Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-hd
January 09, 2008 - January 25, 2008
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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
The old 121Mhz ELT's are pretty much worthless; they were a political
knee-jerk to SAR people not being able to find some political bigwigs &
were designed by politicians. It can take a half-dozen passes (many
hours) by the satellite to get the location in the right *state*. Then
there's the false alarm problem. Some of the certified units can be
triggered unrelated electromagnetic radiation generated by a/c avionics.
Duh...
The new 406 Mhz stuff does seem to actually work. It's much more
accurate, only 1 satellite pass for a fix & if you have one with GPS
built in it's extremely accurate. In a rare fit of allowing
self-determination of our fates, the FAA doesn't currently mandate
buying the new ELTs, they just say they will no longer monitor the old
121MHZ units after the cutoff date. (Some form of certified ELT is still
mandated, but you can buy a cheapo 121 to comply with the law & then buy
a high quality Personal Locater Beacon to enable actual rescue. Downside
is that typical PLBs with GPS are about $1K & up.
Here's a pretty good website describing the various systems:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
I'd love to know whether the Spot system is using the public
Cospas-Sarsat statellite system. If it is, it might be worthwhile to buy
one even with the 1st year's subscription. If it's hitting the public
satellites, You should get SAR even after the subscription expires.
Anyone want to do the research?
Charlie
Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>
>
> 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>
> To:
> 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: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Degree of up elevator |
In a message dated 1/9/2008 6:17:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jhankin(at)planters.net writes:
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,
Is the elevator level when the stick is centered? Are the upper and
lower elevator cables equal in length? I have never measured the angle, just
made sure the stick was centered when the elevator was in the same plane with
horizontal stab.
Ed (FF 62) Do Not Archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> The old 121Mhz ELT's are pretty much worthless;
> a high quality Personal Locater Beacon to enable actual rescue. Downside
> is that typical PLBs with GPS are about $1K & up.
> Charlie
Hi Charlie:
If the ELT was/is worthless, guess a lot of us wasted our money.
However, I have been located with my ELT on several occassions. Once I
fired it off, as the result of a hard landing. My fault for not checking
121.5 before I shut down the radio. The second occassion was a crash, which
I walked away from, and again forgot to shut down the ELT before I departed
the accident scene. Both times I got calls from the FAA and CAP. Took a
while but they found me.
I have had an ACR Microfix PLB with GPS for almost a year now. Didn't cost
near what you state a typical PLB with GPS cost. Closer to half that. I
use it for flying, dirt biking, ATV, and back country recreation. I am
usually solo, so it is very good insurance for me should I get injured or
stranded, in a critical situation.
There are a lot of up sides to PLB:
1-No annual subscription.
2-Direct link to SARSAT. PLB transmits a unique code that ID's me.
3-My PLB is registered with my info on file for contacts at home as well as
a friend.
4-Small in size and light in weight. Batteries are good for 5 years.
Here is a link to more SARSAT info:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/
My PLB does not take the place of an ELT in my two place experiemental, but
it should expedite notification and pin point rescue any where in the world
if necessary.
Don't know what I will do when it comes time for a new 406 ELT.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ElleryWeld(at)aol.com |
Might Life Alert thingy Work as well ?
Ellery
not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Ellery:
Good idea!
Is that the one that goes, "Help, I have fallen down and can't get up!"?
I think that is the msg my PLB xmits. Whatever works. ;-)
john h
mkIII
Might Life Alert thingy Work as well ?
Ellery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA form AC 8050-1 registration form question |
Hi Grant,
On the very front of the form in the instructions it says make checks
payable to the US Treasury
Carlos G
----- Original Message -----
From: "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:14 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAA form AC 8050-1 registration form question
>
> 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA form AC 8050-1 registration form question |
grantr wrote:
>
> few more question.
>
> What is the best way to send the $5.00? Personal check or money order or does
it matter?
>
Doesn't matter.
> How do I make the check out? to just the FAA or to the same address / Branch
I am sending the paperwork to?
>
Federal Aviation Administration
should do it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
> Guess what the new ELTs are more expensive. Will they respond any better to the
new frequencies, I doubt it.
I understand that these new units not only sent an emergency signal as the old
ones did, but also send GPS co-ordinates plus coded info that includes registration,
owners name, address & contact number.
So the first action that the authorities take on receiving an ELT signal is ring
up the registered owner and check out the status of things, . . . did they go
flying, how many, what provisions etc. If the feedback warrants it, they then
move on to the next stage.
Sounds like quite an improvement to me.
David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157293#157293
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELTs and other safety devices |
This is why I will also be installing a Mode C transponder (with altitude
reporting) in my MkIII.>>
Hi Mike
strange is it not that in this country we will almost certainly be forced to
fit transponders, by a European directive, in the very near future and
everyone is fighting it tooth and nail. We regard it as an imposed expense,
a weight problem when so many ultralights are are within a whisker of the
limit, and a furthur incursion into our rapidly diminishing `freedom of the
air`.
Perhaps too it is a reflection of the type of country we generally fly over.
Unless you happened to go down in the mountains of Wales or Scotland you
would be hard pressed to find an area where someone didn`t see you land. On
the the other hand only a few years ago the wreckage of a Spitfire was found
within 20 miles of London which had been there since 1940.
This had been a most interesting thread. I was undr the impression that once
an ELT was activated recue reaction would be almost immediate. It seems not.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
Found quite an interesting overview/comparison of 121.5/243 Verses 406 MHz ELT's at this New Zealand site; http://www.nztbf.org.nz/epirb.htm
David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157484#157484
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELTs and other safety devices |
Pat/all, I have a new, unused ELT, still in the box, somewhere on
the KolbRack in the shop.
I rarely think about it except during list conversations on the subject.
I subdue an inner chuckle, thinking that by the time I actually
install it, it will be obsolete
(but still mandatory???)
If it retains its position of being a legal gadget, by virtue of the
grandfather status, it will be easy to
"install" it retroactively on a blank area in the logbook, dated
appropriately.
Same thing with conventional gear write offs..... enter a couple
hours of taildragger time
in the wayback machine, in one of your dusty old logbooks, like say,
1975 or so. :)
-anonymouse.
