this, it is your right, but cut us guys who want to remain Part 103-7 legal a little slack. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
I think your right Jack but don't be too hard on John. I think he probably went out west to meet up with Mat. They blew all the contribution money in Vegas and are now little burnt out On cocaine and hookers. Vic Having fun in Maine ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 21, 2007
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
I can only speak in regard to a Firefly on floats with a 447. Take Off on Glassy water------- 150 ft Climb at Sea Level ----- At least 900 fpm Handling ----- quick and nimble **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: "Bryan Dever" <indyaviator(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
*It is good that by the end of the year there will be no fat ultra light vehicles as they will change into undocumented experimentals and illegals.* The legal status of a "fat ultralight" does not change at all. They are no more illegal on Feb 1st than they are now. People that are making money on the SP transitions like to imply otherwise. I guess we will see. Bryan Dever ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 21, 2007
Jack and guys and girls, Very well stated, Jack. I think you deserve quite a bit of credit for trying to maintain a legal Part 103 ultralight. It is no easy task, I'm sure, balancing necessary performance and safety requirements within such stringent perameters. Although this isn't the direction I'm headed with my current Kolb, as I stated a few days back, there may be a Firefly in my future...someday. It is comforting to know that a particular aircraft is available, with excellent performance and handling, and still remain inside the guidelines of the regulations. It doesn't take years and years to build a Firefly, does it? Just curious............ Mike Welch in SW Chilly Utah, w/ no snow, working on tailfeather fabric today, in my heated shop, listening to Rush. > FireFlyers, > > The orginal request was made about performance of a Part 103-7 FireFly. And > my answer was given in that context. I don't know how many on the List have > flown a legal ultra light vehicle FireFly or currently own one, but I have > noticed quite a few currently sport N numbers. > > Anyone can take an experimental and boost the empty weigh by adding more > engine or whatever, but it takes some effort to stay within the Part 103-7 > bounds. If you have or have built a FireFly with less than 15 inch chord > ailerons and it is close to 254 pounds empty with a Rotax 447 mounted, it is > overpowered. All the comparisons you want to make to Kolbras and other > forms of Kolb heavy metal will not alter that fact. Check out AC 103-7 > Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4. > > It is good that by the end of the year there will be no fat ultra light > vehicles as they will change into undocumented experimentals and illegals. > It was good to hear from Pat that they are offering the FireFly in UK with a > 27 hp engine. It seems to fly very well. > > The List seems to be dominated by the thought that more power is better. > But with the addition of power comes increased weight, wing loading and > stall speeds, increased dynamic loading of the air frame, which means things > start cracking. These must be bulked up and so more weight is added. If > you want to do this, it is your right, but cut us guys who want to remain > Part 103-7 legal a little slack. > > Jack B. Hart FF004 > Winchester, IN > > _________________________________________________________________ The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 21, 2007
good choice of music, you'll probably be done before they tour again.> From : mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RE: Kolb-L ist: Re: How do you like your FireFly?> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:00:36 -08 > > > Jack and guys and girls,> > Very well stated, Jack. I think you deser ve quite a bit of credit for trying to maintain a legal Part 103 ultralight . It is no easy task, I'm sure, balancing necessary performance and safety requirements within such stringent perameters.> > Although this isn't the d irection I'm headed with my current Kolb, as I stated a few days back, ther e may be a Firefly in my future...someday. It is comforting to know that a particular aircraft is available, with excellent performance and handling, and still remain inside the guidelines of the regulations.> > It doesn't ta ke years and years to build a Firefly, does it? Just curious............> > Mike Welch in SW Chilly Utah, w/ no snow, working on tailfeather fabric to day, in my heated shop, listening to Rush.> > > > > > > > > > > FireFlyers, > >> > The orginal request was made about performance of a Part 103-7 FireF ly. And> > my answer was given in that context. I don't know how many on th e List have> > flown a legal ultra light vehicle FireFly or currently own o ne, but I have> > noticed quite a few currently sport N numbers.> >> > Anyo ne can take an experimental and boost the empty weigh by adding more> > eng ine or whatever, but it takes some effort to stay within the Part 103-7> > bounds. If you have or have built a FireFly with less than 15 inch chord> > ailerons and it is close to 254 pounds empty with a Rotax 447 mounted, it is> > overpowered. All the comparisons you want to make to Kolbras and othe r> > forms of Kolb heavy metal will not alter that fact. Check out AC 103-7 > > Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4.> >> > It is good that by the end of the year ther e will be no fat ultra light> > vehicles as they will change into undocumen ted experimentals and illegals.> > It was good to hear from Pat that they a re offering the FireFly in UK with a> > 27 hp engine. It seems to fly very well.> >> > The List seems to be dominated by the thought that more power i s better.> > But with the addition of power comes increased weight, wing lo ading and> > stall speeds, increased dynamic loading of the air frame, whic h means things> > start cracking. These must be bulked up and so more weigh t is added. If> > you want to do this, it is your right, but cut us guys wh o want to remain> > Part 103-7 legal a little slack.> >> > Jack B. Hart FF0 04> > Winchester, IN> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________ _____________________________> The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here f or a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console.> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardw ========================> _ =====> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: jpiamber(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Yahoo! Auto Response
JPI will be closed to observe Christmas December 22ND and will return on December 27TH. JPI will be closed to observe the New Year Holiday December 29TH and will return on January 2ND. The holiday season offers us a special opportunity to extend our personal thanks to our friends, and our very best wishes for the future. And so it is that we now gather together and wish to you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We consider you a good friend and extend our wishes for good health and good cheer. It is people like you who make being in business such a pleasure all year long. Our business is a source of pride to us, and with customers like you, we find going to work each day a rewarding experience. To our friends all over the world, JP Instruments extends to you and your loved ones our best wishes for a Vrolijke Kersttmis Sarbatori Felicite Joyeux Noel Tin Hao Nian Froeliche Weihnachten Felice Natale Kinga Shinnen Glad Julen Ichok Yilara Boas Festas Chrustovjna Wesloych Swiat Glaedelig Jul Veselele Vanoche Felice Pascuas Sretan Bozic Boldog Karacsonyi Unnepeket Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 21, 2007
I think the Firefly would be a really fun plane to own, although I would not even consider making it 103 legal. Building it as an experimental and putting an N number on it is not hard at all. One could end up with a much better and durable plane by adding a couple more pounds. As far as engine, I would put a 503 on it, much more reliable an better than the 447. As far as some that say its overpowered, those are guys that have small engines and try to convince themselves that they made the correct choice by having a small, sub standard engine... Nothing says you need to fly around at high power all the time, but lots of power is a really great thing to have when you need it. More power is also safer, will get you out of trouble when you need it, you will get off the ground quicker, and on takeoff you will also be a lot higher at the end of runway.. If the engine quits on takeoff, you will have several hundred feet more altitude then they poor guy with the small, very light engine. I have flown with a lot of Learjet pilots over the years, and every one of them loved the 45 degree climb-outs, and quick takeoffs. I have NEVER heard anyone say that any plane they actually flew had to much power. The only people I ever hear talk about some planes "having to much power" are pilots of doggy, sluggish airplanes that are trying to convince themselves that a lack of power is a good thing. Mike MK-III Xtra 912-S And loving the steep climbs :) -------- "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=153612#153612 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: FF tailwheel weight
Dave, As promised, I weighed my FF's tail wheel. Have a rather std FF, brakes, larger tires, not much else for weight, about 3 gal fuel. Tailwheel on electronic scale=56# When I came home, the dang scale had 'slud' over and fell on driveway when I opened the door! Now my weight has dropped to 146 from 175!!! regards, Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2007
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Mike, Do you have any stick time in a FireFly, I have and there is plenty of power there with a 447. Our 447 worked fine and mine on my Hawk so far has performed well. While I will agree the 503 is a good engine, (especially like oil injection no premix - less stale fuel to deal with) it would just add more weight to the airframe. Got to remember the FireFly is a light airplane compared to a FireStar and you need to consider the specified gross weight limit of the airframe. As for building it to meet the 254# limit, I'm confident it can be done - no extras. I know what ours weighed and what contributed to the weight. Go with 5" inch wheels, band brakes if any, wood prop, bare bone instruments (non-sensitive altimeter) - air speed, and toss up between analog EGT/CHT gauges or Grand Rapids Technologies EIS, and if you must, the open wind screen rather than the full enclosure. (I would still take the EIS, it's a wonderful piece of equipment.) As for climb out at our weight (both plane and our full figures) we still normally pushed in excess of 1000 F/S on climb out. We had an electric Variometer like used in gliders - was very sensitive and accurate. jerb At 08:11 PM 12/21/2007, you wrote: > >I think the Firefly would be a really fun plane to own, although I >would not even consider making it 103 legal. Building it as an >experimental and putting an N number on it is not hard at all. One >could end up with a much better and durable plane by adding a couple >more pounds. > >As far as engine, I would put a 503 on it, much more reliable an >better than the 447. As far as some that say its overpowered, those >are guys that have small engines and try to convince themselves that >they made the correct choice by having a small, sub standard >engine... Nothing says you need to fly around at high power all >the time, but lots of power is a really great thing to have when you >need it. More power is also safer, will get you out of trouble when >you need it, you will get off the ground quicker, and on takeoff you >will also be a lot higher at the end of runway.. If the engine >quits on takeoff, you will have several hundred feet more altitude >then they poor guy with the small, very light engine. > >I have flown with a lot of Learjet pilots over the years, and every >one of them loved the 45 degree climb-outs, and quick takeoffs. I >have NEVER heard anyone say that any plane they actually flew had to >much power. The only people I ever hear talk about some planes >"having to much power" are pilots of doggy, sluggish airplanes that >are trying to convince themselves that a lack of power is a good thing. > >Mike > >MK-III Xtra 912-S And loving the steep climbs :) > >-------- >"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=153612#153612 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Subject: Mission Specific
_Click here: 20 Aqualane Dr, Winter Haven, FL 33880, USA - Google Maps_ (http://maps.google.com/maps?q +Aqualane+Dr,+Winter+Haven,+FL+33880,+USA&sa=X&oi map&ct=title) 150 feet, Glassy Water, No Pig Here My Playground, Notice all the lakes and also Lakeland Airport to the west. Click on the map link above. By the Way, Very few aircraft of any kind can be off and gone in 150' on Glassy water. Steve B Firefly 007/Floats **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
What one person deems a fact, proved by objective experiment, is to someone else on the list nothing more than an opinion. Guess how I know this? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Jim Kmet wrote: > Rick,doesn`t just about all the topics get beaten to death? The way > around it it to ask specifically for facts on a subject, not > opinions. : ) Jim > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Haven't we beaten this Challenger thing to death???? >> Yes, yes, yes. yes. I really don`t know how I have been cast as the Challenger champion. Just because I flew one and it seemed to me that my experience was at odds with the often second hand stories which were being passed on as facts. I promise to stop. Incidentally I wonder how many Challengers were sold against the Kolbs? Cheers Pat :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Is this a Kolb?
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Not completely sure, but it looks like a Rans>> Hi Lar, love the comment from Manager of Emergency Services `In the circumstances the pilot made a near perfect landing`. Jeez, I would love to see a picture of what he considers a bad landing Cheers Pat :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Patrick: Besides you, who really gives a big fat rat's ass? Merry Xmas and Happy New Year! ;-) Anonymous Kolb Builder/Pilot hauck's holler, alabama (hehehe) Incidentally I wonder how many Challengers were sold against the Kolbs? Pat :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: FSII VS Drifter
Date: Dec 22, 2007
> To all who are tuned in here, enjoy the short light holiday with all > you hold close to your heart. > BB Hey Bob: Ain't no need gettin all mushy now, just cause it is Xmas. Pat your mkIII on the head and crank up the old Model A for me. Hope the snow is not too much more than belly button deep in your neck of the woods. Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to Bob Bean and the rest of the Kolb List. You too Jack H. Awe.......come on now, give us a smile Jack. We all love you. john h mkIII hauck's holler, alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Subject: Re: FSII VS Drifter
Date: Dec 22, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "robert bean" <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FSII VS Drifter > > Lanny, you are aware that you are amidst the lonely, the desperate and > the clueless here at > the Kolb List. -otherwise we would be doing something a little more > stimulating. > > BTW, I would LOVE to give a go at a flight in a Drifter. On a calm > summer day of course. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps some of you will remember the Drifter take off from MV this last year by the friend of Arty's who had just purchased the plane from a friend. I think the key word is "calm summer day", as I recall he screamed like a little girl on the flight to Delta Utah. It took him four to five hours more to reach our destination than either Arty (single place drifter) or I (Kolb Firestar II). Larry C ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: FSII VS Drifter
Date: Dec 22, 2007
As you may have suspected, I DO live in Lower Slobbovia, NY Thom Riddle is fortunate enough to be a suburbanite. http://www.lil-abner.com/slobovia.html BB, N3851E (originally issued in 1947, in my logbook since 1971) On 22, Dec 2007, at 5:50 PM, John Hauck wrote: > > > To all who are tuned in here, enjoy the short light holiday with all >> you hold close to your heart. >> BB > > > Hey Bob: > > Ain't no need gettin all mushy now, just cause it is Xmas. > > Pat your mkIII on the head and crank up the old Model A for me. > > Hope the snow is not too much more than belly button deep in your > neck of the woods. > > Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to Bob Bean and the rest of the Kolb > List. You too Jack H. Awe.......come on now, give us a smile > Jack. We all love you. > > john h > mkIII > hauck's holler, alabama > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Unfortunately, I can only have one Kolb... Being that my wife likes to fly, the MK-III Xtra was the logical choice for me, although I would like to try them all :) I also fly a 103 trike with a 447, its a nice setup, but some guys put 503's on them and say its a great upgrade ! As far as I am concerned, for flying around the local area, the smaller the plane, the more fun it is :) 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=153746#153746 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: per request some more pix of the M3X
I think I am going to name my airplane the apogee, seems like a name that may help me to get it to fly. anyway here are some pictures. I had some others, however,,,,, I decided to upgrade my Mac to the latest OS called Leopard and it obliterated the iPhoto program. I can't find the pix from yesterday. They are in the camera so not lost. I'll try uploading them from the HP, maybe tomorrow. these are attachments so they should not slow anyone down. Ron Sierra Vista, Arizona ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Subject: Re: Flight characteristics of the Kolb FSII & The Challenger
In a message dated 12/22/2007 12:24:59 P.M. Central Standard Time, jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net writes: Rick,doesn`t just about all the topics get beaten to death? The way around it it to ask specifically for facts on a subject, not opinions **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FSII VS Drifter
Obviously, you're taking some literary license. On the other hand, it's quite literally where I live. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Slobovia+Outernational+airport&sll=32.49666,-90.294056&sspn=0.009411,0.020127&ie=UTF8&ll=32.492135,-90.291867&spn=0.009411,0.020127&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A&om=0 (or Google 'Slobovia Outernational Airport' in Google Maps) That's my house & hangar at the 'lowest' point on the runway. Charlie robert bean wrote: > > As you may have suspected, I DO live in Lower Slobbovia, NY > Thom Riddle is fortunate enough to be a suburbanite. > > http://www.lil-abner.com/slobovia.html > > BB, N3851E (originally issued in 1947, in my logbook since 1971) > > On 22, Dec 2007, at 5:50 PM, John Hauck wrote: > >> >> > To all who are tuned in here, enjoy the short light holiday with all >>> you hold close to your heart. >>> BB >> >> >> Hey Bob: >> >> Ain't no need gettin all mushy now, just cause it is Xmas. >> >> Pat your mkIII on the head and crank up the old Model A for me. >> >> Hope the snow is not too much more than belly button deep in your neck >> of the woods. >> >> Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to Bob Bean and the rest of the Kolb >> List. You too Jack H. Awe.......come on now, give us a smile Jack. >> We all love you. >> >> john h >> mkIII >> hauck's holler, alabama >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2007
Subject: Ho! Ho!
Jack If you want to send a zinger at Hauck...tell him that he does not fly a Kolb !!! In the technical sense.. :-) Modified gear,fuselage and fuel capacity come to mind... It is a Hauck MkIII... Guess I do not either...I have single ,streamlined lift struts on my Firefly. :-) Push comes to shove,hope I can get the weight back in line with pt 103.. :-) Herb _____________________________________________________________ Click here for huge discounts on tradeshow supplies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifXE1B7sOMX5uxKHzZEjhATWh3pr5JWSRUYQDMBly6OYd1yl/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: FSII VS Drifter
Date: Dec 23, 2007
-and there is a real Dogpatch in Arkansas. Not bad, an aviation community and you can follow the RR tracks home. BB On 23, Dec 2007, at 10:46 AM, Charlie England wrote: > > > Obviously, you're taking some literary license. > > On the other hand, it's quite literally where I live. > > http://maps.google.com/maps? > f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Slobovia+Outernational > +airport&sll=32.49666,-90.294056&sspn=0.009411,0.020127&ie=UTF8&ll=32. > 492135,-90.291867&spn=0.009411,0.020127&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A&om=0 > > (or Google 'Slobovia Outernational Airport' in Google Maps) > > That's my house & hangar at the 'lowest' point on the runway. > > Charlie > > robert bean wrote: >> As you may have suspected, I DO live in Lower Slobbovia, NY >> Thom Riddle is fortunate enough to be a suburbanite. >> http://www.lil-abner.com/slobovia.html >> BB, N3851E (originally issued in 1947, in my logbook since 1971) >> On 22, Dec 2007, at 5:50 PM, John Hauck wrote: >>> >>> > To all who are tuned in here, enjoy the short light holiday >>> with all >>>> you hold close to your heart. >>>> BB >>> >>> >>> Hey Bob: >>> >>> Ain't no need gettin all mushy now, just cause it is Xmas. >>> >>> Pat your mkIII on the head and crank up the old Model A for me. >>> >>> Hope the snow is not too much more than belly button deep in your >>> neck of the woods. >>> >>> Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to Bob Bean and the rest of the >>> Kolb List. You too Jack H. Awe.......come on now, give us a >>> smile Jack. We all love you. >>> >>> john h >>> mkIII >>> hauck's holler, alabama >>> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ho! Ho!