On 11, Jan 2008, at 12:53 PM, pj.ladd wrote:
>
> This is why I will also be installing a Mode C transponder (with
> altitude reporting) in my MkIII.>>
>
> Hi Mike
> strange is it not that in this country we will almost certainly be
> forced to fit transponders, by a European directive, in the very
> near future and everyone is fighting it tooth and nail. We regard
> it as an imposed expense, a weight problem when so many ultralights
> are are within a whisker of the limit, and a furthur incursion into
> our rapidly diminishing `freedom of the air`.
> Perhaps too it is a reflection of the type of country we generally
> fly over. Unless you happened to go down in the mountains of Wales
> or Scotland you would be hard pressed to find an area where someone
> didn`t see you land. On the the other hand only a few years ago the
> wreckage of a Spitfire was found within 20 miles of London which
> had been there since 1940.
>
> This had been a most interesting thread. I was undr the impression
> that once an ELT was activated recue reaction would be almost
> immediate. It seems not.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pat
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | VG's effect on Runway Leingth |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
A picture is worth a thousand words, so below are a couple pictures.
First picture is my Kolbs runway without VG's, Second is my Kolbs runway with
VG's. Any questions [Wink]
--------
"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=157518#157518
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/runwaywithoutvgs_905.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/runwaywithvgs_131.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I took a flight on December 15th from Maple Plain, MN
(my local airstrip) and experienced a slight problem with
the engine. After setting up the plane and dressing up in
my snowmobile suit, I tried starting the engine with closed
throttle and it wouldn't start. It popped and refused to start.
The temp outside was 15 degrees and I really wanted to fly
as I hadn't flown in quite awhile with the poor weather. I
adjusted the idle speed and the cable screw on top of the
carburetor. I finally got it started and it idled reasonably
well enough to be safe in the air.
Flying in the colder temps presents some problems in open
cockpit planes. When I climbed into the cockpit, my glasses
frosted up so I couldn't see. Not good. I waited a bit for my
breath to stop fogging up the face shield and glasses. I also
knew that once in the air, everything would clear up, so I took
off with one lens slightly fogged and it did clear at 500'.
I felt good knowing that the engine was running well and I
would have a good flight. The plan was to stay over the frozen
lake area all afternoon.
I flew for a couple of hours and it was time to head back to the
field. I flew back and set up an approach. Upon landing, I came back
on the throttle and sure enough it died on me. I was about a hundred
feet away from the car and trailer and didn't want to push the plane
back. So I got out, started it up, and let it push itself. This is a
tricky technique and unique to ultralight-type aircraft. It requires
a hand close to the throttle and kill switch should the plane try to
get away.
I packed it up and put it away for the day, but was wondering what
would cause it quit and why it wouldn't idle. During the course of
the week, I took the carb float bowl off and sprayed it with carb
cleaner. I also removed the idle jet and idle mixture screw. I
sprayed both of these. All of this takes less than 10 minutes to do.
I put the float bowl back on and let it sit until last Saturday (Jan
5th) when I decided to go flying again.
I trailered the plane to the lake and set up. It was nice and sunny
in the morning and when I was ready to fly, the fog rolled in. Darn
it! The engine started well and idled just fine. The carb cleaning
must have cleared whatever was blocking the idle circuit. I was happy!
I waited around for the fog to lift. After an hour and a half of
waiting, I finally decided to go home, get something to eat and come
back in an hour. By then, the fog had lifted and the visibility was 3
miles. Good, I'm going for it. I jumped in and took off. Wow, I'm
flying at last and it's not a bad day. I stayed around the lake area
and the winds were picking up to about 10-15 mph. I did several touch-
n-goes on Cooks Bay and had a good time. I attracted the attention of
the Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol and others. They watched as I was
having my fun.
The engine ran as it should and I had a great flight. I suspect that
some ice had got into the idle jet and prevented the engine from
idling on that first winter flight. The carb cleaning did the trick.
This experience is to let others know about winter flying and the
possibility of icing in the carb. In 2-stroke engines, icing isn't as
much a problem as in a 4-stroke engine. As the ice the builds, it has
a difficult time sticking to the inside of carb due to the oil
mixture. The mixed oil prevents ice from building, however, small
particles can block the fine holes in the idle jet as I experienced
on that first winter flight.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157530#157530
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VG's effect on Runway Leingth |
Steve B's are those long blue ones.
On 11, Jan 2008, at 2:59 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> A picture is worth a thousand words, so below are a couple pictures.
>
> First picture is my Kolbs runway without VG's, Second is my Kolbs
> runway with VG's. Any questions [Wink]
>
> --------
> "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=157518#157518
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/runwaywithoutvgs_905.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/runwaywithvgs_131.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VG's effect on Runway Leingth |
So if you put on VG's you can't get the Kolb lined up with the runway? :-)
Rick
On Jan 11, 2008 1:59 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> A picture is worth a thousand words, so below are a couple pictures.
>
> First picture is my Kolbs runway without VG's, Second is my Kolbs runway
> with VG's. Any questions [Wink]
>
> --------
> "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=157518#157518
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/runwaywithoutvgs_905.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/runwaywithvgs_131.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: winter flight |
Interesting on the carb Ralph. I've had idle issues too. One problem
can be noise suppression spark plugs -- higher resistance, so weaker
spark, especially when the thing is at idle so not much current
developed. The other problem I've experienced is a small air leak. I
once spent a long long time trying to find the cause of idle cut-out and
this turned out to be the culprit. A small amount of stray suction air
is a big percentage of the fuel/air mixture at idle. A shop vac in
blower mode put up to the exhaust outlet, with just a cupped hand so as
not to apply too much air pressure, plus a soap/water spray bottle will
turn up the problem very easily. Mine was on the exhaust manifold.
Ever since, I've used gasket sealer on the exhaust gaskets.
-Ben
Ralph B wrote:
>
> I took a flight on December 15th from Maple Plain, MN
> (my local airstrip) and experienced a slight problem with
> the engine. After setting up the plane and dressing up in
> my snowmobile suit, I tried starting the engine with closed
> throttle and it wouldn't start. It popped and refused to start.
> The temp outside was 15 degrees and I really wanted to fly
> as I hadn't flown in quite awhile with the poor weather. I
> adjusted the idle speed and the cable screw on top of the
> carburetor. I finally got it started and it idled reasonably
> well enough to be safe in the air.
>
> Flying in the colder temps presents some problems in open
> cockpit planes. When I climbed into the cockpit, my glasses
> frosted up so I couldn't see. Not good. I waited a bit for my
> breath to stop fogging up the face shield and glasses. I also
> knew that once in the air, everything would clear up, so I took
> off with one lens slightly fogged and it did clear at 500'.
> I felt good knowing that the engine was running well and I
> would have a good flight. The plan was to stay over the frozen
> lake area all afternoon.
>
> I flew for a couple of hours and it was time to head back to the
> field. I flew back and set up an approach. Upon landing, I came back
> on the throttle and sure enough it died on me. I was about a hundred
> feet away from the car and trailer and didn't want to push the plane
> back. So I got out, started it up, and let it push itself. This is a
> tricky technique and unique to ultralight-type aircraft. It requires
> a hand close to the throttle and kill switch should the plane try to
> get away.
>
> I packed it up and put it away for the day, but was wondering what
> would cause it quit and why it wouldn't idle. During the course of
> the week, I took the carb float bowl off and sprayed it with carb
> cleaner. I also removed the idle jet and idle mixture screw. I
> sprayed both of these. All of this takes less than 10 minutes to do.
> I put the float bowl back on and let it sit until last Saturday (Jan
> 5th) when I decided to go flying again.
>
> I trailered the plane to the lake and set up. It was nice and sunny
> in the morning and when I was ready to fly, the fog rolled in. Darn
> it! The engine started well and idled just fine. The carb cleaning
> must have cleared whatever was blocking the idle circuit. I was happy!
>
> I waited around for the fog to lift. After an hour and a half of
> waiting, I finally decided to go home, get something to eat and come
> back in an hour. By then, the fog had lifted and the visibility was 3
> miles. Good, I'm going for it. I jumped in and took off. Wow, I'm
> flying at last and it's not a bad day. I stayed around the lake area
> and the winds were picking up to about 10-15 mph. I did several touch-
> n-goes on Cooks Bay and had a good time. I attracted the attention of
> the Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol and others. They watched as I was
> having my fun.
>
> The engine ran as it should and I had a great flight. I suspect that
> some ice had got into the idle jet and prevented the engine from
> idling on that first winter flight. The carb cleaning did the trick.
>
> This experience is to let others know about winter flying and the
> possibility of icing in the carb. In 2-stroke engines, icing isn't as
> much a problem as in a 4-stroke engine. As the ice the builds, it has
> a difficult time sticking to the inside of carb due to the oil
> mixture. The mixed oil prevents ice from building, however, small
> particles can block the fine holes in the idle jet as I experienced
> on that first winter flight.
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> N91493 E-AB
> 21 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157530#157530
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELTs and other safety devices |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co wrote:
>
>
> What I would like is a device that does what you'd expect it to do, works EVERY
time, and is legal.
>
>
NOTHING works EVERY time. With expectations like that, you better not get into
aviation.
As far as ELT's, they are very good. You seem to have gotten the idea from somewhere
that ELT's rarely work, which is pure BS. If the ELT does not activate
by itself, you can flip a switch and activate it manually. If the crash was
so severe as to destroy your ELT, you would have died 10 times over anyways,
so it will not be an issue.
mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co wrote:
>
>
> the S & R teams have found OTHER airplane crash sites (that most likely had ELTs
go off)
>
>
I fly for the airlines, and a good percentage of airline pilots listen to 121.5
in the cruise portion of flight. That equates to thousands flights monitoring
ELT's all day, ever day, in ADDITION to the satellites. Unless you crash in
the south pole, someone is going to hear your ELT very quickly and report it
to air traffic control. It seems that you don't know as much about ELT's as
you think you do.... If you are looking for something that works EVERY time,
then you better not leave your living room, no chance of becomming lost while
sitting on your couch.
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=157549#157549
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne wrote:
> It can take a half-dozen passes (many
> hours) by the satellite to get the location in the right *state*.
>
That is pure BS, a good percentage of airline pilots listen on 121.5 durring cruise
for ELT signals and other emergency transmissions. That equates to thousands
of flights listening to ELT's every day, all over the world. A number of
times I been in an area where ATC asks us if we hear, and how strong we hear an
ELT, which gets its general location pretty quickly.
Elt's at airports are generally ignored, Unlike this Charlie guy bashing elt's,
the search and rescue people are not stupid, if there is a strong signal comming
from an airport, it is generally ignored, or given a low priority.
ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne wrote:
>
> Then
> there's the false alarm problem. Some of the certified units can be
> triggered unrelated electromagnetic radiation generated by a/c avionics.
> Duh...
>
>
The statement above is what really really made me question Charlies motivations
here. IF it has ever happened, it is so rare as to not even be a concern. Hard
landings account for almost all false alarms, or people that test improperly.
But then again, hard landings will activate the NEW ELT's just as they did
the old ones. So there will be no big difference in the number of false signals
as Charlie implies.
I don't know what this guys problem is, but we have a responsibility to post accurate
information here as many people act on recommendations they read here.
Nothing bothers me more to see someone post false and misleading information
that others might actually use.
I fly with an ELT, not just because of the law, but because they provide a much
greater chance of getting found quickly.
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=157550#157550
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne wrote:
>> It can take a half-dozen passes (many hours) by the satellite to
>> get the location in the right *state*.
>>
>
>
> That is pure BS, a good percentage of airline pilots listen on 121.5
> durring cruise for ELT signals and other emergency transmissions.
> That equates to thousands of flights listening to ELT's every day,
> all over the world. A number of times I been in an area where ATC
> asks us if we hear, and how strong we hear an ELT, which gets its
> general location pretty quickly.
>
> Elt's at airports are generally ignored, Unlike this Charlie guy
> bashing elt's, the search and rescue people are not stupid, if there
> is a strong signal comming from an airport, it is generally ignored,
> or given a low priority.