Date: Dec 23, 2007
> If you want to send a zinger at Hauck...tell him that he does not fly a Kolb !!! In the technical sense.. :-) Modified gear,fuselage and fuel capacity come to mind... It is a Hauck MkIII... Herb Herb: And every little mod blessed by the man, Homer Kolb. :-) john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Ho! Ho!
That's what he told me my about my VG's...... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) John Hauck wrote: > And every little mod blessed by the man, Homer Kolb. :-) > > john h > mkIII > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List Help! How Many Hrs to Fabric a firestar cage ???
Date: Dec 23, 2007
From: bmwbikecrz(at)aol.com
Any one know long to Do the fabric on a Firestar KX? Stopping at the top of the fuel Tank ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Thanks ! Dave ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ho! Ho!
Date: Dec 23, 2007
> That's what he told me my about my VG's...... > > Richard Pike Richard: That's great! Guess I am one up on Homer. As far as I know, he has never flown a Kolb with VG's. Merry Xmas, Happy New Year! john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Powder Coatings - after the fact
From: "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2007
My FS II is in need of paint on the boom (where the boom support is located) and several other areas. Is there any reason I cannot have someone powder coat these areas? I live in an area with low humidity (Las Vegas, NV) so the reason is not rust, but cosmetics. Is there any gotchas to worry about? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153924#153924 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2007
I have a Firefly with a 503. I haven't flown one with a 447, but my airplane always wants to pitch up and fly left (left wing very heavy). This is because of the extra weight and torque of the 503. The trim tab on the left aileron is already full up. I expected the 503 to climb out at 1500 fpm but it's more like 1000 fpm from my home field (2500 msl). If I were to buy or build another Firefly, I would definitely use the 447. I think the only thing I would miss on the 503 is the oil injection. To be 103 legal in the Firefly, you are limited to 2-bladed wood prop,small wheels, no brakes, no or limited gages, 1 coat of paint, short windscreen. I have the short windscreen. It is very wind. I actually think it would be better to take it off completely. The short windshield seems to put all the turbulent air right at head. Mine has the gap seal removed (between wings). I am 6-01 and if it were there, I think my head wouldn't fit in the airplane. Mine performs very well in turbulence and handles winds well. Ailerons are heavy in cruise, but fine during approach. Jim N. Idaho -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153952#153952 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
From: "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2007
Nope. Was not aware of that small fact. Sounds like it might not be that helpful to other parts of the aircraft... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153953#153953 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
From: "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net>
Date: Dec 23, 2007
Hi John I have a Firestar II that I recovered the fuselage because the fabric had allot of wear and tear. I opted to powder coat the cage as I wanted a more durable finish to work with. The powder coating process works best on steel parts. Because of the temperatures involved I would not coat aluminum parts especially tempered or hardened bits. If you decide to powder coat the cage you will need to remove the boom tube. The only problem I had was that the cage had relaxed a bit causing an out of trim condition in the wings. I used the English wing u-joints to correct the wing trim problem. Otherwise I quite happy about the finish of the powder coating and its durability. Carlos G AKA BaronVonEvil Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153954#153954 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
Date: Dec 24, 2007
John, If you are just now building your airplane, powder coating the fuselage and boom tube is a fine idea. If your airplane is already assembled than it will not be so easy. My Mk-3 came from the old Kolb with the powder coated option on the boom and fuselage and it has held up well. Denny Rowe, N616DR ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2007
From: gary aman <gaman(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
About powder coating; Did all the metal parts,had some reservations about the temps on 6063 or 6061 boom,but my guy said that they stay under those damaging temps ..almost 10 years ago.Chips pretty easy but still looks OK John, If you are just now building your airplane, powder coating the fuselage and boom tube is a fine idea. If your airplane is already assembled than it will not be so easy. My Mk-3 came from the old Kolb with the powder coated option on the boom and fuselage and it has held up well. Denny Rowe, N616DR ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net>
Subject: babble
Date: Dec 24, 2007
I have been lurking on the list for about a week now and I have to say that most of you really have the Christmas Spirit. By that I mean, you all sound as though you have been a little too close to the egg nog (southern style). Babble is a good name for it. Anyway, I have a challenger in my hanger that I fly regularly for the owner and have flown a few others, challengers, mini max, rans 4, weight shift and stick Eagles, etc, and I have to say the Kolb planes are the most delightful to fly. They seem to have the most defined characteristics, the most controllable and dependable. I refer to Challengers as 1956 Buicks on a Sunday afternoon, Kolbs are MGs for the spirited. I take most people on rides in the Challenger. I fly one but I dont want to own one. I enjoy flying my "Greezed Lightnin" Slingshot with a 912. Thats my kind of flying! Ted Cowan, Alabama. If you are interested in some Kolb parts visit my web site at http://southernflyers.homestead.com/ Have a Merry Christmas all. do not archive. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Christmas
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Merry Christmas and a high flying New Year to all from Merrie England Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com>
Subject: Re: FF tailwheel weight
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Bob In re weighing tailwheels -- I'm sure you've heard of the woman who gave birth at a fishing camp. The infant was weighed on the fish- weighing scales; weighed 37 lbs! On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Bob Noyer wrote: > Dave, > > As promised, I weighed my FF's tail wheel. Have a rather std FF, > brakes, larger tires, not much else for weight, about 3 gal fuel. > Tailwheel on electronic scale=56# When I came home, the dang scale > had 'slud' over and fell on driveway when I opened the door! Now my > weight has dropped to 146 from 175!!! > > > regards, > Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb > http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: FSII VS Drifter
Date: Dec 24, 2007
FS11 v Drifter? But is the Drifter better than the Challenger? No, no, not again, Open the cage , play the music!!"!!! Cheers Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 24, 2007
> I have a Firefly with a 503. I haven't flown one with a 447, but my airplane always wants to pitch up and fly left (left wing very heavy). This is because of the extra weight and torque of the 503. The trim tab on the left aileron is already full up. > Jim Jim: Don't think the 503 is causing your out of trim problem. If anything, the increased thrust of the 503 would cause a nose down pitch. Probably have too much incidence right wing, or not enough in the left wing. Ailerons can be dropped a tad to correct the nose up pitch trim. Call Kolb and get a new adjustable universal for the drag strut attachment. Then you can adjust incidence to correct your roll problem. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
John Hauck wrote: > > Probably have too much incidence right wing, or not enough in the left wing. > > Ailerons can be dropped a tad to correct the nose up pitch trim. > > Call Kolb and get a new adjustable universal for the drag strut attachment. > Then you can adjust incidence to correct your roll problem. > > john h > mkIII Thanks for the tip on the adjustable universal. Would I get one for one side, or two for both sides? If one, does it matter what side I put it on? As for the flaperons, if I go to the middle flap position pitch is trimmed nicely. But then I loose 3mph of cruise speed because the flaps are no longer reflexed. If I slow to 45 mph IAS, it will fly hands off. But that is just above stall speed. I would rather cruise at 50 or 55. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154019#154019 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 24, 2007
> As for the flaperons, if I go to the middle flap position pitch is trimmed nicely. But then I loose 3mph of cruise speed because the flaps are no longer reflexed. > > If I slow to 45 mph IAS, it will fly hands off. But that is just above > stall speed. I would rather cruise at 50 or 55. > > -------- > Jim Jim: Only require one universal. Doesn't matter which side you use it on, but if it were mine, I'd check the side with the least incidence and put the universal on the opposite side to match it up. Homer designed a lot of incidence in the wings to get the airplane on and off the ground in a rather level pitch attitude. This also makes the tail fly higher, increasing drag by dragging the tail boom through the air at an angle, rather than straight and level. Wish I would go to the trouble to reduce incidence in my mkIII, but with the windshield and other stuff, would be more trouble than it would be worth. Maybe you can adjust a little of the reflex out to bring the pitch trim back into line without losing a lot of cruise. I would think so. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Merry Christmas
To all my friends on the list: (non-Kolb msg follows) Merry Christmas and may the peace of the Savior - Jesus Christ - be yours for the coming new year. And while it would be nice to give a gift to all of you, I can only give a gift to those who (like me) have bad knees or sore joints. Was looking into knee replacement surgery when I discovered this stuff: http://www.tpgold.com/ Relief was about 95%, no side effects, pretty good I'd say. (And no, I'm not selling it) Merry Christmas Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
[quote="jim"] John Hauck wrote: > > As for the flaperons, if I go to the middle flap position pitch is trimmed nicely. But then I loose 3mph of cruise speed because the flaps are no longer reflexed. > > If I slow to 45 mph IAS, it will fly hands off. But that is just above stall speed. I would rather cruise at 50 or 55. Jim, Given some of the things you have posted, I can tell that you have your plane set up very badly. John H was right about the 503 not causing your trim problems, that is just not going to happen. If think about it for a minute, how much torque difference is there between the 503 and the 447, maybe 15 % , and there is NO torque difference when you are in normal cruise flight. Using the English style U-Joint on the wing will fix your turning problem very well. As far as the pitch trim problem, trying to correct it by adjusting the ailerons is definitely the wrong way to do it. From what you posted, you are trying to use your ailerons like elevons, by reflexing them up and pushing the tail down. The problem is, the Kolb is not a flying wing, and trying to rig it as such is very inefficient and causes very poor performance. I'm going to use general round numbers here to make it easy to understand the concept, they will defiantly not be accurate for the firefly. Lets say you need 10 pounds more down force to be produced by the elevator to maintain level flight at cruise with zero stick pressure, you can get that by several means. First is constantly pulling on the stick, but wears your arm out after a while. Second you can put a trim tab on the elevator which will hold it for you, works very well... Or you can even adjust the front atach point of the horizonatl stab, also works very well, but its hard to do, and even harder to fine tune. Each of these methods would produce the extra 10 pounds of downforce needed for level flight. The worst way you could put an extra 10 pounds downforce on the tail is by reflexing the ailerons. Lets say your tail is 12 feet back from the center of lift of the wing, and your ailerons are 3 feet behind the center of lift. To produce the same tail down force, you will need to generate 4 times the down force with the ailerons then with the tail due to the shorter lever arm moment, so you are generating 40 pounds of downforce at the ailerons instead of the 10 pounds at the much more efficient level arm moment of the tail. So you have created a lot more drag generating 30 pounds of additinal down force instead of the 10 needed at the tail. To make matters worse, the wings have to create additional lift make up for this huge amount of downforce being generated by the ailerons. You have put 40 pounds extra load on the wings instead of the 10 that should have been put on from the tail, so in effect made your plane 30 pounds heavier without adding any additional weight. To top things off, reflexed ailerons are called SPOILERONS, and they do exactly what their name says, they act to kill the lift from the wing. That explains your very high stall speed, poor climb, and general bad performance of your firefly even with a larger engine. Fixing these probelms the correct way is not difficult, and you will love they way your new airplane flys. 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=154048#154048 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Jim, I just re-read what you posted, and it seems you have a pitch up problem instead of pitch down. The same thing still holds true, fix it at the tail, not on the wings. A trim tab to pitch down is by far the best way to make the plane fly level. Adjust the ailerons where they are most efficient, and don't raise your stall speed so much. If you look at properly rigged, certified airplanes, there is not a one on the planet that cruises around with reflexed ailerons, that is a very bad thing. 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=154053#154053 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Christmas greetings
To All My Democrat Friends: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low- stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. To My Republican Friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! -Dana -- The most valuable function performed by the federal government is entertainment. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
I disagree with your analysis and conclusions. Reflexing the ailerons changes the shape of the airfoil and moves the center of pressure of the airfoil forward. Results are the same as making the airplane more tail heavy. Conversely, lowering the ailerons (or the flaps) moves the center of pressure of the airfoil aft, making the airplane effectively more nose heavy. That is what changes the elevator trim pressure, rather than the ailerons pushing the tail up or down as if they were elevators. Obviously there are definite limits to how much the ailerons (or flaps) ought to be reflexed, as the point of diminishing returns happens very quickly, it doesn't take much reflex to make the airfoil inefficient. I have played with this on my MKIII, as the flap handle mod allows the flaps to be adjusted up or down in 1/2" increments around the normal up position. Testing is easy, establish cruise speed at a given power setting and then ease the flaps up or down a 1/2" either way and see what happens to the speed vs. the stick pressure. Speed and rpm stay virtually constant, only the stick pressure changes. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) JetPilot wrote: > > As far as the pitch trim problem, trying to correct it by adjusting the ailerons is definitely the wrong way to do it. From what you posted, you are trying to use your ailerons like elevons, by reflexing them up and pushing the tail down. The problem is, the Kolb is not a flying wing, and trying to rig it as such is very inefficient and causes very poor performance. > > I'm going to use general round numbers here to make it easy to understand the concept, they will defiantly not be accurate for the firefly. Lets say you need 10 pounds more down force to be produced by the elevator to maintain level flight at cruise with zero stick pressure, you can get that by several means. First is constantly pulling on the stick, but wears your arm out after a while. Second you can put a trim tab on the elevator which will hold it for you, works very well... Or you can even adjust the front atach point of the horizonatl stab, also works very well, but its hard to do, and even harder to fine tune. Each of these methods would produce the extra 10 pounds of downforce needed for level flight. > > The worst way you could put an extra 10 pounds downforce on the tail is by reflexing the ailerons. Lets say your tail is 12 feet back from the center of lift of the wing, and your ailerons are 3 feet behind the center of lift. To produce the same tail down force, you will need to generate 4 times the down force with the ailerons then with the tail due to the shorter lever arm moment, so you are generating 40 pounds of downforce at the ailerons instead of the 10 pounds at the much more efficient level arm moment of the tail. So you have created a lot more drag generating 30 pounds of additinal down force instead of the 10 needed at the tail. To make matters worse, the wings have to create additional lift make up for this huge amount of downforce being generated by the ailerons. You have put 40 pounds extra load on the wings instead of the 10 that should have been put on from the tail, so in effect made your plane 30 pounds heavier without adding any additional weight! > . > > To top things off, reflexed ailerons are called SPOILERONS, and they do exactly what their name says, they act to kill the lift from the wing. That explains your very high stall speed, poor climb, and general bad performance of your firefly even with a larger engine. Fixing these probelms the correct way is not difficult, and you will love they way your new airplane flys. > > 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=154048#154048 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2007
From: Bart Morgan <bartmo(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Christmas greetings
Dana, I thought this to be a forum for building and flying Kolb aircraft not a right wing evangelical republican propaganda site. John Dana Hague wrote: To All My Democrat Friends: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low- stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. To My Republican Friends: Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! -Dana -- The most valuable function performed by the federal government is entertainment. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: Kolb-List Help! How Many Hrs to Fabric a firestar cage
???