>
Please reread what I wrote. I was talking about detection by satellite,
which is supposed to identify a search area. 121.5 satellites take
multiple passes to do this. To the best of my knowledge, a comm radio in
an airliner tuned to 121.5 has no direction finding capabilities. I
concede that detection by an airliner is likely to be as accurate as the
satellites. My experience with the false trip problem was that with my
ELT operating for almost 2 days, satellite info indicated that the ELT
was ~30 miles from the plane's actual location. Ground SAR crews went
where the satellite info directed them and of course, found nothing.
>
> ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne wrote:
>>
>> Then there's the false alarm problem. Some of the certified units
>> can be triggered unrelated electromagnetic radiation generated by
>> a/c avionics. Duh...
>>
>>
>
>
> The statement above is what really really made me question Charlies
> motivations here. IF it has ever happened, it is so rare as to not
> even be a concern. Hard landings account for almost all false
> alarms, or people that test improperly. But then again, hard
> landings will activate the NEW ELT's just as they did the old ones.
> So there will be no big difference in the number of false signals as
> Charlie implies.
>
> I don't know what this guys problem is, but we have a responsibility
> to post accurate information here as many people act on
> recommendations they read here. Nothing bothers me more to see
> someone post false and misleading information that others might
> actually use.
>
> I fly with an ELT, not just because of the law, but because they
> provide a much greater chance of getting found quickly.
>
> Mike Bigelow
>
False and misleading info that others might use bothers me, too. Hence,
this followup.
Here is a link to a single thread on ELTs being triggered by aircraft
systems.
http://vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?s=2a7167fdf920f4ee8a941fe04ed875c5&t=12077&pp=10
There are many others, if you're interested in looking for them.
My motivation (since you seem to question it) is to keep expectations
realistic on something as important as safety.
You might find your arguments more persuasive if you supply facts
instead of referring those with contrary opinions as stupid liars.
Fly safe,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Charlie,
As far as false activation, the great majority are caused by hard landings, and
people testing, no operating correctly. The amout of incidents caused by other
avionics as extremely low... This will affect new ELT's as well as the
old ones, so what is your point here ???? This has no bearing on weather you
will be found with an ELT or not.
As far as locating an ELT, you are just plain wrong. An airliner has no direction
finding capability, but a lot of them do. When ATC asks who is hearing it,
they have LOTS of planes, and can get the general position.
Even your revised " 30 miles " contradicts your previous statement about no being
able to locate which *state* it is in. Care to explain why in one post you
claimed that they had trouble determining the state, and in another you give
an error of 30 miles ? It does not help your credibility any to be flip flopping
like Hillary Clinton...
Here is some FACTUAL info that I do believe ...
"The USMCC (the people running the SARSAT program) still claim that the satellite
locates ELTs within 11nm 90% of the time and within 3 nm for 406MHz beacons."
-- LtCol Mark Fowler ACC/AFRCC
Its obvious the new ELT's are better, but there will still be false alarms, failures.
NOTHING works all the time. If you have one of the new 406 MHZ ELT's,
that is better. But the 121.5 ELT's still work very well for helping to find
you if you crash somewhere, so don't go pulling your ELT out of your plane just
becasues some fool says they dont work, its just not true.
And if anyone wants to learn about ELT's, how they perform, and how they can save
you, instead of listening to some flip flopping fool, read the facts at the
following links.
http://pansar.voices-inc.com/ELT.htm
--------
"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=157566#157566
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
--or you could leave a trail of seafoam.
On 11, Jan 2008, at 9:10 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> Charlie,
>
> As far as false activation, the great majority are caused by hard
> landings, and people testing, no operating correctly. The amout
> of incidents caused by other avionics as extremely low... This
> will affect new ELT's as well as the old ones, so what is your
> point here ???? This has no bearing on weather you will be found
> with an ELT or not.
>
> As far as locating an ELT, you are just plain wrong. An airliner
> has no direction finding capability, but a lot of them do. When
> ATC asks who is hearing it, they have LOTS of planes, and can get
> the general position.
>
> Even your revised " 30 miles " contradicts your previous statement
> about no being able to locate which *state* it is in. Care to
> explain why in one post you claimed that they had trouble
> determining the state, and in another you give an error of 30
> miles ? It does not help your credibility any to be flip flopping
> like Hillary Clinton...
>
> Here is some FACTUAL info that I do believe ...
>
> "The USMCC (the people running the SARSAT program) still claim that
> the satellite locates ELTs within 11nm 90% of the time and within 3
> nm for 406MHz beacons." -- LtCol Mark Fowler ACC/AFRCC
>
> Its obvious the new ELT's are better, but there will still be false
> alarms, failures. NOTHING works all the time. If you have one of
> the new 406 MHZ ELT's, that is better. But the 121.5 ELT's still
> work very well for helping to find you if you crash somewhere, so
> don't go pulling your ELT out of your plane just becasues some fool
> says they dont work, its just not true.
>
> And if anyone wants to learn about ELT's, how they perform, and how
> they can save you, instead of listening to some flip flopping fool,
> read the facts at the following links.
>
> http://pansar.voices-inc.com/ELT.htm
>
> --------
> "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=157566#157566
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Congratulations to Cristal |
| From: | "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)juno.com> |
I soloed the Cessna 150 today! :D What fun!!
My birthday is tomorrow. What a great birthday present!
--------
Cristal
Mark II Twinstar
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157708#157708
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Congratulations to Cristal |
| From: | "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)juno.com> |
Thanks! I can't wait for the day to solo in my Kolb Mark II. BTW My name is Cristal...I
own a Mark II. [Wink]
My husband is making me a birthday/celebration cake and I get to lick the bowl!
Yum! 8)
--------
Cristal
Mark II Twinstar
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157714#157714
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Congratulations to Cristal |
Congrats!!!!!! You will never forget this day! Not too much else in your
life will give you a lasting memory like this important accomplishment! you
are on your way to becoming a great pilot. best wishes, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)juno.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Congratulations to Cristal
>
>
> I soloed the Cessna 150 today! :D What fun!!
> My birthday is tomorrow. What a great birthday present!
>
> --------
> Cristal
> Mark II Twinstar
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157708#157708
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VG's effect on Runway Leingth |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Holy large runways Batman! Thanks for the chuckle. :)
Here is a picture taken just before launch from my brother's place. His house
and trees are behind me, so it is one way in and out. Made aprox. 10 landings
over two days visit last July. Field elevation is 4100'. I had to use my new
brakes once on day two with a tailwind.
Oh. I almost forgot to mention that I don't have VG's
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157766#157766
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/short2_149.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
Rick, The only thing I can think of, is that it help`s the fabric gap seal
keep it`s shape. Also. I tie mine together to help keep the wings steady
when I trailer to the airport. I don`t know if there is any other reason or
not. Lanny N598LF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
Today I was cleaning up the cage getting it ready to start painting it with primer.
I found a rotted tube. It wasn't noticeable until I started wiping it
down with a scrubbing pad. You can see it is wet inside the tube.
I had to test the other tubes as well and I didn't know how best to do it. What
I did was I took a piece of aluminum tubing and started hitting the other tubes.
When I came to the spot in the other side of the cage I left a dent so I know
that side was weak as well. I guess that is a good way to test your tubing
even if it is covered.
It was good to find it now rather then while landing.
So now I have two tubes that need to be replaced. Does anyone know what size and
type of tubing I will need? I plan on bringing it to an aircraft repair shop
but I would like to know the size in case I need to provide my own material.
--------
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=157840#157840
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_3_253.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_2_363.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_1_187.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Congratulations to Cristal |
| From: | "ropermike" <ropermike2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Congrats Crystal! You've come a long way in a short time!
--------
The next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing!...Mike Hillger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157855#157855
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Scott,
One method to use to inspect tubing for integrity is to use an awl or sharp pick
and apply firm hand pressure with the point of the tool to the tube in question.
If the awl or pick penetrates the tube or deforms it, you have a corroded tube.
I would very carefully inspect all the lower tubes for corrosion as you may have
other tubes that are in bad shape.
You will have to call Travis at Kolb to find out the wall thickness of the tubes
that are damaged. The construction plans for my Firestar II do not specify
tube wall thickness.
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157856#157856
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar I question |
At 10:37 AM 1/13/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
>I'm getting the Firestar ready for its certification inspection and I'm
>curious about the leading edge tubes that stick out of the wing root about
>a foot. Any idea what they do? I'd just as soon cut them off and plug
>them, but not if they actually have a purpose. TIA.
I've seen Kolbs both with and without the extensions. My Ultrastar has the
extensions, and there's another section of tubing that slips over them and
joins them together when the wings are unfolded. Whether that piece is
actually necessary I don't know, it should stiffen the wings a bit and it
also helps to support the fabric center gap seal (clear plastic, actually,
on mine). IIRC it's not shown that way on the drawings, though. I've
never flown the plane without it, but I figure it can't hurt.
-Dana
--
Question Authority and the authorities will question you!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "Wade Lawicki" <wlawicki(at)yahoo.com> |
Looks like the result of no drain holes in the fabric, if left out with inadequate
cover the moisture or rain settles in the low spot. Tube has to be replaced
so you could cut through it and mic the wall thickness before you take it to
be repaired. Aircraft Spruce will have what you need.
Fly Safe,
Wade
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157869#157869
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary aman <gaman(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar I question |
Those leading edge extensions are real handy if you fold and unfold regularly.if
you have the long windshield installed,the tubes rest on the "U" frame so you
can rest the tip of the wing on the ground and walk to the fuselage to install
the pin.With out them,you must support the wing leading edge as you work your
way to the cage to install the pins.The dihedral will not allow the extensions
to line up to tie them together easily.
At 10:37 AM 1/13/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
>I'm getting the Firestar ready for its certification inspection and I'm
>curious about the leading edge tubes that stick out of the wing root about
>a foot. Any idea what they do? I'd just as soon cut them off and plug
>them, but not if they actually have a purpose. TIA.
I've seen Kolbs both with and without the extensions. My Ultrastar has the
extensions, and there's another section of tubing that slips over them and
joins them together when the wings are unfolded. Whether that piece is
actually necessary I don't know, it should stiffen the wings a bit and it
also helps to support the fabric center gap seal (clear plastic, actually,
on mine). IIRC it's not shown that way on the drawings, though. I've
never flown the plane without it, but I figure it can't hurt.
-Dana
--
Question Authority and the authorities will question you!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Folks:
May have corroded from inside out.
Primary reason to use tube seal inside the fuselage and other 4130 tubes. Just
cause you can not see it, does not mean it ain't rusting away while you sleep
and fly.
The awl punch test will tell you when the tube is about ready to fail. Won't tell
you anything about a tube that is rusting from inside out and not reached
the point that the awl will penetrate the corroded tube.
I have been using one quart of Stitts Tube Seal for 24 years and three Kolb fuselages.
Still have a pint left. Never had a tube rust through, yet. ;-)
Ignoring it will not make it go away.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157895#157895
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
Scott, I'll try to get back to you offlist.
BB
On 13, Jan 2008, at 2:35 PM, olendorf wrote:
>
> Today I was cleaning up the cage getting it ready to start painting
> it with primer. I found a rotted tube. It wasn't noticeable
> until I started wiping it down with a scrubbing pad. You can see
> it is wet inside the tube.
>
> I had to test the other tubes as well and I didn't know how best to
> do it. What I did was I took a piece of aluminum tubing and started
> hitting the other tubes. When I came to the spot in the other side
> of the cage I left a dent so I know that side was weak as well. I
> guess that is a good way to test your tubing even if it is covered.
>
> It was good to find it now rather then while landing.
>
> So now I have two tubes that need to be replaced. Does anyone know
> what size and type of tubing I will need? I plan on bringing it to
> an aircraft repair shop but I would like to know the size in case I
> need to provide my own material.