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Years ago when I was selling firewood there was a pretty good a run on the wood due to a very cold winter. I was concerned about the supplier running out of wood so I needed to locate more wood and heard there was some in Ato ka Oklahoma. So while I was picking up 6 cords from my supplier I decided t o ask one of the guys loading the truck how far Atoka Oklahoma was he said 15 minutes further down the road. I thought that seems wrong so I ask a dif ferent guy and he said I had about an hour and a half down the road. Puzzle d by the difference I ask another and he said 25 minutes. Frustrated I anno unced my findings to the group of guys. One guy piped up and said, =93Aroun d here we don't pay much attention to time or distance we figure if you got s to go you gots to go=94. That's a lot like covering a Kolb. to Fabric a firestar cage ???Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:44:03 -0500From: bm wbikecrz(at)aol.comAny one know long to Do the fabric on a Firestar KX Stoppi ng at the top of the fuel Tank Thanks ! Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Is the Universal designed to either increase or decrease incidence over the standard, or will it only decrease angle of incidence? I am wondering if I should increase the angle of incidence on the port (left) side. It would seem that might also increase the nose down pitch slightly. Last winter I replaced the boom tube on my Firefly to correct damage caused by the previous owner. At that time I did elect to move the forward attach point on the horiz stab up about 3/4 inch. This did reduce the down elevator required to hold straight and level, but not as much as I would like. It is my understanding that the Firefly is designed to have reflex flaps. When the flaperons are up a few degrees from the neutral position in cruise, speed at a given power setting is increased. The Maule (with the fat Clark Y airfoil) uses this technique to increase cruise speed 5mph. I will definitely get a swivel for my Firefly. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. Jim -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154099#154099 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Good catch on the Maule, I looked into that today and they do reflex thier flaps slightly (only a few degrees) to increase cruise, but not to adjust flight trim. But the maules are cruising at 140 MPH, there is a speed below which they say the reflex does not help, and definately for takeoff and landing. I dont know if the firefly will ever get fast enough to need reflex flaps, anyways Kolb says to adjust the flaps on the MK III to flat with the bottom of the wing, and that is where it works best for my MK III Xtra. I did experiment with reflexing flaps and ailerons quite a bit on my plane, but it just increased the stall speed, and did not fly as nice. As Richard says, its easy to play with and see what results you like. The adjustable wing brackets adjust both ways on the MK III, up or down. Decreasing the wing incidence will make your plane pitch down more. -------- "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=154108#154108 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Hi Jim, It just so happens I happen to have an extra English U joint if you want it. I bought two for my Firestar II after I powder coated my cage and found out the wing incidence had changed. Turns out I only need one U joint to trim out the plane. I powder coated them black because thats the color the powder coating guy was running at the time. You can lightly sand the coating and paint to match your airframe. Let me know what you would like to do. Best Regards Carlos Grageda grageda(at)innw.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154118#154118 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/english_u_joint_145.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2007
From: Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Holiday Greetings
I would like to extend my greetings for a Merry Christmas/holiday of choice to all of The Kolb Family. And further, Good Health, Safe Flying, and whatever makes you happy. regards, Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2007
Baron -- Thanks. I've sent an email off-list. -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154143#154143 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Monument Valley at Night
To all the Kolbers who get to enjoy Monument Valley, the website Astronomy Picture of the Day has just posted a marvellous view of the valley at night, might bring back some pleasant memories. Enjoy! http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071225.html Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Monument Valley at Night
Richard, that is tremendous ! ! ! Thanks very much. Merry Christmas ! ! ! Lar. Richard Pike wrote: > > To all the Kolbers who get to enjoy Monument Valley, the website > Astronomy Picture of the Day has just posted a marvellous view of the > valley at night, might bring back some pleasant memories. Enjoy! > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071225.html > > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: drag strut attach point
Date: Dec 25, 2007
Jim..... with regard to the heavy left wing let me offer an opinion. Before you make the changes fly the plane straight and level and while doing so look at your ailerons. Try to tell if they are both in the same relative position.... or is one up and the other down.... If the ailerons are both in the neutral position, you would be better with a trim tab.... However if on the (heavy wing) the aileron is down, then increasing the incidence on the heavy wing Or decreasing the incidence on the light wing would be the correct thing to do. This will cause the ailerons to both fly in the neutral position... You could ask me how I know.... Instead of buying the adjustable universal mounts... I modified mine by welding a very small bead on one side of the 1/2 inch mounting hole and filing out the other side. I increased the incidence on one and decreased it in the other.... it flew hands off but the ailerons were out of the neutral position.... I later bought another original set and installed them and installed a trim tab... now things fly hands off and ailerons are in the neutral position, I still have the modified mounts in the shop (I think) if you want to try. Boyd... Brigham city Utah. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Wire Label Printer
Hey Folks, Some of you have been looking for in-expensive wire/cable label printer. Happen to see the Lowe's in my area has a Rhino Label Printer for printing wire labels. It's around $49 for the printer, label tape is addition. You'll find it in the electrical dept. This is what they call an In/Out item meaning it is not a regular carried item and will not be on their web site. A great Christmas gift for yourself (always get what you want that way)... If you need their item number, let me know. jerb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: FF tailwheel weight
Bob N., Now we all know this was done on purpose so you wouldn't feel guilty over stuffing yourself with a large Christmas dinner. It just will not work Bob, you will not fool the airplane. jerb At 08:54 PM 12/21/2007, you wrote: >Dave, > >As promised, I weighed my FF's tail wheel. Have a rather std FF, >brakes, larger tires, not much else for weight, about 3 gal fuel. >Tailwheel on electronic scale=56# When I came home, the dang scale >had 'slud' over and fell on driveway when I opened the door! Now my >weight has dropped to 146 from 175!!! > > >regards, >Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb ><http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/>http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Any known Kolb in flight structural failures
From: "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2007
Has there ever been a reported structural failure of a Kolb in flight? The kind of structural failure such as a collapsed wing, struts, boom, cage or tail feathers? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154205#154205 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Monument Valley at Night
That's a really nice picture, now I have to make the Kolb pilgrimage there one of these days. Ron Arizona ============= ---- Richard Pike wrote: ============ To all the Kolbers who get to enjoy Monument Valley, the website Astronomy Picture of the Day has just posted a marvellous view of the valley at night, might bring back some pleasant memories. Enjoy! http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071225.html Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) -- kugelair.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Kulp" <undoctor(at)ptd.net>
Subject: Re: FF tailwheel weight
Date: Dec 25, 2007
Bob In re weighing tailwheels -- I'm sure you've heard of the woman who gave birth at a fishing camp. The infant was weighed on the fish- weighing scales; weighed 37 lbs! On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Bob Noyer wrote: > Dave, > > As promised, I weighed my FF's tail wheel. Have a rather std FF, > brakes, larger tires, not much else for weight, about 3 gal fuel. > Tailwheel on electronic scale=56# When I came home, the dang scale > had 'slud' over and fell on driveway when I opened the door! Now my > weight has dropped to 146 from 175!!! > > > regards, > Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb Russ, I suggested to him to hawk it at a Curves For Women - he could pick up quite a few bucks for it! I'm very greatful for his contribution to setting up the trailer I'm fabricating for my FF! He's quite a fine gentleman. Hope all on the list - active and lurkers - are having a blessed Christmas. Best wishes for a fine year of flying ahead! Dave Kulp Bethlehem, PA FireFly 098 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
As I mentioned earlier folks to those who are interested, here are some of the missing pix of the bottom mount rails. All hardware is SS so after painting I will never have rust streaks from the bolts. I need to now have the motor sit on top of this and then adjust it to center and then drill for final placement. In future if the motor need to be canted for whatever purpose it will be simple to purchase the bottom Angles .25 6061 alum from Spruce and adjust as needed. The angles are fairly inexpensive from spruce and they cut them to length for you, I think its something under 5 bucks per foot. The rubber biscuits are from NAPA for $2.50 each. Not expensive at all even for us on a budget. The bolts that will fasten the whole thing together will be stainless as well and fairly robust, I will make sure they fill the holes in the rubber donuts 5/16 comes to mind but ain't sure yet. Merry Christmas Ron Arizona ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2007
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Ron Can you give me enough info on the Napa rubber biscuits to enable me to order them or direct the Napa folks to the correct catalog..? I went this route once before , but the local napa guy could not find them by description..Herb _____________________________________________________________ Click here for free info on Graduate Degrees. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifmxKZ7LBxWSEkZCC9uyTWxvFGYV7omnylT5lsnWAeq4JdrX/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: neilsenrm(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Date: Dec 25, 2007
NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_14576_1198617352_2-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Mike, All of this has to do with your view point and frame of mind. But if you look at the wing and power loading of light GA aircraft, you will find examples and data that can be applied to the Kolb designs. My first flight was in my uncle's Aeronca Champ 7A, and my brother flew a Piper Cub C-3. Over the years about 10,000 Champs and 20,000 Cubs were produced. I consider these two as bench mark GA aircraft and the number of pilots who were trained in them must at least in the six figure region. The gross weight power loading is: Cub 18.75 lbs/hp Champ 18.77 lbs/hp The gross weight wing loading is: Cub 6.84 lbs/sq ft Champ 7.18 lbs/sq ft FireFly 4.27 lbs/sq ft (500/117} Dividing the FireFly gross weight by 18.76 indicates that the FireFly will match their power loading with only 26.7 hp. In comparison anything below this may be considered under powered or substandard. With 27 hp the FireFly will out climb the Champ or Cub by at least 38%. This indicates that it is not necessarily power but wing loading that is the most important factor when it comes to an engine out. Just ask any glider pilot. Fly smart and safe. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN > ........................... >As far as engine, I would put a 503 on it, much more reliable an better than the 447. As far as some that say its overpowered, those are guys that have small engines and try to convince themselves that they made the correct choice by having a small, sub standard engine... Nothing says you need to fly around at high power all the time, but lots of power is a really great thing to have when you need it. More power is also safer, will get you out of trouble when you need it, you will get off the ground quicker, and on takeoff you will also be a lot higher at the end of runway.. If the engine quits on takeoff, you will have several hundred feet more altitude then they poor guy with the small, very light engine. > >.............The only people I ever hear talk about some planes "having to much power" are pilots of doggy, sluggish airplanes that are trying to convince themselves that a lack of power is a good thing. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: neilsenrm(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Date: Dec 25, 2007
NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_10650_1198618659_2-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Engine damper mounts
Rather than trying to tell some pimple factory what it is you want at the Napa store, try McMaster Carr (McMaster.com) page 1318 top. Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Ron, You might want to consider welding compression tubes into your frame rails so they don't collapse the rails when you torque down the engine mounting bolts. The old mounts on my Mark III had rectangular tube spacers without compression tubes and it was never possible to really tighten the through bolts. The result was that all the pieces fretted against each other. Just a thought. Rick On Dec 25, 2007 3:37 PM, wrote: > NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_10650_1198618659_2-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Ron, Thanks for keeping us up to date on the Suzuki install, especially the photos. I have always been very interested in automotove/motorcycle engine conversions for aircraft. One comment I have, for what its worth, is to be careful of stainless steel bolts in high stress locations. Garden variety stainless bolts have about 1/3 the yield strength and 60 percent of the tensile strength of Grade 5 fasteners. In your application, it looks like you have the freedom to oversize the bolts, so you could go with stainless but use larger sizes. Unless you want to do a full stress analysis, I would look at applications with similar stresses (eg. same engine weight) and then if using stainless, go with bolt diameters two sizes larger than you would with a grade 5 or 8. Or you could go with high strength stainless like A286. Dan G. F2 Tucson Ron wrote: >As I mentioned earlier folks to those who are interested, here are some of the missing pix of the bottom mount rails. All hardware is SS so after painting I will never have rust streaks from the bolts. I need to now have the motor sit on top of this and then adjust it to center and then drill for final placement. In future if the motor need to be canted for whatever purpose it will be simple to purchase the bottom Angles .25 6061 alum from Spruce and adjust as needed. The angles are fairly inexpensive from spruce and they cut them to length for you, I think its something under 5 bucks per foot. The rubber biscuits are from NAPA for $2.50 each. Not expensive at all even for us on a budget. The bolts that will fasten the whole thing together will be stainless as well and fairly robust, I will make sure they fill the holes in the rubber donuts 5/16 comes to mind but ain't sure yet. >Merry Christmas >Ron >Arizona > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Ok I found the receipt from NAPA, here is the number on the receipt "602-1045 its noted as MR MOUNT" I think I have the boxes in the hanger trash, so if that doesn't do it let me know and I'll fish out the boxes. I guess I ought to document somewhere this stuff.. :-) Now I am going to be using 8 of them, 4 on the bottom and 4 on top they are $2.9 each. Believe it or not Ace has pretty similar stuff to this, and the smell test indicates that its very close to being the same rubber compound. However Ace wants 4 bucks for each rubber donut. Ron Arizona ============================== ---- "herbgh(at)juno.com" wrote: ============ Ron Can you give me enough info on the Napa rubber biscuits to enable me to order them or direct the Napa folks to the correct catalog..? I went this route once before , but the local napa guy could not find them by description..Herb _____________________________________________________________ Click here for free info on Graduate Degrees. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifmxKZ7LBxWSEkZCC9uyTWxvFGYV7omnylT5lsnWAeq4JdrX/ -- kugelair.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2007
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Ron Many thanks...I will give it a try tomorrow.. finding shock mounts , or rubber that can be used as such has been difficult here in SE Ky.. ; I need some for replacement on my N3 Pup. I am told that Lord makes their shock mounts of all types in Bowling Green Ky.. so close yet so far!! :-) Herb so not archive attach catchy phrase here: :-) _____________________________________________________________ Click here to double your salary by becoming a medical transcriber. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifev4iwLAdVhqgnBnxzT3ON1ISJZVFs4ReSvr3bcYcPSmRZL/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
I decided against any vertical drilling of the tubes. The hols will be through the aluminum only and with just enough clearance to be able to tighten the nut on the bottom side of the Angle, about 30% of the donut will rest directly above the rail. the rest will be a bit outboard on the angle. As you can imagine I spent quite a bit of time playing / thinking about it. This is as most Kolbs are a prototype, and its built to be as robust and as simple as possible. I already know of several different ways of making the mount, not necessarily better. I do think that this for now is probably the least complicated way of doing it. However all along I did not want to drill any holes in the rails, I finally settled on 3 of .25 holes for the bolts through the middle of the rail as you see in the pix. As that area is little stressed vertically and the angles on top will transfer loads all along the rail. I did initially almost go and do what you are proposing though. Ron Arizona ====================== ---- Richard Girard wrote: ============ Ron, You might want to consider welding compression tubes into your frame rails so they don't collapse the rails when you torque down the engine mounting bolts. The old mounts on my Mark III had rectangular tube spacers without compression tubes and it was never possible to really tighten the through bolts. The result was that all the pieces fretted against each other. Just a thought. Rick On Dec 25, 2007 3:37 PM, wrote: > NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_10650_1198618659_2-- > > -- kugelair.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
As you can imagine, :-) I thought about that as well. The bottom rail bolts are in shear load mostly and each .25 is rated iirc to min of 125000 psi. In other words .75 = .25 x 3 =.75 is worth about 93000 pounds per side. as I have two sides I think it looks like I will need about 186000 lb of force to shear them. There is nothing on the Kolb that will stay on if I am ever near any crash load like that including me. The upper bolts will also be mostly in shear but they will need to transfer force to a larger area via the rubber and the angles. So that's why they are much bigger size for the top. But will see, I may change everything right after the first time I fire the engine up. Ron Arizona ====================== ---- "Dan G." wrote: ============ Ron, Thanks for keeping us up to date on the Suzuki install, especially the photos. I have always been very interested in automotove/motorcycle engine conversions for aircraft. One comment I have, for what its worth, is to be careful of stainless steel bolts in high stress locations. Garden variety stainless bolts have about 1/3 the yield strength and 60 percent of the tensile strength of Grade 5 fasteners. In your application, it looks like you have the freedom to oversize the bolts, so you could go with stainless but use larger sizes. Unless you want to do a full stress analysis, I would look at applications with similar stresses (eg. same engine weight) and then if using stainless, go with bolt diameters two sizes larger than you would with a grade 5 or 8. Or you could go with high strength stainless like A286. Dan G. F2 Tucson Ron wrote: >As I mentioned earlier folks to those who are interested, here are some of the missing pix of the bottom mount rails. All hardware is SS so after painting I will never have rust streaks from the bolts. I need to now have the motor sit on top of this and then adjust it to center and then drill for final placement. In future if the motor need to be canted for whatever purpose it will be simple to purchase the bottom Angles .25 6061 alum from Spruce and adjust as needed. The angles are fairly inexpensive from spruce and they cut them to length for you, I think its something under 5 bucks per foot. The rubber biscuits are from NAPA for $2.50 each. Not expensive at all even for us on a budget. The bolts that will fasten the whole thing together will be stainless as well and fairly robust, I will make sure they fill the holes in the rubber donuts 5/16 comes to mind but ain't sure yet. >Merry Christmas >Ron >Arizona > -- kugelair.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Any known Kolb in flight structural failures
At 01:04 PM 12/25/2007, John H Murphy wrote: >Has there ever been a reported structural failure of a Kolb in flight? The >kind of structural failure such as a collapsed wing, struts, boom, cage or >tail feathers? Others could answer better than I, who've only been here about a year, but since nobody else has responded, there are three I've heard of: An Ultrastar deliberately tested to destruction at around 6 g's (the wing drag strut failed, the pilot successfully deployed a parachute, and Kolb subsequently strengthened that area), and two wing leading edge failures on early Firestars that were also flown very hard (one pilot rode the chute down and lived to tell about it, the other didn't.) Search the list archives and you'll find the discussions. -Dana -- "640K of computer memory ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2007
> I have a Firefly with a 503. I haven't flown one with a 447, but my airplane always wants to pitch up and fly left (left wing very heavy). This is because of the extra weight and torque of the 503. The trim tab on the left aileron is already full up. > > I expected the 503 to climb out at 1500 fpm but it's more like 1000 fpm from my home field (2500 msl). > > If I were to buy or build another Firefly, I would definitely use the 447. I think the only thing I would miss on the 503 is the oil injection. > > To be 103 legal in the Firefly, you are limited to 2-bladed wood prop,small wheels, no brakes, no or limited gages, 1 coat of paint, short windscreen. > > I have the short windscreen. It is very wind. I actually think it would be better to take it off completely. The short windshield seems to put all the turbulent air right at head. > > Mine has the gap seal removed (between wings). I am 6-01 and if it were there, I think my head wouldn't fit in the airplane. Virtually all modern sailplanes have flap/aileron interconnects that result in the ailerons being at the same angle to the wing as the flaps. When you move the ailerons, the flaps move right along with the ailerons Negative flaps (whole flap/aileron system up) are used to change the wing camber to a more efficient shape for high speed flight. I don't notice much trim change when going between positive and negative flaps, but do notice a somewhat reduced roll rate with negative flaps. I don't believe trimming the ailerons up and down is a very efficient way to pitch trim a conventional aircraft. It does work well with a flying wing. Jim, With your aircraft being tail heavy, you should first do a weight and balance to check that the CG is within the recommended range. Aft CG out of the proper range is dangerous. If the CG is not out of limits, the most efficient (from a drag standpoint) way to trim it is to raise the front of the horizontal stabilizer a bit. You are degrading the efficiency of the wing by flying the aircraft without a gap cover. Minimally, at least the top surface of the gap should be covered. You might see that 1500 feet per minute rate of climb you expected with a gap cover in place. -------- Dave Bigelow Kamuela, Hawaii FS2, HKS 700E Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154269#154269 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Ron, Now that I look at the numbers, I agree they look pretty good. I am often guilty of over thinking things, but I believe it usually ends up being for the best. The calc I did comes out differently but still looks favorable. The minimum tensile strength I've seen for ordinary 304/347/316 is 75000 psi. Shear failures occur at 50 to 60 percent of tensile strength, so I used 37500 psi. The shear area of a .25 inch fastener is .049 sq-in, so the shear load each can handle is 37500 x .049 = 1840 lbs. Still a big number. What has always concerned me about ordinary ss bolts is their yield strength is only about 40 percent of tensile. This means they can stretch and therefore loosen up at less than half the rated tensile load. Probably like most of us, I am used to being pretty conservative since real life is usually more complex than the calcs assume. I am not familiar with iirc - does that mean strain hardened? I see those are rated to 100 ksi yield and 125 ksi tensile which is a very sturdy solution. Thanks for sharing the process with us - we all learn a lot along the way. Dan Tucson Ron wrote: > >As you can imagine, :-) >I thought about that as well. The bottom rail bolts are in shear load mostly and each .25 is rated iirc to min of 125000 psi. In other words .75 = .25 x 3 =.75 is worth about 93000 pounds per side. as I have two sides I think it looks like I will need about 186000 lb of force to shear them. There is nothing on the Kolb that will stay on if I am ever near any crash load like that including me. The upper bolts will also be mostly in shear but they will need to transfer force to a larger area via the rubber and the angles. So that's why they are much bigger size for the top. >But will see, I may change everything right after the first time I fire the engine up. >Ron >Arizona > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 25, 2007