>
> --------
> 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=157840#157840
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_3_253.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_2_363.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_1_187.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar I question |
At 08:44 PM 1/13/2008, gary aman wrote:
>Those leading edge extensions are real handy if you fold and unfold
>regularly.if you have the long windshield installed,the tubes rest on the
>"U" frame so you can rest the tip of the wing on the ground and walk to
>the fuselage to install the pin.With out them,you must support the wing
>leading edge as you work your way to the cage to install the pins.The
>dihedral will not allow the extensions to line up to tie them together easily.
The Ultrastar is different, the extended tubes actually make it _more_
difficult to unfold the wings, since the pivot point is at the main spar
and not the rear... the rear fitting is its own support as you lift the
wingtips up. There's so little dihedral (if any) that slipping the splice
tube into place is no problem.
-Dana
--
Nowadays only a lawyer can tell legal from illegal, and the lawyers don't
know the difference between right and wrong.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb-List Real Airplane :-) |
My Local DAR says its an airplane :-)
Therefore it is !
I want to replace my strutts with new streamlined tubing anyone done this ? I
dont want to use the covers if I dont have to
Dave ... Pilot of the "Sofa King" Firestar KX
**************
Start the year
off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Elt's at airports are generally ignored, Unlike this Charlie guy bashing
elt's, the search and rescue people are not stupid, if there is a strong
signal coming from an airport, it is generally ignored, or given a low
priority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When visiting with the operator at the fbo where I fly.... it may be true
that the S&R does not respond... but the fbo gets a call to investigate and
silence the offending elt. He has been told that the calls are initiated
by local aircraft, airliners, US and even soviet satellites.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
slyck(at)frontiernet.net wrote:
>
>
> --or you could leave a trail of seafoam.
>
>
There is an interesting idea, does that stuff really work ???
--------
"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=158002#158002
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
"John Hauck" writes: << May have corroded from inside out. Primary
reason to use tube seal inside the fuselage and other 4130 tubes. Just
cause you can not see it, does not mean it ain't rusting away while you
sleep and fly. >>
John, and All -
My question is, how did moisture get inside the tube in the first place?
I agree that using Tube Seal may prevent rust from forming on the inside
of the tube, but all the tubes on my Kolb's cage are welded at each end.
No openings for Tube Seal, or water to get in. (I'm pretty sure.)
So how how d'ya suppose water got into Olendorf's Firestar cage tubes?
Maybe a cracked weld somewhere, and then getting left outside in the
rain?
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3 Classic, in
New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VG's effect on Runway Leingth |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I was hoping someone would see the humor in that :) When I saw how that picture
turned out, I just had to post it. At 11,200 feet long, even the newbies I
often let fly can hit it most of the time...
That does look short ! Do you go over, or turn away from the power lines ? The
cows in the next field look like interesting targets [Wink] Do they run or
just ignore you as you fly 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=158011#158011
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
I've heard that SeaFoam is so delicious that the wild creatures eat
up the cookie-crumb-trail before it can be followed
On Jan 14, 2008, at 11:15 AM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> slyck(at)frontiernet.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> --or you could leave a trail of seafoam.
>>
>>
>
>
> There is an interesting idea, does that stuff really work ???
>
> --------
> "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=158002#158002
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
Often a welder will make a small hole on the under side of a tube
somewhere, to relieve any buildup of air pressure when making the
final weld. Was plugged with beeswax, before SeaFoam was invented.
I knew a salvage Captain in the Caribbean who had a 4-seat steel
tube-&-fabric plane aboard his 90' salvage tug; hoisted aboard and
launched by crane., He went to the factory & checked until he found a
newly-made airframe that did not leak any air pressure. Then he had
it filled with oil, and the filler-hole plugged, and left it there.
Added some 20 lbs of weight, but those tubes are NEVER going to rust
from the inside out.
John H's practise of using tube seal is lots easier & likely just as
good. Listen to the experienced pilots!
On Jan 14, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL wrote:
>
>
>
> "John Hauck" writes: << May have corroded from inside out. Primary
> reason to use tube seal inside the fuselage and other 4130 tubes.
> Just
> cause you can not see it, does not mean it ain't rusting away while
> you
> sleep and fly. >>
>
> John, and All -
>
> My question is, how did moisture get inside the tube in the first
> place?
>
> I agree that using Tube Seal may prevent rust from forming on the
> inside
> of the tube, but all the tubes on my Kolb's cage are welded at each
> end.
> No openings for Tube Seal, or water to get in. (I'm pretty sure.)
>
> So how how d'ya suppose water got into Olendorf's Firestar cage tubes?
> Maybe a cracked weld somewhere, and then getting left outside in the
> rain?
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Mark-3 Classic, in
> New Mexico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VG's effect on Runway Leingth |
Cows run. Where do you think whipped cream comes from??
On Jan 14, 2008, at 11:31 AM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> I was hoping someone would see the humor in that :) When I saw
> how that picture turned out, I just had to post it. At 11,200 feet
> long, even the newbies I often let fly can hit it most of the time...
>
> That does look short ! Do you go over, or turn away from the power
> lines ? The cows in the next field look like interesting targets
> [Wink] Do they run or just ignore you as you fly 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=158011#158011
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
> "John Hauck" writes: << May have corroded from inside out. Primary
> reason to use tube seal inside the fuselage and other 4130 tubes. Just
> cause you can not see it, does not mean it ain't rusting away while you
> sleep and fly. >>
>
> John, and All -
>
> My question is, how did moisture get inside the tube in the first place?
>
> Dennis Kirby
Hi Dennis K:
Moisture gets inside the tubes because the tubes are not sealed completely
by welding. Usually there are a few pin holes here and there that are
undetectable with the naked eye.
If there is a pin hole in a weld, the tube seal will find it and seal it up.
If a weld cracks, tube seal will let you know with a tell tale black streak
from the crack.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jimmy Hankinson" <jhankin(at)planters.net> |
| Subject: | iron for fabric repair |
A good iron for repairs on a tear is a radio control molders covering iron,
available at hobby shops.
A good test heat unit is found at Harbor Freight, it is a hand held point
and read instrument, sells for about $65.00 and can be bought on sale for
$35.00. Also good for reading CHT on the engine.
Jimmy Hankinson
Rocky Ford, Ga.