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
In a message dated 12/24/2007 7:11:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, orcabonita(at)hotmail.com writes: Kolb says to adjust the flaps on the MK III to flat with the bottom of the wing, Make sure that when you measure this parameter that you are holding pressure under each aileron to take the slack out, Also Mike, keep in mind that the Kolb airfoil is not like most airfoils. It is Homer's own Homebrewed shape. It has it's own personality, which is what most Kolb Pilots appreciate. I found on my Firefly that very minor changes in the aileron give significant trim change. It is also different than your MkIIIX in that it tends to have almost no trim change from Splash Off to Splash On. Steve B Firefly 007/Floats do not archive **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Any known Kolb in flight structural failures
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2007
There was a recent case on a MK III where the front of the tail attach point fatigued, cracked, and failed in flight. The front of one side of the horizontal stabilizer went straight up, and jammed against the tail wire, being flat into the wind. The rest of the tail stayed together and the pilot flew it to a safe landing under control. I also read of a very old case where a guy flew a MK II in Canada in very extreme turbulence, and a weld on the rear wing attach failed. The quality of the welding was fixed many years ago according to the article. As far as structure, the Kolbs have a very good structrual record compared to most other airplanes of its class. Except for the first case with the tail, Almost every failure ever recorded was caused by abuse far in excess for which the planes were designed. Aerobatics, etc. etc... Kolbs have a good reputation for being strong planes. 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=154276#154276 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Dave, You may need to adjust the alignment of your engine to compensate for the torque factor it produces - how's it do on pitch when your at cruise power, do you have to hold back stick or forward pressure - if you have had to add a major trim tag to your elevator to compensate for stick forces for nose up or nose heavy condition you might want to adjust the engines angle front to rear by shinning using large fender washers. I recall which way it has to be changed for each, got to think on that a bit - had to do that on my Hawk. Ya, I some what agree with you about the short windscreen - it seems like it directs it right at your face and throat area. We applied silver to top and bottom of the wings and extra coat to top of all surfaces - you probably will not apply the top coat to the point of getting the glossy look if your trying to make the weight. jerb At 08:11 PM 12/25/2007, you wrote: > > > > I have a Firefly with a 503. I haven't flown one with a 447, but > my airplane always wants to pitch up and fly left (left wing very > heavy). This is because of the extra weight and torque of the 503. > The trim tab on the left aileron is already full up. > > > > I expected the 503 to climb out at 1500 fpm but it's more like > 1000 fpm from my home field (2500 msl). > > > > If I were to buy or build another Firefly, I would definitely use > the 447. I think the only thing I would miss on the 503 is the oil injection. > > > > To be 103 legal in the Firefly, you are limited to 2-bladed wood > prop,small wheels, no brakes, no or limited gages, 1 coat of paint, > short windscreen. > > > > I have the short windscreen. It is very wind. I actually think it > would be better to take it off completely. The short windshield > seems to put all the turbulent air right at head. > > > > Mine has the gap seal removed (between wings). I am 6-01 and if > it were there, I think my head wouldn't fit in the airplane. > > >Virtually all modern sailplanes have flap/aileron interconnects that >result in the ailerons being at the same angle to the wing as the >flaps. When you move the ailerons, the flaps move right along with >the ailerons Negative flaps (whole flap/aileron system up) are used >to change the wing camber to a more efficient shape for high speed >flight. I don't notice much trim change when going between positive >and negative flaps, but do notice a somewhat reduced roll rate with >negative flaps. I don't believe trimming the ailerons up and down >is a very efficient way to pitch trim a conventional aircraft. It >does work well with a flying wing. > >Jim, >With your aircraft being tail heavy, you should first do a weight >and balance to check that the CG is within the recommended >range. Aft CG out of the proper range is dangerous. If the CG is >not out of limits, the most efficient (from a drag standpoint) way >to trim it is to raise the front of the horizontal stabilizer a bit. > >You are degrading the efficiency of the wing by flying the aircraft >without a gap cover. Minimally, at least the top surface of the gap >should be covered. You might see that 1500 feet per minute rate of >climb you expected with a gap cover in place. > >-------- >Dave Bigelow >Kamuela, Hawaii >FS2, HKS 700E > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154269#154269 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2007
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
One thing I would do if I were to build another and that is reduce the cord of the flaps and ailerons - see comments made by Jack Hart. It is a little sensitive on the roll control to the point where you almost fighting your self. Regarding the wheels and tires on the FireFly see comment posted by Guy Morgan 02 Aug 2004 16:26, he covers what he did regarding the tires. jerb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 26, 2007
| I own an HP-11 glider that has Flaps on 66% of the trailing edge that go from 90 degrees to -5 degrees reflexed and in a nicely designed wing/tail/control system you barely need any trim forces. | -------- | Ray Ray/Gang: Kolbs are not gliders. When one adds a high thrust line pusher, or a low thrust line pusher (your Ultrastar for instance) the flight characteristics change. My mkIII flies perfectly trimmed when the engine is off and I am gliding. However, when I fire it up and bring up the power, the high thrust line with lots of power pushing on that long lever, pushes the nose down. Then I need some mechanical trim (spring loaded up elevator cable) to take the load off the stick. I can also lighten the load with aileron and flap adjustments. I also lowered the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizers. I try to get the whole aircraft working most efficiently for me. The Ultrastar was not affected much with the low pusher configuration. Probably because the high wing with the engine and pilot hanging under the wing, coupled with drag, helps compensate for the low thrust line. My Ultrastar acted much more like a tractor than the high thrust line Kolbs. Someone mentioned changing thrust line of the engine. I went through those experiements early on with my new 1992 mkIII. Changing the engine left, right, up and down, had negligible effect on how the mkIII trimmed up. I also changed the leading edge of the upper vertical stabilizer, with very little improvement. Ended up putting the engine and vertical stab back in the stock, straight, original position. Most of the ideas, experiments, mods, etc., that you all are bashing around now have been done in the past. The way my mkIII is set up and flown today is the result of all those ideas. Some worked, some didn't. There are still ideas to be checked out. Maybe one of these days I will get around to seeing if they will improve my mkIII or not. Merry Xmas, Happy New Year, john h mkIII Mobile, Alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
Date: Dec 26, 2007
Jim. for best results, If you are flying a Jet, take the advise of the JetPilot. If you are flying a glider, take the advise of the glider pilot. If you are flying a Kolb, take the advise of "The Kolb Pilot". The pitch trim effects of aileron/ flap adjustments on a slender high aspect glider wing do not have anywhere near the same effect as on a short low aspect Kolb wing. Try adjusting your ailerons. You'll be amazed at how easily a Kolb plane can be trimmed for pitch ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2007
Thanks for everybody's inputs. All advice is appreciated. Since it snowed 9 inches this morning, I probably won't be able to make any changes real soon. I will install the adjustable U-joint ASAP and am confident it will correct my left-wing heavy problem. After that, I will see where I am on the pitch issue. Thanks again. Jim Dunn N. Idaho -------- Jim N. Idaho Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154380#154380 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
At 01:27 PM 12/26/2007, jb92563 wrote: >If I had more lake around here in SoCal I'd also put on floats but I worry >about landing on land with a power out on floats. > >Any idea what would happen if you did? Seaplane pilots I know don't worry about putting down on land; the floats just slide... could even be better than puttling wheels down on soft ground. >What is the max part 103 allowance for floats? 30 lbs per float, 10 lbs for each outrigger float. -Dana -- "Gold cannot always get you good soldiers, but good soldiers can always get you gold"-- Niccolo Machiavelli ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2007
From: Steve Kroll <muso2080(at)YAHOO.COM>
I thought some of you would consider these photos thrilling while for others, it's a walk in the park. I'm not in the walk in the park gang but I know this puppy would soar like an angel in the thermals we have in Texas. http://www.ulf-1.com/stills --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2007
From: "Bryan Dever" <indyaviator(at)gmail.com>
Subject: bent gear
Hello all, I remember seeing a picture of a jig someone made for straightening bent aluminum gear legs. Unfortunately, I have found myself in need of such a device. Anyone know where to find pics or plans?? Thanks, Bryan Dever ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 26, 2007
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
In a message dated 12/26/2007 5:34:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, d-m-hague(at)comcast.net writes: Seaplane pilots I know don't worry about putting down on land; the floats just slide... could even be better than puttling wheels down on soft ground. >What is the max part 103 allowance for floats? 30 lbs per float, 10 lbs for each outrigger float. -Dana Thanks Dana that sounds right although if you have a mono you might get a few more pounds for the main float. as far as in the rough landings, I would rather have those big collapsible gear under me. **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
At 09:07 PM 12/26/2007, N27SB(at)aol.com wrote: >30 lbs per float, 10 lbs for each outrigger float. >Thanks Dana that sounds right although if you have a mono you might get a >few more pounds for the main float. as far as in the rough >landings, I would rather have those big collapsible gear under me. As far as I can see, there is no mention of mono floats, just "30 lbs per float". In the case of flying boats, it's still 30# (plus the 10 for each outrigger). I like the idea of the mono float for the US, to keep the spray off the prop. One thought I had was two floats (so you get the 60#) very close together, with a solid web between (almost like a tunnel hull racing boat). You could still add outrigger floats if necessary. I still think I'd rather go into, say, a plowed field with non amphibious floats than straight wheels. There are quite a few videos on youtube of seaplanes landing (and even taking off!) on wet grass. -Dana -- The only correct outcome to an armed robbery attempt is a dead armed robber. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 26, 2007
ez(at)embarqmail.com wrote: > Jim. > for best results, > > If you are flying a Jet, take the advise of the JetPilot. > If you are flying a glider, take the advise of the glider pilot. > If you are flying a Kolb, take the advise of "The Kolb Pilot". > > The pitch trim effects of aileron/ flap adjustments on a slender high > aspect glider wing do not have anywhere near the same effect as on a > short low aspect Kolb wing. > > Try adjusting your ailerons. You'll be amazed at how easily a Kolb > plane can be trimmed for pitch I happen to fly both a Kolb and Jets, that "glider pilot" has been flying ultralights for about 25 years and also flys a Kolb. Most importantly, your little "Jingle" while cute, does not mean its correct or even good advice. I would take the advice of the most qualified and knowledgeable person I could find. The few lines you posted might do well in selling something to soccer moms and the general population, but I sure as heck would not set up my plane based on some funny little post. Yes, aileron angle does affect pitch trim on a Kolb, but that does not mean that it is a good way to set your pitch trim. I have seen posts about using ailerons and flaps to adjust trim enough times that I experimented with this very thing on my MK-III with very poor results, it affected the trim a lot, but also raised my stall speed and made the plane fly poorly. I ended up setting aileron and flaps back where Kolb says to put them, and fixed my pitch trim at the elevator. Setting aileron and flap trim is the WRONG way to achieve proper pitch trim, just because you can do it does not mean you should. When Jim talks about 45 being very close to stall speed on a firefly, and less than spectacular climbs with a 503, that tells me something is wrong with the way his plane is set up. 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=154479#154479 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: per request some more pix of the M3X
Date: Dec 26, 2007
| I'm always amazed at how flimsy the tubing supporting an engine "looks" compared to the weight of the engine. | | I somehow feel safer that the UltraStar engine would pass under my butt in the event of a crash instead of passing over my head as the other Kolbs. | -------- | Ray Ray: The Ultrastar has the weakest engine attachments of the other Kolb models, except the Kolb Flyer. If one crashes a Kolb hard enough for the engine to break loose, most likely you will not feel a thing when the engine hits you. john h mkIII - Survivor of some pretty good Kolb crashes. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How do you like your FireFly?
From: "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 27, 2007
"Setting aileron and flap trim is the WRONG way to achieve proper pitch trim" I certainly agree with this statement. I'd say you could probably use aileron trim to tweak the trim if you are already close. Maybe 2 turns or so of the rod end. I had tried to trim my plane so I wouldn't have to hold so much back pressure when at 6000rpms. I went up to test it out and it did take out a bunch of back pressure and flew fine until I throttled back on final. I couldn't get the nose to come down. I had run out of down elevator due to the reflexed aileron "trim". I leaned forward and gave it some power and I was fine but it would have been a fun ride had my engine stalled. Now I use a bungie cord to provide the back pressure. -------- 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=154503#154503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
In a message dated 12/26/2007 1:39:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jb92563(at)yahoo.com writes: I would worry about changing the temper(strength/durability) of aluminum parts. Ask the shop what the tempering temps of various types of aluminum are and if they have no clue, choose a shop that does understand and care. -------- Ray Years ago when Aluminum Scuba tanks were introduced there were a few cases of ruptured tanks due to powder coating. So there may be some merit to your concern. Steve Firefly 007/Floats do not archive **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
In a message dated 12/26/2007 1:39:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jb92563(at)yahoo.com writes: I would worry about changing the temper(strength/durability) of aluminum parts. Ask the shop what the tempering temps of various types of aluminum are and if they have no clue, choose a shop that does understand and care. -------- Ray Years Ago when Aluminum Scuba tanks were introduced there were **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
Dana, This is a shot from a few years ago of the Factory Xtra flown by Bryan Melborn on Boetto/Melborn Experimental Amphib Floats. Kolbs look great on Floats. Steve Firefly 007/Floats do not archive **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
In a message dated 12/26/2007 9:39:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, d-m-hague(at)comcast.net writes: As far as I can see, there is no mention of mono floats, just "30 lbs per float". In the case of flying boats, it's still 30# (plus the 10 for each outrigger). I like the idea of the mono float for the US, to keep the spray off the prop. One thought I had was two floats (so you get the 60#) very close together, with a solid web between (almost like a tunnel hull racing boat). You could still add outrigger floats if necessary. I still think I'd rather go into, say, a plowed field with non amphibious floats than straight wheels. There are quite a few videos on youtube of seaplanes landing (and even taking off!) on wet grass. -Dana Dana, Have you done any water flying, There is a major difference in Seaplanes (MonoHull) and Floatplanes. Water Handling Looks Flight qualities I personally like the look of a Floatplane and everthing that goes with it. Mono floats added to land plane tend to look Goofy. Rare photo of Ultrastar on floats Steve Firefly 007/Floats do not archive **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Ron I tried to post earlier when I was in Colorado but couldn't get the text to transmit. The photos help a bunch. I would add some gussets to stabilize those rails a bunch more. Also weld steel over all the holes and treat with a anti rust treatment. I agree with the suggestion of using bushings that you weld in place and run your bolts thru. The bushings would allow you to torque the bolts to reduce movement and better seal the rails to keep air and moisture out. Remember when you make major changes to the cage you become the test pilot. Check the mount frequently thru the life of the aircraft. For those of you that want to mount alternative engines, you may want to consider the new VW mount if the standard mount doesn't work. This mount might not exactly fit your engine but will likely work with only minor changes. The VW engine mount allows engines to be mounted much lower like Ron has done, without forcing you to test pilot your changes for the life of the airframe. The engine mount Kolb offers for the VW has more bracing, gussets, and uses heaver steel than I used on my VW so it should strong enough for most any engine. The fewer modifications you make to the cage the better. As always the advice is worth what you paid for it. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron" <captainron1(at)cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Suzuki Bottom rail Attach > As I mentioned earlier folks to those who are interested, here are some of > the missing pix of the bottom mount rails. All hardware is SS so after > painting I will never have rust streaks from the bolts. I need to now have > the motor sit on top of this and then adjust it to center and then drill > for final placement. In future if the motor need to be canted for whatever > purpose it will be simple to purchase the bottom Angles .25 6061 alum from > Spruce and adjust as needed. The angles are fairly inexpensive from spruce > and they cut them to length for you, I think its something under 5 bucks > per foot. The rubber biscuits are from NAPA for $2.50 each. Not expensive > at all even for us on a budget. The bolts that will fasten the whole thing > together will be stainless as well and fairly robust, I will make sure > they fill the holes in the rubber donuts 5/16 comes to mind but ain't sure > yet. > Merry Christmas > Ron > Arizona ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
At 09:44 AM 12/27/2007, N27SB(at)aol.com wrote: > >Dana, Have you done any water flying, There is a major difference in >Seaplanes (MonoHull) and Floatplanes. >Water Handling >Looks >Flight qualities > >I personally like the look of a Floatplane and everthing that goes with >it. Mono floats added to land plane tend to look Goofy. > >Rare photo of Ultrastar on floats... > That DOES make a nice looking floatplane! Sadly, I have done no float flying, other than as a passenger years ago, and a number of R/C seaplanes over the years. I'd like to change that though... and the airport I'm currently flying from is right on the river and has a seaplane ramp. I agree that a mono float would look goofy on a high wing plane, but with the twin float spray shield it wouldn't be an issue (i.e. there'd be no point to a mono float). I'd be interested to know how the Ultrastar behaved on floats... quite well, I imagine. -Dana -- Can I deduct last years taxes as a bad investment? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
____________________________________ From: N27SB Sent: 12/27/2007 9:44:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time Subj: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Mission Specific In a message dated 12/26/2007 9:39:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, d-m-hague(at)comcast.net writes: As far as I can see, there is no mention of mono floats, just "30 lbs per float". In the case of flying boats, it's still 30# (plus the 10 for each outrigger). I like the idea of the mono float for the US, to keep the spray off the prop. One thought I had was two floats (so you get the 60#) very close together, with a solid web between (almost like a tunnel hull racing boat). You could still add outrigger floats if necessary. I still think I'd rather go into, say, a plowed field with non amphibious floats than straight wheels. There are quite a few videos on youtube of seaplanes landing (and even taking off!) on wet grass. -Dana Dana, Have you done any water flying, There is a major difference in Seaplanes (MonoHull) and Floatplanes. Water Handling Looks Flight qualities I personally like the look of a Floatplane and everthing that goes with it. Mono floats added to land plane tend to look Goofy. Rare photo of Ultrastar on floats Steve Firefly 007/Floats do not archive ____________________________________ (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) and _easy ways to stay in shape_ (http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003) for winter. (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Subject: Re: ultralight expolsion
Date: Dec 27, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "jb92563" <jb92563(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:06 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: ultralight expolsion > > Can you imagine how hard it would be to prove to the FAA examiner that an > Ultralight is actually an airworthy aircraft that was built to normal > aircraft airworthiness standards after its already closed up AND somehow > verify that it was at least 51% build by an amateur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think it will be hard at all. All I needed was a builders log or in my case a series of pictures that I took when I last covered the plane. This is of course taking it for granted that the person trying to do that is indeed the builder, which in Ben's case is correct, I think. Larry C ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2007
From: Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net>
Subject: Amateur built info.
Howdie to all, When I had my FSII inspected by the FAA, I was not sure if I wanted to be amateur built or experimental. When I ran that past the FAA examiner for his opinion, he said in order to register amateur built, I would have to have sign-offs from the FAA that showed my work was inspected several times during the building process. Therefore amateur built was out of the question, since I had no FAA inspections while I was building. Lanny Fetterman N598LF ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Amateur built info.
Date: Dec 27, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lanny Fetterman" <donaho(at)uplink.net> . When I ran that past the FAA > examiner for his opinion, he said in order to register amateur built, I > would have to have sign-offs from the FAA that showed my work was > inspected several times during the building process. Therefore amateur > built was out of the question, since I had no FAA inspections while I was > building. Lanny Fetterman N598LF > Lanny, Sounds like that fellow had no idea what he was talking about! The Airworthiness inspection is the only required FAA inspection for an amateur built experimental. Denny Rowe, N616DR ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Monument valley
Date: Dec 27, 2007
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=37.00744,-110.21373&z=16&t=S&marker0=36.98333%2C-110.10000%2CMonument_ValleyThis is where we pitch our tents.john hmkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: ACME Mapper 2.0 - 1.3 km N of Monument Valley UT
Date: Dec 27, 2007
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=37.01175,-110.20180&z=16&t=S&marker0=36.98333%2C-110.10000%2CMonument_Valley Here is where we land and tie down. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Amateur built info.
You got an incompetent goober. There are no intermediate inspections required, that was eliminated several years ago. Hope your happy with what you've got... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Lanny Fetterman wrote: > > Howdie to all, When I had my FSII inspected by the FAA, I was not sure > if I wanted to be amateur built or experimental. When I ran that past > the FAA examiner for his opinion, he said in order to register > amateur built, I would have to have sign-offs from the FAA that showed > my work was inspected several times during the building process. > Therefore amateur built was out of the question, since I had no FAA > inspections while I was building. Lanny Fetterman N598LF > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Amateur built info.
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Gang: My mkIII was inspected nearly 16 years ago. I had one inspection by a DAR, the final one. Also, had very few photos. Kept track of time spent building on a daily planning calendar. Also had a stack of receipts for parts, ect., that he did not look at. He wasn't there to determine if I had built 51%, but to see if it looked airworthy. When he was satisfied, I got my airworthiness certificate, experimental/homebuilt. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Mission Specific
In a message dated 12/27/2007 1:17:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, d-m-hague(at)comcast.net writes: I'd be interested to know how the Ultrastar behaved on floats... quite well, I imagine. -Dana According to my friend it was very quick off the water and flew very nice. (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Powder Coatings - after the fact
Date: Dec 28, 2007
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
"The BaronVonEvil" wrote: <<... Because of the temperatures involved I would not coat aluminum parts especially tempered or hardened bits. If you decide to powder coat the cage you will need to remove the boom tube. Carlos G >> This topic came up on the Kolb List several years ago when I asked the same question: "Can I powder coat the aluminum boom tube?" It was determined (and I verified, to be sure) that the 6061 Aluminum will not suffer any degradation of its strength properties by being heated to 400 degrees F. I consulted with a strength & structures engineer. We looked at several temp vs. strength graphs for 6061 aluminum. Bottom line is: you're OK to powedercoat the boom tube. I did mine in 2000, along with the cage and all steel parts in the Kit. Works just fine. Dennis Kirby Mark-III, 912ul, Powerfin-72, N93DK Cedar Crest, NM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2007
From: David Herron <drherron(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 12/27/07
Hey Ray, Don't give my secret away :-) . Interesting idea about putting two floats together to gain extra pounds for your regs. I will talk that up with a couple of float pilots. Keeping spray off a lower prop is important. I have regular floats for my Lazair, but the designer made a mono float to save weight and facilitate amphib wheels; weight is not an issue for our regulations until we get to the gross for our ultralight class (Canuckland) - but they tell me weight and power mean everything for safety and performance. Most float pilots prefer high wings around docks etc. Goofy, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an ugly duckling that can get off the water and fly safely is a beautiful thing. Cheers, drh CYEL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Date: Dec 28, 2007
For all of you gear leg benders (myself included), remember that 7075-T6 aluminum will not take too many bends. They will take one or two if the bends are not severe. Past that and who knows? I care an extra one which is predrilled for the left gear, just in case I hit a chuck hole. As for full stall landings, the VGs solved that problem. Now, I do not have to learn to do it right. Vic (Sacramento) N4201G ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2007
From: "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Hey Vic (Sacramento) N4201G Vic ( Maine) N740VP How do VG's effect your landings? Getting my inspection by the FAA within 2 weeks. eeeeeeHa! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2007
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net>
Subject: Kolb Firefly
I am Bill Sullivan, and my wife is Norma, called Tiny. Newcomers to the list, both reading and contributing. Enjoy it very much. We are in our late 50's, and just decided to buy a used Kolb Firefly. Question: Is there anyone in our area who can give a couple of lessons in a dual control Kolb? We live in Windsor Locks, Ct., right near Bradley Airport. East Windsor, Simsbury, and Ellington airports are nearby, as well as Robert's field, which is turf, and privately owned. We would also like to know if there are any local clubs, or Kolb owners near. Thank You Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2007
Subject: Re: Kolb Firefly
From: greg(at)skyelink.com
> I am Bill Sullivan, and my wife is Norma, called Tiny. Newcomers to the > list, both reading and contributing. Enjoy it very much. We are in our > late 50's, and just decided to buy a used Kolb Firefly. Question: Is there > anyone in our area who can give a couple of lessons in a dual control > Kolb? We live in Windsor Locks, Ct., right near Bradley Airport. East > Windsor, Simsbury, and Ellington airports are nearby, as well as Robert's > field, which is turf, and privately owned. We would also like to know if > there are any local clubs, or Kolb owners near. Thank You > Bill > Bill where is Windsor Locks Ct. Started a flying club in virginia in nov. of last your love to see you. I have a mark III and a fire fly on the way. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jimmy Young" <jdy100(at)comcast.net>
Subject: flying legal now
Date: Dec 29, 2007
Today, I made a flight from Alvin TX to LaPorte TX (T41, only about 25 miles) to get signed off to fly solo in my Firestar II. I made it over, got my endorsement, and flew back to my home airport (6R5). The instructor at LapPorte had given me my tailwheel endorsement there earlier this month in a Legend Cub. I still have to complete one more X-wind landing lesson at my other flight school and then complete my checkride before I get my Sport Pilot license, but at least now I can fly legally out of my airport. I feel much better about things being legal, even though I have about 20+ hours in my plane. I honestly felt like a kid who just got his driver's license...no big deal to most others, but very exciting to me! This has been maybe the most inspiring year of my life, flying my Kolb is great fun! Thanks to all who have helped me out along the way. Jimmy Young FS II, 7043P ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: flying legal now
From: "Mnflyer" <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2007
Hi Jimmy congrats on your accomplishments I know how you feel, while its been almost 40 years since my PP check ride I still remember the thrill of it and all the additional rates added later on. keep on flying and having fun. GB -------- GB MNFlyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=154931#154931 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2007
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Re: flying legal now
You've come a long way in a short time...! Good job, Jimmy! On Dec 29, 2007 5:07 PM, Jimmy Young wrote: > Today, I made a flight from Alvin TX to LaPorte TX (T41, only about 25 > miles) to get signed off to fly solo in my Firestar II. I made it over, got > my endorsement, and flew back to my home airport (6R5). The instructor at > LapPorte had given me my tailwheel endorsement there earlier this month in a > Legend Cub. I still have to complete one more X-wind landing lesson at my > other flight school and then complete my checkride before I get my Sport > Pilot license, but at least now I can fly legally out of my airport. I feel > much better about things being legal, even though I have about 20+ hours in > my plane. I honestly felt like a kid who just got his driver's license...no > big deal to most others, but very exciting to me! This has been maybe the > most inspiring year of my life, flying my Kolb is great fun! Thanks to all > who have helped me out along the way. > > Jimmy Young > FS II, 7043P > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kolb Firefly
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2007
Hi Bill, I am located in Miami, which is a very long way from you, but the weather is warm and if you find yourself down here on vacation, and would like to get some dual in a MK III, I would be happy to take you up. This offer is open to anyone that needs to fly a 2 place Kolb before attempting to solo their own Kolb. 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=154950#154950 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2007
From: "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: flying legal now
Jimmy, Congrats! Glad to hear it. It's no small event in terms of time, effort, cost, and especially the opportunities it will provide. I think any amount time you fly with a good instructor is a good investment. Dan G. Tucson FS II Jimmy Young wrote: > Today, I made a flight from Alvin TX to LaPorte TX (T41, only about 25 > miles) to get signed off to fly solo in my Firestar II. I made it > over, got my endorsement, and flew back to my home airport (6R5). The > instructor at LapPorte had given me my tailwheel endorsement there > earlier this month in a Legend Cub. I still have to complete one more > X-wind landing lesson at my other flight school and then complete my > checkride before I get my Sport Pilot license, but at least now I can > fly legally out of my airport. I feel much better about things being > legal, even though I have about 20+ hours in my plane. I honestly felt > like a kid who just got his driver's license...no big deal to most > others, but very exciting to me! This has been maybe the most > inspiring year of my life, flying my Kolb is great fun! Thanks to all > who have helped me out along the way. > > Jimmy Young > FS II, 7043P ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Subject: Re: Firestar - BRS location other than above the head
In a message dated 12/10/2007 10:54:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com writes: --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John H Murphy" Has anyone tried installing the BRS in a Firestar other than above your head? I'm trying to find room to engineer a starter and I'm running out of room with the BRS next to it. Quicksilvers have the BRS in all sorts of odd looking configurations including shooting the BRS to the side of the aircraft. I have my softpak mounted below the boom and below the gas tank aimed out the right side.... Of course I have never had to use it. Oh, I have a KX Firestar. with a 447 George Randolph of The Villages, Fl (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Firestar - BRS location other than above the head
Buddy of mine has an older Firestar with the BRS mounted on the boom behind the tank, will shoot out the side of the fuselage. Has a Velcro secured hatch. Lanyard runs up the back of the fuselage, over, around, and down. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/10/2007 10:54:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com writes: > > > > Has anyone tried installing the BRS in a Firestar other than above > your head? I'm trying to find room to engineer a starter and I'm > running out of room with the BRS next to it. Quicksilvers have the > BRS in all sorts of odd looking configurations including shooting > the BRS to the side of the aircraft. > > I have my softpak mounted below the boom and below the gas tank aimed > out the right side.... Of course I have never had to use it. Oh, I > have a KX Firestar. with a 447 > > George Randolph of The Villages, Fl > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape > <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003> > for winter. > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Subject: Re:Kolb Firefly.
From: edharvey1(at)juno.com
Hi Bill: I am a member of the Silver Wings Ultralight Flying Club based just over the state line in Palmer, Ma. We have our own private 900' airstrip adjacent to the now closed Palmer (Metro) Airport: PMX. Many of our members are from northern CT. Contact me for details if you are interested. We do not have a 2-place Kolb based here but the club does own a 2-place MX Sprint II. Ed Harvey Firefly 038 Monson, MA. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FS2Kolb(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Subject: Re: Firestar - BRS location other than above the head
_http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/BensAlbum/build/a1brsinst.html_ (http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/BensAlbum/build/a1brsinst.html) (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Congratulations to Cristal
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Hi all, when you see or message Cristal Waters, Congratulate her on her piloting skills! This Saturday, she successfully took of & landed a Kolb MK-3, THREE times, during a familiarization ride. With only 15 hours in a C-150, I call that an accomplishment! Didn`t make it to a Tailwheel sign off due to time constraints, but what a foundation to build on for the day she flies her own MK-2 ! Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Firestar - BRS location other than above the head
At 10:04 AM 12/30/2007, FS2Kolb(at)aol.com wrote: ><http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/BensAlbum/build/a1brsinst.html>http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/BensAlbum/build/a1brsinst.html I like that... I've always been skeptical of BRS's mounted on top of the wings... if the wings folded (one scenario where you'd sure NEED a BRS!) they could block the deployment. Also it's less drag than a can mounted above the wing root. -Dana -- They say that politics makes strange bedfellows. Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Firestar - BRS location other than above the head
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Dana: You can mount a BRS soft pack in the center section, rocket and all. Absolutely clean. As far as wings folding, I know of one case in my 24 years of building and flying Kolbs, where the wings folded. That was the Twinstar (IIRC) that flew without the 3/8 bolts in the main spar H braces. Only thing holding the tang was the few 1/8" rivets that kept the tang in line. He made the maiden takeoff with wings and landed with the wings folded. RIP Attached photos were taken by Larry Borne, I think, flying as a passenger in John Williamson's Kolbra at Monument Valley. Please correct me if I am wrong. john h mkIII I've always been skeptical of BRS's mounted on top of the wings... if the wings folded (one scenario where you'd sure NEED a BRS!) they could block the deployment. Also it's less drag than a can mounted above the wing root. -Dana ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2007
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Firestar - BRS location other than above the head
Yup, that were Monument Valley. The 2 Johns were the pilots while Jim Hefner in John Hauck's Miss P'fer and I in John Williamson's Kolbra took pictures of each other. Fun Flight ! ! ! Lar. Do not Achive. John Hauck wrote: > Dana: > > You can mount a BRS soft pack in the center section, rocket and all. > Absolutely clean. > > As far as wings folding, I know of one case in my 24 years of building > and flying Kolbs, where the wings folded. That was the Twinstar > (IIRC) that flew without the 3/8 bolts in the main spar H braces. > Only thing holding the tang was the few 1/8" rivets that kept the tang > in line. He made the maiden takeoff with wings and landed with the > wings folded. RIP > > Attached photos were taken by Larry Borne, I think, flying as a > passenger in John Williamson's Kolbra at Monument Valley. Please > correct me if I am wrong. > > john h > mkIII > > > > I've always been skeptical of BRS's mounted on top of the > wings... if the wings folded (one scenario where you'd sure NEED a > BRS!) they could block the deployment. Also it's less drag than a > can mounted above the wing root. > > -Dana > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: bent gear and VG's
Date: Dec 30, 2007
I added my VGs almost like Richard Pike did his on his Classic. They reduced my clean stall speed from 40 to 36 mph. It takes about half of the drop speed away when I do a full stall landing where the tailwheel hits first. I need to do more testing with partial and full flap full stall landings to see if the VGs are equallally a benefical in all configurations. I am thinking and hoping that somewhere around 60 mph cruise that I will attain a very efficient fuel burn. That would be a plus because at full cruise, I burn 3.5 gl/hr. I would be very happy with a fuel burn of 2.5 gl/hr at 60mph cruise. Vic in Sacramento ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Single or Dual Controls?