N6007L Firefly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
John, what is the best location to drill holes for the seal injection
In a message dated 1/14/2008 12:30:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck"
> "John Hauck" writes: << May have corroded from inside out. Primary
> reason to use tube seal inside the fuselage and other 4130 tubes. Just
> cause you can not see it, does not mean it ain't rusting away while you
> sleep and fly. >>
>
> John, and All -
>
> My question is, how did moisture get inside the tube in the first place?
>
> Dennis Kirby
Hi Dennis K:
Moisture gets inside the tubes because the tubes are not sealed completely
by welding. Usually there are a few pin holes here and there that are
undetectable with the naked eye.
If there is a pin hole in a weld, the tube seal will find it and seal it up.
If a weld cracks, tube seal will let you know with a tell tale black streak
from the crack.
john h
mkIII
Steve
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Saw that on the news, Sad story, Airspeed is everything.
Steve
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firefly goes International |
Mike of SilverFern Microlight in the UK was nice enough to send me a few
copies of the UK magazine MF. (That's for Microlight Flyer for those of you
that are more familiar with that acronym here) They did a Cover Story on the
Firefly and the new UL catagory. Thanks Mike Nice Magazine,Nice story
Steve
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: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
Steve B:
I usually drill 1/8" hole near a weld at the end of main tubes which I
consider catastrophic is they should fail. The little bracing tubes
that would not have a catastrophic effect on flight I usually do not
inject tube seal.
I haven't bought any tube seal since 1984 so I do not know what kind of
instructions are on the cans of newer stuff. The old Stitts Tube Seal
had instructions in ccm for diameter and lenght of tubing. I get large
hyperdermic needles and syringes from my Vet which are graduated in ccm.
After the tube seal goes in I seal the hole with an 1/8" aluminum closed
end pop rivet.
If there are pin holes in the welds, the tube seal will seal them. If
you should develop a crack, tube seal will leave a tell tale streak of
black to let you know you have a problem.
john h
mkIII
----- Original Message -----
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached.
John, what is the best location to drill holes for the seal injection
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Scott:
Just posted procedure to the Kolb List. Pasted it below:
I usually drill 1/8" hole near a weld at the end of main tubes which I consider
catastrophic is they should fail. The little bracing tubes that would not have
a catastrophic effect on flight I usually do not inject tube seal.
I haven't bought any tube seal since 1984 so I do not know what kind of instructions
are on the cans of newer stuff. The old Stitts Tube Seal had instructions
in ccm for diameter and lenght of tubing. I get large hyperdermic needles
and syringes from my Vet which are graduated in ccm.
After the tube seal goes in I seal the hole with an 1/8" aluminum closed end pop
rivet.
If there are pin holes in the welds, the tube seal will seal them. If you should
develop a crack, tube seal will leave a tell tale streak of black to let you
know you have a problem.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158065#158065
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
In a message dated 1/14/2008 2:39:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
Steve B:
I usually drill 1/8" hole near a weld at the end of main tubes which I
consider catastrophic is they should fail. The little bracing tubes that would
not have a catastrophic effect on flight I usually do not inject tube seal.
I haven't bought any tube seal since 1984 so I do not know what kind of
instructions are on the cans of newer stuff.
John, Funny, but I have a can from about 1984 also. I have been meaning to
do that on the Old FF as well as on the new one. Thanks
Steve
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 1/2 VW on Firefly |
| From: | "KenB" <kvbeaupre(at)hotmail.com> |
Some time ago there was mention of someone with a firefly who was in the process
of mounting a vw. I dont remember who that individual was. Is there any who
can remember? And is there any more information as to how that project is proceeding?
With the price of fuel and oil, and the threat of increasing amount of
alcohol it sounds interesting.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158092#158092
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
slyck(at)frontiernet.net wrote:
> Scott, I'll try to get back to you offlist.
> BB
>
> On 13, Jan 2008, at 2:35 PM, olendorf wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Today I was cleaning up the cage getting it ready to start painting
> > it with primer. I found a rotted tube. It wasn't noticeable
> > until I started wiping it down with a scrubbing pad. You can see
> > it is wet inside the tube.
> >
> > I had to test the other tubes as well and I didn't know how best to
> > do it. What I did was I took a piece of aluminum tubing and started
> > hitting the other tubes. When I came to the spot in the other side
> > of the cage I left a dent so I know that side was weak as well. I
> > guess that is a good way to test your tubing even if it is covered.
> >
> > It was good to find it now rather then while landing.
> >
> > So now I have two tubes that need to be replaced. Does anyone know
> > what size and type of tubing I will need? I plan on bringing it to
> > an aircraft repair shop but I would like to know the size in case I
> > need to provide my own material.
> >
> > --------
> > 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=157840#157840
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_3_253.jpg
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_2_363.jpg
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/rot_1_187.jpg
> >
> >
>
Scott, have you ever stored your plane outside or has it ever been on floats?
I've never seen anything like this before.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158101#158101
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
All that talk of sealing the _inside_ of the tubes... was the area in
question covered by fabric? Fabric can hold moisture against the outside
of the tube, and you never see the corrosion between the fabric and the
tube. That's what happened in the tail of my Taylorcraft (though
admittedly it had been an outside plane for many years). Nowadays lots of
people leave the very back lower section uncovered to avoid the problem.
-Dana
--
(A)bort, (R)etry, (P)retend it didn't happen?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
> All that talk of sealing the _inside_ of the tubes...
> -Dana
Dana:
Easy to see outside corrosion.
Impossible to see inside the tube until it rusts through.
Might get your attention if you should get involved overhauling Kolb
fuselages. Amazing what one finds when he starts cutting out old tubing.
Those that have not been tube sealed usually are suffering from internal
corrosion.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> Hi Folks:
>
> May have corroded from inside out.
>
> Primary reason to use tube seal inside the fuselage and other 4130 tubes. Just
cause you can not see it, does not mean it ain't rusting away while you sleep
and fly.
>
> The awl punch test will tell you when the tube is about ready to fail. Won't
tell you anything about a tube that is rusting from inside out and not reached
the point that the awl will penetrate the corroded tube.