From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
Date: Dec 30, 2007
I am wondering if you guys can give me the pro's and con's on dual controls verses single. As you know, the MKIII comes with the single stick which I think I would like to use as it seems that it would be easier to get into the plane. No stick in the way. In looking at other MKIII's, though, I can see that the single stick in the center console takes up precious space. Is the center stick comfortable to use or awkward to use? Rick Lewis (water cooled VW engine) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155065#155065 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2007
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
I like it, not at all awkward, and I like not having to get my leg over it. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Rick Lewis wrote: > > I am wondering if you guys can give me the pro's and con's on dual controls verses single. As you know, the MKIII comes with the single stick which I think I would like to use as it seems that it would be easier to get into the plane. No stick in the way. In looking at other MKIII's, though, I can see that the single stick in the center console takes up precious space. > > Is the center stick comfortable to use or awkward to use? > > Rick Lewis > (water cooled VW engine) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155065#155065 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 30, 2007
> Is the center stick comfortable to use or awkward to use? > > Rick Lewis Rick L: Works great. Is a lot less complicated than the dual sticks. I think the biggest complaint was the throttle was also in the center on the old MKIII's. I noticed it was on both sides when I was up at the Factory for the Homecoming. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Single or Dual Controls
Date: Dec 30, 2007
I can't remember the name of the fellow, from somewhere in the midwest, who gave me this idea. Works great, just like a cessna :) and comes off with a single bolt. There is a self locking nut hidden in the tee. I did weld a little extension at the root of the stick handle because I didn't like the stick interference with the throttle at full up. BB DSCN1526.JPG copy

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 30, 2007
> Rick L: > > Works great. Is a lot less complicated than the dual sticks. > > I think the biggest complaint was the throttle was also in the center on > the old MKIII's. I noticed it was on both sides when I was up at the > Factory for the Homecoming. > > john h > mkIII > > Rick, I have the old center stick and throttle set up in my Mk-3 and had no difficulty adjusting to it, looks kind of funny in pics, but is as simple as can be. Denny Rowe, Mk-3 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 30, 2007
> The stick and throttle are _both_ in the center? Which hand do you use on > which? > > -Dana Dana: Flying from the left seat, right hand on the stick and left on the throttle. Flying from the right seat, left hand on the stick and right hand on the throttle. Seems awkward, but only takes a few minutes to get accustomed to flying that way. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fabric covering the fuselage
From: "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 30, 2007
I ask this once before but did not receive any responses. Is there any reason to cover the fuselage as is shown in the kolb web site of the white & yellow firestar? I'm assuming it does not effect flight performance but wanted to make sure before I took it off. Cosmetics only? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155101#155101 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos" <grageda(at)innw.net>
Subject: Re: Fabric covering the fuselage
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Hi John, I can't think of a good reason to cover the fuselage if you are in a temperate climate like Florida or the southern states. If you are in the north with low temps in the winter then enclosing the frame makes sense. I have not flown a Firestar without covering so I can't say how it would handle. It does seem to me like it might help with rudder authority. It would be like trying to steer a sail boat without a keel.. You will turn eventually. Just my $.02 Carlos G.-- Original Message ----- From: "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:00 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Fabric covering the fuselage > > > I ask this once before but did not receive any responses. Is there any > reason to cover the fuselage as is shown in the kolb web site of the white > & yellow firestar? I'm assuming it does not effect flight performance but > wanted to make sure before I took it off. Cosmetics only? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155101#155101 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2007
From: "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Not covering the FS fuselage - any problems?
John, I don't know of any reason why you have to cover the fuselage. I'm not sure what areas you plan to leave covered vs. uncovered, but you would like to avoid any configuration that would catch too much air and create excessive drag. Of course, the plane is more aerodynamic = faster cruise speed with the covering. Dan G Tucson 503 F2 John H Murphy wrote: > >Is there any reason other than for cosmetic reasons for not covering the fuselage as shown on the Kolb site of a Firestar (white & checkered yellow Firestar with some young pilot at the controls). I'm thinking of relocating my BRS to the boom tube and instead of recovering the area exposed in the installation, just leaving it uncovered. I do not want to have this effect the flying characteristics. > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151903#151903 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
For what it's worth, the dual sticks are not that hard to get around, even for an old fart like me. After the Challenger II, getting in and out of the Mk III is like falling into a recliner. I fly from the right seat and it's very comfy. Rick On Dec 30, 2007 8:34 PM, John Hauck wrote: > > > > The stick and throttle are _both_ in the center? Which hand do you use > on > > which? > > > > -Dana > > > Dana: > > Flying from the left seat, right hand on the stick and left on the > throttle. > > Flying from the right seat, left hand on the stick and right hand on the > throttle. > > Seems awkward, but only takes a few minutes to get accustomed to flying > that > way. > > john h > mkIII > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kolbra price list
From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2007
Hi all, Er forgive my ignorance, but does anyone have a current price sheet for the Kolbra handy? I can't seem to find one on the kolb factory site, though there appears to be one for the MK III and the others. Doing some thinkin, pencil pushin and calkeelatin and need a detailed price list before my 6th grade education runs out of steam. Just show me where to click on the site (or just email Travis)? Thanks, LS -------- LS FS II Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155164#155164 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 31, 2007
Rick: Dual sticks can get pretty complicated for flying passengers that are not familiar with entering and exiting the mkIII. I removed the left stick for that purpose. Another reason for removing the left stick is to allow larger passengers to fly. With two sticks, size of the thighs may restrict lateral stick movement. john h mkIII For what it's worth, the dual sticks are not that hard to get around, even for an old fart like me. Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls
Date: Dec 31, 2007
> I didn't like the stick interference with the throttle at full up. > BB > > Bob, I shortened the throttle lever slightly to cure the stick interferance. Denny ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2007
I have dual controls in my MK-III Xtra, and they are great. I have flown a lot of people, different sizes, and getting in and out of the plane is not an issue. If a person is not capable of lifting thier knee high enough to get over the stick, they probably would not be capable of getting into any plane except an airliner. We to take passengers that have to be lifted into their seats in airliners, but thats where I draw the line in my Kolb. For passengers, dual sticks are great. Its rare that I get a passenger that does not want to fly the plane. With dual sticks I can let them do a lot more, and have my hand on my stick ready to correct if needed. I do let my wife and friends try takeoffs and landings, having two sticks makes it easy and much safer. Overall, its makes for a much better experience for the passenger to have his own stick, and makes me feel good also. So the issue of having to lift my knee 10 inches or so when getting in and out is really a non-issue, its well worth it many times over. 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=155185#155185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 31, 2007
> I have dual controls in my MK-III Xtra, and they are great. I have flown a lot of people, different sizes, and getting in and out of the plane is not an issue. If a person is not capable of lifting thier knee high enough to get over the stick, they probably would not be capable of getting into any plane except an airliner. > > Mike Mike: I don't recall saying anything about the passenger being able to lift their leg to clear the stick. Hell, I'm 68 and have a hard time bending my own knee and getting my leg over or around the stick. Big problem with flying passengers is getting them and out of the aircraft without destroying it. Wait until some club foot kicks the inside of the windshield, scratching it when they sling their size 14 over the stick, or kick the instrument panel. Then again, there is the limit on just how large a passengers thighs can be, or their belly, before they interfere with stick throw and safe flight. Glad yours works perfect with small, skinny passengers. Old pilot that flew many passengers in Fat Albert for the Kolb Factory over the years, john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: bent gear
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2007
The effects of VG's make for much more forgiving landings. The plane does not tend to quit flying and drop suddenly like before. That combined with much more controllable slow approaches, and reduced stall makes them a huge safety advantage for Kolbs. If I ever have an engine out on my MK-III, approaching 10 MPH slower, and landing in a field at 30 MPH instead of 40 is a HUGE advantage. It could make the difference between stopping or not, and not dropping hard could make the difference between flipping over on my back or not. With the overwhelming evidence of the benefits and large number of very positive reports about VG's on Kolbs, its hard to understand why anyone would not have them. They are only 100 bucks, and a couple hours to install from: www.landshorter.com 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=155189#155189 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Date: Dec 31, 2007
> With the overwhelming evidence of the benefits and large number of very positive reports about VG's on Kolbs, its hard to understand why anyone would not have them. They are only 100 bucks, and a couple hours to install from: > > www.landshorter.com > > > Mike Bigelow Mike: How much time did you put on your Kolb before you started flying it with VGs? What kind of results did you get without and with VGs? With all those pros, there must be a few cons. Learn how to land your Kolb without VGs. Get rid of the porcupine look. Streamline maintenance by making it much easier to wash the wings. I don't have the porcupine look and still don't like washing wings. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Date: Dec 31, 2007
My VGs cost about $8.00 for alum roof flashing. About day to fab and a day to install. Should have spent several days locating them. THey are easy to locate to reduce stalll speed and difficult to locate to keep from losing cruise speed. My Classic now lands very much like the early Citabria with the 115 hp engine. Also, similar to a Kitfox in the grass. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fabric covering the fuselage
At 11:09 PM 12/30/2007, Carlos wrote: >I can't think of a good reason to cover the fuselage if you are in a >temperate climate... I would think that a covered fuselage would make slips much more effective. My Ultrastar (the only Kolb I've flown so take this for what it's worth) has no fuselage or pod of any kind and slips basically do nothing at all. -Dana -- HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks, Dave. DAVE! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2007
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
At 11:08 AM 12/31/2007, Denny Rowe wrote: >Pilot in left seat, right hand on stick, left hand across body for >throttle, not as hardas it seems. It DOES sound awkward! I can appreciate the complexity of dual sticks, but a center stick and dual outboard throttles (a torque tube under the seats like the 2-place Quicksilvers; very easy to implement) would seem to make more sense. -Dana -- HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks, Dave. DAVE! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 31, 2007
That really turned me off on dual sticks. Are all dual stick > Kolbs so sloppy? > > Rick Neilsen Rick: Only the dual sticks old Kolb designed and sold. Jim Hauck and Seth Mathews (RIP) designed my dual controls in 1991. Old Kolb was not interested in them and designed their own. I was lucky. By the time they designed and installed dual controls in Fat Albert, Dan had taken over as the company MKIII pilot. I made a couple flights with passengers in Fat Albert with the dual controls and was not comfortable. In 1998 or 99 TNK started producing dual controls like the ones in my mkIII. There is no slop in our dual controls. john h mkIII - Heading out the door to meet James Trip and do my last flight for 2007. Beautiful day at hauck's holler and Gantt International Airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: Mark III Classic
Date: Dec 31, 2007
I agree..........how can you beat a Kolb for pleasure and low cost operation? I have seriously considered the Pipistrel Virus made in Slovania. But, the $100,000+ bucks, the annuals, the taxes etc.etc. makes it much easier to get up earlier so that I can get to where I am going on time in my Classic. The Pipistrel folks do seem to have their act together. Take a look at their self launch sailplane on video. It is called the "Taurus". Vic N4201G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
Date: Dec 31, 2007
> Stuff like that has happened. For instance: engine out and passenger > braces against the rudder pedals for > what he thinks is the impending crash - and creates one. Hate to have a > passenger (all full of adrenaline) > grab the stick at the wrong time. You would have to break his arm to get > him to let go. Hey Possum: Happy New Year! That is why I prefer to fly solo. Always have. Don't have to worry about a passenger pulling a more stupid stunt than me. Airplane flies a lot better too. You don't have to worry about it in the Possum Special. It's single place. Take care, john h mkIII 912ULS - 160.5 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ross richardson <smlplanet(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Date: Dec 31, 2007
I seen your comments about the VG's, could you give me some more informatio n on them, ( how they are made and locations). I have a Classic 111 /912UL also which I got N numbered 2 weeks ago. I don' t have that much time in it plus had done several changes and modifications to it. I had a commercial pilot and who also flies a tow plane for hand gl ider ( 50-100 per week end ) test fly it. He said it handled fine and then we took it up (duel ) it see how it handled, flew GREAT and everything see med to be in adjusted properly. He called a friend of mine that night and commented on how well the plane f lew and handled. He has flown a lot of different types of planes but not a Kolb Mark 111 and was really surprised. Now I am looking at the VG's to hel p with the 900' airstrip I have at home. > From: apilot(at)surewest.net> Subj ect: Re: Kolb-List: Re: bent gear> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com> Date: Mon, west.net>> > My VGs cost about $8.00 for alum roof flashing. About day to f ab and a day to install. Should have spent several days locating them. THey are easy to locate to reduce stalll speed and difficult to locate to keep from losing cruise speed. My Classic now lands very much like the early Cit =======================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Date: Dec 31, 2007
Ross: What kind of changes and modifications did you do to your mkIII? john h MKIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 900ft Runway
Date: Dec 31, 2007
Ellery: May be some of that new VG data jetpilot was talking about. Yea, if it will stretch a strip, probably should consider a set. However, 750 feet will more than adequately take care of a mkIII with 912UL, carrying a passenger, without VG's. I checked out my landings this afternoon. Make that singular. I only did one on my grass strip. MKIII didn't fall out of the sky when it stalled, sorta kissed that wet grass and cow crap. Musta been the 40 degrees of flaps and landing on the ground and not a foot or two above it. john h mkIII 900 Ft runway in any Kolb shouldn't be a problem and I dont know if VG's will make the runway any longer But Good Luck with that Project anyway :o) Ellery ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: VGs
Date: Dec 31, 2007
Mr. Pike and Mr. Shackleford seem to have very good information about VGs. Also, Cub Crafters has some good pictures regarding location, but the airfoil is different and therefore, may not be applicable to a Kolb airfoil. Vic ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Mark III Classic
I have a couple hours in the Virus. Nice airplane in terms of quality, finish, but not pleasant to fly. Would much prefer an Aeroprakt Vista for about $40K less, or a Stingsport for the same price as the Virus. If you ever get a chance to fly either of those airplanes, take it. If you get a chance to fly a Virus, take that too, it will make you appreciate your Kolb... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) apilot(at)surewest.net wrote: > > I agree..........how can you beat a Kolb for pleasure and low cost operation? I have seriously considered the Pipistrel Virus made in Slovania. But, the $100,000+ bucks, the annuals, the taxes etc.etc. makes it much easier to get up earlier so that I can get to where I am going on time in my Classic. The Pipistrel folks do seem to have their act together. Take a look at their self launch sailplane on video. It is called the "Taurus". > Vic N4201G > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: bent gear
Well there is one drawback - the curmudgeon factor. For which there is apparently no solution... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) John Hauck wrote: > > Mike: > > How much time did you put on your Kolb before you started flying it > with VGs? > > What kind of results did you get without and with VGs? > > With all those pros, there must be a few cons. > > > john h > mkIII > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Single or Dual Controls?
From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Thanks to everyone for the information. I think I will go ahead and try the single stick as my thoughts on the matter were mostly confirmed. I remember many years ago flying a cub and having my passenger try to reposition himself in the seat. Doing so he pulled on the stick and before things were under control we had completed a barrel roll. I think both of us messed in our pants, at least I know one of us did. [Embarassed] Rick Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155310#155310 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Subject: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
Hosted a Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes. Over a Dozen planes and 50 People. (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: looking for mark III
From: "chief1946" <chief1946_2000(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Does anyone on the list know the whereabouts of N-8150N? It was built in 1997. Thanks for any info. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155336#155336 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: looking for mark III
Date: Jan 01, 2008
> Does anyone on the list know the whereabouts of N-8150N? It was built in 1997. Thanks for any info. Google found this: http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N8150N.html FAA data base: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?verified=1&NNumbertxt=8150N john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: looking for mark III
> >Does anyone on the list know the whereabouts of N-8150N? It was built in 1997. Thanks for any info. > > Check: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: gary aman <gaman(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: looking for mark III
John, Using ( Landings .com) website it looks like it is in Indiana.That site will give you names and addresses and status as well. G Aman MK3C 2200 Jabiru > Does anyone on the list know the whereabouts of N-8150N? It was built in 1997. Thanks for any info. Google found this: http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N8150N.html FAA data base: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?verified=1&NNumbertxt=8150N john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: gary aman <gaman(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: looking for mark III
Should say, Landings.com, then data bases, then basic search. > >Does anyone on the list know the whereabouts of N-8150N? It was built in 1997. Thanks for any info. > > Check: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: looking for mark III
From: "chief1946" <chief1946_2000(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Thanks guys I had tried that before and I guess the new owner/owners never registered it in their name. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155396#155396 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: gary aman <gaman(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: looking for mark III
Doesn't look like my posts are making it,but I'll try once more.Landings.com /database/basic search will give you names and addresses of owners.Looks like that MK3 is in Indiana Thanks guys I had tried that before and I guess the new owner/owners never registered it in their name. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155396#155396 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
From: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)tx.rr.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Hi Steve, You need to post larger pictures. Glad you had a great time. -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.tx.rr.com/kolbrapilot Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155417#155417 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
Date: Jan 01, 2008
> Glad you had a great time. > > -------- > John Williamson John W: We should have flown down to Steve's for the Splash In. We could have been "dock boys". Got a flight in late yesterday, last day of the year. Was going to fly today, first day of the year, but got busy doing chores and ran out of time. Looking forward to a fun, safe flying year. Hope everyone has the same. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
In a message dated 1/1/2008 5:36:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kolbrapilot1(at)tx.rr.com writes: Hi Steve, You need to post larger pictures. (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
In a message dated 1/1/2008 5:36:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kolbrapilot1(at)tx.rr.com writes: Hi Steve, You need to post larger pictures. (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Last Flight of 2007 / First flight of 2008
Date: Jan 01, 2008
> This is preliminary data for this Sesquicentennial celebration of the > Butterfield Overland Mail service along the route from St. Louis, MO to > San Francisco, CA. More will be added as we get closer. > -------- > John Williamson John W: Checked your route of flight. Map indicates you will be flying over Indian Territory. Be careful out there. Sure you don't need a good wingman? john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
In a message dated 1/1/2008 5:36:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kolbrapilot1(at)tx.rr.com writes: Hi Steve, You (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2008
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
In a message dated 1/1/2008 5:36:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kolbrapilot1(at)tx.rr.com writes: Hi Steve, You (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Year End Splash In this Weekend for Seaplanes
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
OK, so I'm using 40:1 oil ratio (Pennzoil air-cooled oil) per the Cuyuna ULII-02 manual. However, I'm toying with the idea of installing an automatic oil mixer made by OMC (Evinrude). The "Accu-Mix R" goes in the fuel line, and is pulse driven, unlike the Rotax gear driven oil injection systems, so it can be adapted to any engine. The only thing is, it's fixed at 50:1 ratio. Some people say the lighter oil ratio is OK with modern oils, but I dunno... I like the Pennzoil, it's not a modern synthetic oil but it's kept my paramotor engine happy for well over 300 hours... but I also like the idea of flying to another airport and being able to refuel without the hassle of calculating and mixing oil, and also not worrying about the age of the premix. So, whatcha think? 50:1 OK? Need to alter the jetting? Or is there another aftermarket oil injection alternative for the Cuyuna? -Dana -- Assassins do it from behind. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <apilot(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
Date: Jan 01, 2008
You can't beat Penns Oil as long as it does not sit for a year or so and coagulate. Evenrude knows what they are doing too, but they tend to lean toward water cooled engines. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2008
From: "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Last Flight of 2007 / First flight of 2008
John, Thanks so much for copying us on the Butterfield flight info. Looks like a lot of fun. The route goes right over my home airport (Benson, AZ). The airport managers are great people and I'm thinking we could host a refreshments/fuel stop there. There are ruins of a Butterfield station about 25 miles from the airport. Dan G. Tucson 503 F2 John Williamson wrote: >If anyone is looking for an adventure in 2008, check out: >http://home.tx.rr.com/bom_2008 > >This is preliminary data for this Sesquicentennial celebration of the Butterfield Overland Mail service along the route from St. Louis, MO to San Francisco, CA. More will be added as we get closer. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos" <grageda(at)innw.net>
Subject: Re: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
Date: Jan 02, 2008
Hi Dana, I have a 430 Cuyuna on a Maxair Drifter and am running it at 50:1. I work as a boat mechanic for an formerly OMC now BRP dealership and have installed the Accumix system on a number of boats. They were mostly used for the trolling motors to allow tapping in to the main fuel system of an I/O drive. The Accumix works ok but maybe a little fragile for this application. I have seen allot of them leak at the bottom usually because the plastic mixer housing has cracked. A new Accumix tank is allot more expensive now up to a couple hundred dollars or so from the past. BRP does offer an Mixing cup and it is graduated in a number of ratios and varying fuel quantities. It holds about a pint and has a blue lid for keeping the bugs & dust out. I think it runs about 3 bucks. The Rotax engine driven oil pump works pretty good and they are also used on the late 80's and early 90's Mercury 2cycle Outboards. The problem is adapting the pump to the Cuyuna. Hope this helps Carlos G AKA BaronVonEvil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 8:18 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection > > OK, so I'm using 40:1 oil ratio (Pennzoil air-cooled oil) per the Cuyuna > ULII-02 manual. However, I'm toying with the idea of installing an > automatic oil mixer made by OMC (Evinrude). The "Accu-Mix R" goes in the > fuel line, and is pulse driven, unlike the Rotax gear driven oil injection > systems, so it can be adapted to any engine. The only thing is, it's > fixed at 50:1 ratio. Some people say the lighter oil ratio is OK with > modern oils, but I dunno... I like the Pennzoil, it's not a modern > synthetic oil but it's kept my paramotor engine happy for well over 300 > hours... but I also like the idea of flying to another airport and being > able to refuel without the hassle of calculating and mixing oil, and also > not worrying about the age of the premix. > > So, whatcha think? 50:1 OK? Need to alter the jetting? Or is there > another aftermarket oil injection alternative for the Cuyuna? > > -Dana > -- > Assassins do it from behind. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Powerfin Props
Date: Jan 02, 2008
I was writing an article about my VW powered MKIIIC and wanted to give the best information possible on prop sizing so I called Stewart Gort Jr. at Powerfin. We discussed at length the performance figures of my three bladed 72 inch F model Powerfin prop on my VW powered MKIIIC. Since my climb rate is good no matter what pitch I had, I set the prop pitch more for cruise. But then the climb RPMs were 300-400 below optimum and maybe I could do better. Stewart figures my that my prop is too long. He recommended that the best prop for my engine/airframe would be a 70 inch three blade F model. I was and still am concerned about shortening the prop. Stewart's suggestion was that they would cut the prop to 71 inches for free and if needed they would cut again to 70 inches for free if it needed it. His only stipulation would be that I send them the performance figures for their data base. If cutting the prop reduced performance they would replace the prop with a longer one. Having nothing to loose I sent it in to be cut. Last week I got the prop back. To my surprise they had replaced all three blades and the hub with brand new parts. There was no charge for the prop or shipping. Now this was a prop that I had for almost six years of use with small dings on two blades (one blade was replaced two years ago because it won a battle with a 9/16 bolt). I'm posting this only as a note of superior product support. It is extremely rare that anyone really stands behind their product and Powerefin does. I'm not trying to convert anyone from their prop because that is like trying to get someone to change religions. Now I can't wait to get back to Michigan to try my new prop on my airplane. That will have to wait till May. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Powerfin Props
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 02, 2008
[quote="NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net"] I'm posting this only as a note of superior product support. It is extremely rare that anyone really stands behind their product and Powerefin does. I'm not trying to convert anyone from their prop because that is like trying to get someone to change religions. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC > [b] Nice report Rick, that pretty much agrees with my experience with the people at PowerFin, they are top notch. As far as brands of props go, only an idiot would be so blindly attached to a certain brand of prop that they cannot compare or even change if something better were to come along. That goes for a lot of products, not just props. That being said, I fly a trike that had a wooden prop, and we changed it to a powerfin. The powerfin prop is FAR superiorior than the expensive french wood prop that was on the 447 originally. The powerfin is # 1 Adjustable, meaning I can set it to work exactly like I need it to on the trike. The powerfin also gives much better performance, better climbs, and is much quieter and smoother. In a nutshell, the powerfin is better in every way than the expensive top of the line french wood prop ever was. I love the powerfin and would highly recommend it. On my Kolb MK-III Xtra, I have a warp drive prop. I have a different need on this plane, which is for it to keep flying and stay together if a muffler, oil cap, or any one of 100 other things that can come off the engine go through it. The Warp Drive prop is rock solid, with a very strong hub, and I trust it to withstand the many hundreds of hours of the very strong power pulses of the Rotax 912-S. In the end, it comes down to which prop offers the best performance for your needs on a certain application. And yes, some props are clearly better than others. Its not a matter of what brand you may " Like ", an intelligent person will consider all the facts and requirements and make a choice based on the facts, not on what they may " like " or are accustomed to. 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=155612#155612 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Powerfin Props
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 02, 2008
The 447 is much simpler than my 912, with a lot less, maybe 1/4 the amount of parts that could potentially come off and go into the prop, so its not as likely to happen on the trike. And last but not least, the Warp drive is to heavy for the B-Box on the 447. 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=155623#155623 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Powerfin Props
Date: Jan 02, 2008
> The 447 is much simpler than my 912, with a lot less, maybe 1/4 the amount of parts that could potentially come off and go into the prop, so its not as likely to happen on the trike. > Mike Mike: Might be to your advantage to take a close look at your 447. I know it has been many, many years since I have owned one, but I still fly the factory two strokes on occassion. Last time I looked, there was enough stuff on a 447 to take down a 747. john h mkIII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolbs on floats
At 01:17 PM 1/2/2008, Mike Welch wrote: > 4. Has anyone ever made their own floats? Is that even worth it? I lnow no more about these than what is on the website, but they advertise float plans: http://www.ultralightfloats.com/Float_plans.htm -Dana -- Dullard: someone who can open an encyclopedia or dictionary and only read what they'd planned to. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolbs on floats
At 01:17 PM 1/2/2008, Mike Welch wrote: > 4. Has anyone ever made their own floats? Is that even worth it? I lnow no more about these than what is on the website, but they advertise float plans: http://www.ultralightfloats.com/Float_plans.htm -Dana -- Dullard: someone who can open an encyclopedia or dictionary and only read what they'd planned to. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 03, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolbs on floats
At 07:23 AM 1/3/2008, ElleryWeld(at)aol.com wrote: >I have a set of these MukTuk floats and also I have a set of fiberglass >floats that would work great on a single seater Ellery, did you build the MukTuks yourself? What was the building like and how well do they work? Not in my budget this year but for future reference... -Dana -- OK, I'm weird! But I'm saving up to be eccentric. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 03, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
At 01:38 PM 1/2/2008, Carlos wrote: > >The way they usually failed was to leaking......I would be reluctant >to bet my engine and my butt with an accumix onboard my aircraft... Thanks Carlos, that's the kind of information I needed. Everything else I've heard was of the "I knew a guy who heard from a guy who..." nature. I think I will go with my original plan of premix, and a calibrated third tank so I can accurately determine how much fuel I'm pumping. -Dana -- OK, I'm weird! But I'm saving up to be eccentric. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
Date: Jan 03, 2008
I > think I will go with my original plan of premix, and a calibrated third > tank so I can accurately determine how much fuel I'm pumping. > > -Dana Dana: I am glad you made that decision. Back in the 80's, I was very fortunate to be able to do a lot of long distance cross country flying in my 447 powered Fire Star. I never considered any other method but pre-mix or mix in the tank. That's all that was available. Each extended trip started out with 3 gals of Pennzoil in 1 quart containers, along with my camping gear and personal gear. Doesn't take long to become very good at estimating fuel burn when flying cross country, using the hour meter and a fuel burn of 3.5 to 3.75 gph. I dumped the oil in the tank first, grabbed a lift strut to roll the FS back and forth to mix the oil and gas, then filled the tank. Never had a fuel/oil mix ratio problem that I could determine in many hours of cross country flying. At home it was a no brainer because I fueled out of 5 gal cans. With this method of fueling and mixing oil I was able to fly in all the States east of the Mississippi and some west of the Mississippi River. We also got into Canada far enough to say we had flown over Canadian soil, but never attempted to land there. john h mkIII - 15F at hauck's holler, alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
Date: Jan 03, 2008
> john h > mkIII - 15F at hauck's holler, alabama > Crap, Thats what the temp here in western PA is this morning! I did not think it ever got that cold in the deep South. Dennis Rowe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Cuyuna oil ratio, injection
Date: Jan 03, 2008
Hi Grey Baron: Felt like it anyhow. ;-) john h mkIII +15F, but felt like -15F. Think it was +15F, not -15F at Hauck's Hollow...a hyphen vs. a minus regards, Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Malcolmbru(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 03, 2008
Subject: Re: Kolbs on floats
I built a set of all. floats ellery has a set of plans for them 950,s but float flying is one of the most dangerus kind of flying , just try to get insurance mal ************** Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 03, 2008
Subject: Re: Kolbs on floats
In a message dated 1/3/2008 7:24:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Malcolmbru(at)aol.com writes: but float flying is one of the most dangerous kind of flying , Why is that? Steve B Firefly 007/Floats do not archive **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Bass" <gtb(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Kolbs PARTS on eBay
Date: Jan 05, 2008
Just found on eBay. One & one-half days remaining on this auction, but, currently NO BIDS.!!!! Item number: 320202045570 Also, Item number: 320199449650 And, Item number: 320199592181 Hope this helps someone. gtb ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kolbs PARTS on eBay
From: "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com>
Date: Jan 05, 2008
No surprise that there are no bids! The first item is a pair of bent beyond repair gear legs. The second is a pair of wing struts with a beginning bid of $175 plus fifty odd bucks for shipping. The third is a full swivel tailwheel being offered at slightly less than brand new price. The tail spring rod attached to it is bent. >From the gear leg and tail wheel spring condition, these items appear to me to be off of a damaged airplane. Why anyone thinks they could sell them for next to new prices while stating that "airworthiness must be determined by the buyer" is beyond me. -------- Roger in Oregon 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156208#156208 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolbs PARTS on eBay
At 04:29 PM 1/5/2008, R. Hankins wrote: >The third is a full swivel tailwheel being offered at slightly less than >brand new price. The tail spring rod attached to it is bent. It looks like a good light tailwheel for a Kolb, though... any idea of the manufacturer? Is there a website? I'd like to put a swivel tailwheel on my Ultrastar. -Dana -- I can see clearly now, the brain is gone... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Kolbs PARTS on eBay
Date: Jan 05, 2008
That appears to be the same as the 4" wheel from ACS, round spring option: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/homebuilder_tailwheel.php It is a good quality wheel, I myself bought mine from TNK. Now I would prefer the 6" wheel of the same make or, better yet, the soft rubber solid wheel from Maule. I had one of those and they are excellent. The only barrier is that I will have to create an adapter from the flat spring mount. BB On 5, Jan 2008, at 6:27 PM, Dana Hague wrote: > > At 04:29 PM 1/5/2008, R. Hankins wrote: > >> The third is a full swivel tailwheel being offered at slightly >> less than brand new price. The tail spring rod attached to it is >> bent. > > It looks like a good light tailwheel for a Kolb, though... any idea > of the manufacturer? Is there a website? I'd like to put a swivel > tailwheel on my Ultrastar. > > -Dana > -- > I can see clearly now, the brain is gone... > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2008
From: chris davis <capedavis(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kolbs PARTS on eBay
R. Hankins, Perhaps the reason why there are no bids ,those of us that have a few hours in a KOLB already have these parts under the work bench or hanging on he wall in our shop, at least I do. Chris ----- Original Message ---- From: R. Hankins <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:29:46 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolbs PARTS on eBay No surprise that there are no bids! The first item is a pair of bent beyond repair gear legs. The second is a pair of wing struts with a beginning bid of $175 plus fifty odd bucks for shipping. The third is a full swivel tailwheel being offered at slightly less than brand new price. The tail spring rod attached to it is bent. >From the gear leg and tail wheel spring condition, these items appear to me to be off of a damaged airplane. Why anyone thinks they could sell them for next to new prices while stating that "airworthiness must be determined by the buyer" is beyond me. -------- Roger in Oregon 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156208#156208 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net>
Subject: props
Date: Jan 06, 2008
Just a heads up. I am selling two props from my 582 that were on my SlingShot. One is the original IVO three blade ground adjust that I installed new three years ago, 64" (Make Offer) and the other is a brand new Warp 66" three blade with shinny new special hub. It doesnt even have any bugs on it yet. Worked absolutely fantastic on the 582. This is what a 582 likes. Will part with it for $750. I changed over to a 912 so I cannot use these props. Ted Cowan, Alabama, 334-480-0822. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Sport Pilot Article
The Kolb list's own Thom Riddle has an excellent article in the December 2007 "Sport Pilot" magazine on doing a proper engine preflight. Good job, Thom and thanks. I got this issue almost a month late or I would have commented earlier. That'll teach me to wait until the very last day before renewing my EAA membership. Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Latch for enclosure
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Latch for enclosure
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Latch for enclosure
At 04:18 PM 1/6/2008, Bill Vincent wrote: >Hi Gang >I took the attached photo at my work place, it is on a FORTE metal band >saw; I think it is German built. >Does anyone know where I can purchase this spring toggle latch; this latch >will work in many different applications... Have you tried Southco? They sell many different types of latches. -Dana -- 2000 mockingbirds = two kilomockingbirds ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Latch for enclosure
Bill, Try McMaster Carr (mcmaster.com) pages 2896-2900. They're listed as draw latches or tension latches. I didn't see one exactly like the picture, but many that perform in the same way. Rick On Jan 6, 2008 3:55 PM, Larry Bourne wrote: > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net>
Subject: PMX visitors
To those list members who inquired about traveling to PMX in Palmer, Mass., I have been in touch with Ed Harvey, a member of the Silver Wings Ultralight Club based at the now closed PMX airport. The club rents the old airport, and Ed tells me they always welcome visitors. However, the airport only has people around when a member happens to be present. The gate is locked when no one is there. Ed is retired, and goes in there to mow the grass. The paved runway is said to be unusable, and the club uses a 900' grass strip adjacent to the runway. They say it is always open to touch and goes, etc., but if anything is needed a club member should be there to arrange ground transport, gas, etc. Ed can be reached by e-mail at the following address: edharvey1(at)juno.com Thanks, guys, for the help and support. Hopefully we will have our Kold in about three weeks. Bill Sullivan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sport Pilot Article
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2008
Aw gee guys. You're making me blush [Embarassed] -------- Thom Riddle N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156512#156512 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2008
Subject: Re: PMX visitors.
From: edharvey1(at)juno.com
Hi Everyone, I'd like to make a correction to Bill Sullivan's post: the Palmer ultralight airstrip is not on the old PMX airport but is over the fence in the next field to the south. Do not land at PMX: it is closed, is unsafe, has been subdivided into house lots, and you would receive a very hostile welcome there. Our 900' grass strip is some 100 yards south of the end of the old PMX paved runway and is well marked with large white cones every 100' on both sides. Ed Harvey Firefly 038 Monson, MA > From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> > Subject: Kolb-List: PMX visitors > > To those list members who inquired about traveling to PMX in > Palmer, Mass., I > have been in touch with Ed Harvey, a member of the Silver Wings > Ultralight Club > based at the now closed PMX airport. The club rents the old airport, > and Ed > tells me they always welcome visitors. However, the airport only has > people around > when a member happens to be present. The gate is locked when no one > is there. > Ed is retired, and goes in there to mow the grass. The paved runway > is said > to be unusable, and the club uses a 900' grass strip adjacent to the > runway. > They say it is always open to touch and goes, etc., but if anything > is needed > a club member should be there to arrange ground transport, gas, etc. > Ed can > be reached by e-mail at the following address: edharvey1(at)juno.com > Thanks, guys, for the help and support. Hopefully we will have > our Kold in > about three weeks. > Bill Sullivan > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Congratulations to Cristal
From: "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)juno.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2008
Thanks so much Jim. I thoroughly enjoyed the flight and instruction. I really appreciate your help. I can't wait to fly my Mark II. I wish I had more than just nice Saturdays for learning. I may have to take some time off work...this is taking too long. Thanks for everyone's help and input on questions while getting my Mark II certificated. You guys are great! -------- Cristal Mark II Twinstar Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156527#156527 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: How to get a duplicate Airworthness certificate?
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2008
New hobbies lead to new headaches!! As you all know I recently bought a Kolb MK III I have not taken time to change the registration to my name yet. I am planning on doing it this week however The guy I bough it from lost the airworthiness certificate and the operating limitations. I talked with the Atlanta FSDO. And they are sending me some forms I need to transfer the registration to my name. I have the FAA bill of sale from the guy and the registration card. Both are signed over to me. They are dated Nov 23 2007. The guy at the FSDO said the nov 23 07 date on the faa bill of sale should be fine since I am not flying the plane. I think he said legally you have 10 days to fly the plane before changing the registration. Now for the AW and OL He said I would either have to come to the Atlanta office to fill out the necessary paperwork or either contact a DAR to fill out the necessary paper work to get duplicate copies of the AW and OL. I talked to the builder and he verified that he had completed the AW on the plane and gave all of the paperwork over to the guy I bought it from. Also it shows that the AW was complete on the FAA N number search. Is there a simpler way to get the duplicate copies of the AW and OL? The plane is registered EAB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156534#156534 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to get a duplicate Airworthness certificate?
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2008
I just talked to Chuck at the Atlanta FSDO and he said once I mail out the registration, I will have a pink copy of that. Now the part that I am not happy with. He said I will have to schedule an appointment at the Atlanta Office with a FAA inspector. Cant be a DAR. Bring the pink slip and log books and fill out a form I guess a request to get the duplicates for the AW and OL. I talked to a guy in the Alabama Office and he said I would need to submit a letter to their office explaining the situation and asking for a duplicate AW certificate. He also told me that each FSDO does the process a little different. Is there any way to avoid having to go to Atlanta ? I asked if they would mail me the form and they said no. This is a 3 hr drive and I have to work during the week.:( Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156559#156559 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: How to get a duplicate Airworthness certificate?
Date: Jan 07, 2008
obviously too late, but you should have put the burden on the seller.... before you bought. On 7, Jan 2008, at 1:26 PM, grantr wrote: > > > I just talked to Chuck at the Atlanta FSDO and he said once I mail > out the registration, I will have a pink copy of that. > > Now the part that I am not happy with. He said I will have to > schedule an appointment at the Atlanta Office with a FAA inspector. > Cant be a DAR. Bring the pink slip and log books and fill out a > form I guess a request to get the duplicates for the AW and OL. > > I talked to a guy in the Alabama Office and he said I would need to > submit a letter to their office explaining the situation and asking > for a duplicate AW certificate. > > He also told me that each FSDO does the process a little different. > > Is there any way to avoid having to go to Atlanta ? I asked if they > would mail me the form and they said no. > > This is a 3 hr drive and I have to work during the week.:( > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156559#156559 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2008
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Congratulations to Cristal
Cristal, Just my two cents, but only flying on nice Saturdays is a sure fire way to spend a lot more money and take far more time to get your ticket. If you can, take vacation time as you mentioned and book a block of time that will take you through the whole process. It'll be much cheaper if you can use your Mark II, but if you have to use another plane, do it. The main thing is to get the time in a contiguous block, that way you're not spending half your time doing a refresher from the last lesson each time you fly. If you want, I can give you the name of a CFI in Lakeland, FL who can work with you. You might have to go to Sun n Fun, but that won't take much arm twisting, will it? Rick On Jan 7, 2008 8:26 AM, cristalclear13 wrote: > cristalclearwaters(at)juno.com> > > Thanks so much Jim. I thoroughly enjoyed the flight and instruction. I > really appreciate your help. I can't wait to fly my Mark II. I wish I had > more than just nice Saturdays for learning. I may have to take some time > off work...this is taking too long. > > Thanks for everyone's help and input on questions while getting my Mark II > certificated. You guys are great! > > -------- > Cristal > Mark II Twinstar > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156527#156527 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com>
Subject: Re: Congratulations to Cristal
Date: Jan 07, 2008
Cristal Congrats on your dedication; but if I may make a comment -- in ANY kind of pilot training, frequency is necessary for speedy learning. If at ALL possible, fly four times a week -- evenings, just after dawn, whatever., Schedule 4, you'll make 3 with luck. But when flying only once a week, you'll spend half your time, and money, getting back to where you left off last time. Juggle your wrk schedule somehow so you can fly more often! On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:26 AM, cristalclear13 wrote: > > > Thanks so much Jim. I thoroughly enjoyed the flight and > instruction. I really appreciate your help. I can't wait to fly > my Mark II. I wish I had more than just nice Saturdays for > learning. I may have to take some time off work...this is taking > too long. > > Thanks for everyone's help and input on questions while getting my > Mark II certificated. You guys are great! > > -------- > Cristal > Mark II Twinstar > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156527#156527 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2008
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net>
Subject: Old PMX
I sent Ed Harvey an E-mail directly thanking him for correcting me on the landing area near the old PMX. I am a raw beginner, and I fully acknowledge the empty spot between my ears. My brain cell does resemble a game of "Pong" now and then, so just keep smiling and nodding your heads while I'm learning. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: new item
Date: Jan 08, 2008
Kolbers, here is a redrive for VWs I stumbled upon: http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11828 Can't find much info but it looks like he uses the clutch springs for resonance problems. Could be a good idea. BTW, I bought those bent gear legs. Probably gather dust along with the rest of my junk. BB, too durn hot here in NY! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Landing in High Grass
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
> My grass strip is short and has a 20 foot elevation difference from one end to the other. I take off downhill and land uphill due to obstructions near the uphill end. I mow the strip about 20 feet wide and have smooth ground next to the mowed part with about 6 inch high grass. > > Sometimes when I come back from a flight, the wind has come up, and I have as much as a 10 mph tailwind, which makes stopping, even uphill a bit of a challenge. > > I've been thinking of using the mowed portion for takeoff, but landing in the grass next to the mowed portion to help stop. I'm not sure how high the grass would have to be to become a noseover danger while rolling out. > Probably an odd subject when half the Kolbs in the US are in the hanger or trailer and the grass is brown, but it's sure growing fast and furious here in West Hawaii. I divided my grass strip into three sections. One half of the width of the strip is mowed short for takeoff. The other half of the width of the strip is mowed four inches high (max height of mower) for the first third of the length for touchdown. The grass on the last two thirds is about six inches high. There is no nose over tendency that I can feel while landing in the four inch high grass on the first third of the runway, and the six inch high grass on the last two thirds does a nice job of stopping without having to use the brakes at all. Full back stick while rolling into the higher grass seems to keep the tail down easily, and also keeps the elevators up and out of the grass while rolling out. -------- Dave Bigelow Kamuela, Hawaii FS2, HKS 700E Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156878#156878 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Latch for enclosure
Date: Jan 08, 2008
I'm sure McMasters will have a good selection, but Neilsen (?) in Hartford CT has some nice SS ones too On Jan 6, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Dana Hague wrote: > At 04:18 PM 1/6/2008, Bill Vincent wrote: >> Hi Gang >> I took the attached photo at my work place, it is on a FORTE metal >> band saw; I think it is German built. >> Does anyone know where I can purchase this spring toggle latch; >> this latch will work in many different applications... > > Have you tried Southco? They sell many different types of latches. > > -Dana > > -- > 2000 mockingbirds = two kilomockingbirds > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: SPOT
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Kolbers, I ran across this website about a very interesting product that would be very useful, particularly for you guys who fly all over North America over hostile terrain. It is sort of like a Personal Locator Beacon but different, and cheaper I think. http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx $170 for the device plus $100/year for the satellite service. If I did the sort of flying that John and John do, I wouldn't leave home without it. Not a plug just found it interesting. -------- Thom Riddle N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156934#156934 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: new item
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Bob Thanks for sharing. The VW is such a great engine I'm not surprised people are trying to develop better redrives for them. I hope it works. It sounds like a one off project. I know Gene Smith at Valley Engineering tried springs on their belt drives. His evaluation was that it didn't help enough to make it worth doing at least on their redrive. Also the Kolb VW factory mount currently works with a redrive mounted on the pulley end of the engine. A flywheel end mount would be a easy change but you would need to work with Kolb to get it done or do it yourself. The guy talks about using the aluminum case on his VW. Steve Bennet at Great Plaines contends that the aluminum case it too heavy for the benefits it gives. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "robert bean" <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: Kolb-List: new item > > Kolbers, here is a redrive for VWs I stumbled upon: > > http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11828 > > Can't find much info but it looks like he uses the clutch springs for > resonance problems. Could be a good idea. > > BTW, I bought those bent gear legs. Probably gather dust along with the > rest of my junk. > > BB, too durn hot here in NY! > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELSA
From: "Tom O'Hara" <tohara(at)alphagraphics.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Vic-- The bigger problem will be to find a pilot to come to Millinocket in January/Feb. Long time ago I spent a lot of time in Millinocket and the Paradise City of Madawaska. Is the papermill still open or has it closed? I remember trying to convince my wife that I got snowed in at Easter!! Light winds and soft landings in your Kolb Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156984#156984 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
At 09:28 AM 1/9/2008, Thom Riddle wrote: >I ran across this website about a very interesting product that would be >very useful, particularly for you guys who fly all over North America over >hostile terrain. It is sort of like a Personal Locator Beacon but different... Isn't that what an ELT's for? -Dana -- If it were truly the thought that counted, more women would be pregnant. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Date: Jan 09, 2008
You would think that is what a ELT is for. I attended a form at Oshkosh a few years ago put on by search and rescue folks. They stated that they ignore ELT transmissions. I have to assume that is because there are so many false broadcasts. They start looking for people only when someone calls or they are over due on a flight plan. Then and only then do they home in on the ELT broadcast. Now they are switching to new frequencies and want us to switch. Guess what the new ELTs are more expensive. Will they respond any better to the new frequencies, I doubt it. Now maybe thinks have changed with the lower number of flyers these days but I'm not going to waist my money on the new ELTs. If I start flying over remote areas I would rather have something like spot. What do you guys think? Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: SPOT > > At 09:28 AM 1/9/2008, Thom Riddle wrote: > >>I ran across this website about a very interesting product that would be >>very useful, particularly for you guys who fly all over North America over >>hostile terrain. It is sort of like a Personal Locator Beacon but >>different... > > Isn't that what an ELT's for? > > -Dana > > -- > If it were truly the thought that counted, more women would be pregnant. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ElleryWeld(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Subject: Re: ELSA
The teaching wont be the problem we can get started right away , well the process is not painful if you have a Kolb and do a good job building it Congratulations Now you own a certified Airplane Ellery **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Dana, These new digital units are much more accurate than the older ELTs. Denny > Isn't that what an ELT's for? > > -Dana > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SPOT
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Rick, Like local FSDOs I think the S and R response to ELT signals varies all over the place. Last year, we accidentally left the ELT on our Allegro turned on after a test and were called by the airport manager within two hours, which is how long it took for them to narrow it down to our hangar. That said, I think a satellite messenger like the SPOT thing is the way to go. Of course this assumes emergency personnel respond to THAT signal. If the local S and R folks don't respond to ELTs, will they respond to this? Open question, but at least the very precise location data has been transmitted to the folks who should do the S and R. And of course, if you are still conscious you can also activate the notify your family/friends feature which might help spur some action.... unless you are really unloved :D . -------- Thom Riddle N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL N197BG FS1/447 -------------------- Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157048#157048 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jimmy Hankinson" <jhankin(at)planters.net>
Subject: Degree of up elevator
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Does anyone with a Firefly know the amount of up elevator in degrees or inches when in the up position when compared to the horizontal stabilizer. I have more down elevator than I do with up elevator. Thanks, Jimmy Hankinson Firefly N6007L 912-863-7384 JYL Sylvania, Ga. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FAA form AC 8520-1 registration form question
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
The instructions say to type or print except for signatures. When I think of print I think hand write however I am not sure what to do. Can I fill the form in with a ink pen or do I need a type writer? I am paranoid about filling it out wrong. I don't want any hold ups. Thanks, Grant Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157107#157107 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Date: Jan 09, 2008
In re locater beacons -- they're great, and getting better all the time. Good ones broadcast your position, even if you're unconscious. Hope never to need it, but I LIKE that! But look at the marine ones; lots more boating units (EPIRBS) are sold and the prices are lower for the same features On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Dana Hague wrote: > > At 09:28 AM 1/9/2008, Thom Riddle wrote: > >> I ran across this website about a very interesting product that >> would be very useful, particularly for you guys who fly all over >> North America over hostile terrain. It is sort of like a Personal >> Locator Beacon but different... > > Isn't that what an ELT's for? > > -Dana > > -- > If it were truly the thought that counted, more women would be > pregnant. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Isn't an ELT required for anything other than local flights in any registered aircraft? -Dana -- C:\ Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Elt's for 2 seaters only. Vic "Isn't an ELT required for anything other than local flights in any registered aircraft?" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Date: Jan 09, 2008
ELT's for 2-seaters only? I was required to have them in my 4-seat Cessna for years! Is that only for LSA or Experimental or what? I'm confused. On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Vic Peters wrote: > Elt's for 2 seaters only. > > Vic > > > "Isn't an ELT required for anything other than local flights in any > registered aircraft?" > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: FAA form AC 8520-1 registration form question
I goofed on this on one too -- can't remember for sure if it was 8520-1, but it was the N-number request form. That form has 3 boxes for signature to account for possible multiple owners. I missed just above where it says also to type or print your name and so the form was kicked back to me. I called FAA (Oklahoma) to make sure what to do next as like you, I am out of time for mistakes. She said just to print (with ink, no typewriter needed) my name in the block below where I signed on the original and shoot it back. She said also fine to cross out the word Signature in that second box. -Ben FS-KXP grantr wrote: > > The instructions say to type or print except for signatures. > > When I think of print I think hand write however I am not sure what to do. > > Can I fill the form in with a ink pen or do I need a type writer? > > I am paranoid about filling it out wrong. I don't want any hold ups. > > Thanks, > Grant > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157107#157107 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAA form AC 8050-1 registration form question
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
Jim, Thanks for the help. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157133#157133 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Sorry I meant 2 or more "ELT's for 2-seaters only? I was required to have them in my 4-seat Cessna for years! Is that only for LSA or Experimental or what? I'm confused." Vic ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAA form AC 8050-1 registration form question
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2008
few more question. What is the best way to send the $5.00? Personal check or money order or does it matter? How do I make the check out? to just the FAA or to the same address / Branch I am sending the paperwork to? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157139#157139 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: FAA form AC 8520-1 registration form question
It means to print as opposed to cursive. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

December 14, 2007 - January 09, 2008

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-hc