>
> I have been using one quart of Stitts Tube Seal for 24 years and three Kolb fuselages.
Still have a pint left. Never had a tube rust through, yet. ;-)
>
> Ignoring it will not make it go away.
>
> --------
> John Hauck
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
Scott,
John is right about using tube seal. I used it on my FireFly with the
technique he describes. Tube seal is nothing more than Boiled Linseed
Oil that has been thinned about 50% with turpentine or paint thinner.
It's a lot cheaper to pick up a pint or quart of Boiled Linseed Oil and
thin it yourself. Make sure it's "Boiled Linseed Oil".
One other point, if you have pin holes already, the seal will leak out
for some time until it seals it, Can be messy if that occurs.
If memory serves me well, the cage tubes on a FireFly are .035 thick.
Don't know what your Original FireStar might be. Probably the same.
Good luck with the repairs, can you weld?
Terry - FireFly #95
P's. Can find the chart for how much to inject into teach tube if your
interested.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
At 07:57 PM 1/14/2008, John Hauck wrote:
>Easy to see outside corrosion.
>
>Impossible to see inside the tube until it rusts through.
I realize that; my point was that even _outside_ corrosion may be unseen if
covered by fabric (until the fabric is removed, of course)... and that the
fabric, if it gets wet, can accelerate the corrosion.
-Dana
--
(A)bort, (R)etry, (P)retend it didn't happen?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
Just FYI -- West Marine has the SPOT for $150
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1/2 VW on Firefly |
The Half Vw fellow,Keith VanHousher, lives east of Knoxville tenn. Bryan Milburn
built his plane... His engine was brought to the Kolb Gathering and flown on
an old Firestar.. Flew very well... according to Keith his Firefly flies terrifically
with that engine..He would have had his Firefly at the gathering but
he had a conflicting trip planned.
The fly has single lift struts and two or more additional ribs per wing.. I think
the engine has an 84 stroke and 94 jugs..balanced by Scott Casler who has
a shop in Arizona.. Scott was with Morrey Hummel in Ohio earlier.. Builds and
sells full and half vw's.
Keith is a good guy... I just called him ..He has 18 hours on the engine currently..
2500 rpms gets between 55 and 60 mph.. I cruise my N3 Pup at 28 to 3150
rpms and see over 65 mph. So I would imagine that he will see near 70 at those
rpms.. I do not think I ever saw more than 2 gals an hour fuel burn on the
Pup..
He tells me that he has built a 90 stroke 94 bore half vw..Mailed the moving
parts to Scott to be balanced... Found the crank in California..from an advertiser
in Hot Vw's magazine, he could not recall the name of the company..
My half vw's weigh 84 lbs dry.. Globals..
I am impressed with both the full Vw installation and also the Half Vw install
for the firefly.. that were present at the gathering..
The half vw with a 54 to 56 inch prop lends itself to a low engine pusher such
as is on the Ultrastar.. I am planning to build a TRI FLY that will have some
ideas from the Ultrastar and Firefly..High boom pusher with training gear..longer
gear legs to improve the prop ground clearance.. half vw, Time will tell..:-)
Cooling is always the bugger when mounting a half or full vw in a pusher
config.. Herb
_____________________________________________________________
Click here to obtain free information on accredited degrees.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iieXwl1Bwv4UyFFx0t8RfRwt9y6ZHedhFgczbx6WAO3qrpZ2N/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Real Airplane :-) |
Best deal on streamlined, aluminum lift struts is from Mary Carlson..Skytec aircraft..Herb
_____________________________________________________________
Click now to shop a huge selection of name brand women's boots!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iieMbJvheqajP8eASHEGOsFw1SsD0wDMO6JS2JXRumeMGNC7j/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
Thanks, Russ. I think I'm going to go ahead and buy
one. Lar.
Russ Kinne wrote:
>
> Just FYI -- West Marine has the SPOT for $150
>
>
--
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
Building Kolb Mk III
"Vamoose"
www.gogittum.com
www.gogittum.com/blog
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
The tubes sure look like they rusted from the inside. The outside of the tubes
looked normal. I like the tube seal idea after seeing these tubes. I received
some encouraging emails and after thinking about it I guess it isn't so bad.
I'll have it fixed in no time. I couldn't have found it at a better time.
--------
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop
Schenectady, NY
http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158228#158228
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1/2 VW on Firefly |
The attached photo is the 1/2 VW that was at the Kolb Homecoming 07. The
engine and installation was in a word rough looking but seemed to fly well
for what it was. I sure would like to see a redrive on one.
As for cooling I can't say on the 1/2 VW but my full VW runs a bit on the
cool side in the air. I do need to be careful on the ground. A guy called me
a few years ago looking to solve a over heating problem he was having with
his free air pusher VW. Turned out he was trying to break in the engine on
the ground like the Rotax guys do. I tried to convince the guy that it can't
be done without a large cooling blower something like they put on the car
engines. To this day the guy probably thinks there is something wrong with
his engine.
Starting my engine cold I can run it for 10-15 minutes at low power on the
ground before it starts to over heat. Once I start a fast taxi the temps
start to lower. In the air my CHTs never get over 300 degrees.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 1/2 VW on Firefly
>
> The Half Vw fellow,Keith VanHousher, lives east of Knoxville tenn. Bryan
> Milburn built his plane... His engine was brought to the Kolb Gathering
> and flown on an old Firestar.. Flew very well... according to Keith his
> Firefly flies terrifically with that engine..He would have had his Firefly
> at the gathering but he had a conflicting trip planned.
> The fly has single lift struts and two or more additional ribs per wing..
> I think the engine has an 84 stroke and 94 jugs..balanced by Scott Casler
> who has a shop in Arizona.. Scott was with Morrey Hummel in Ohio earlier..
> Builds and sells full and half vw's.
> Keith is a good guy... I just called him ..He has 18 hours on the engine
> currently.. 2500 rpms gets between 55 and 60 mph.. I cruise my N3 Pup at
> 28 to 3150 rpms and see over 65 mph. So I would imagine that he will see
> near 70 at those rpms.. I do not think I ever saw more than 2 gals an hour
> fuel burn on the Pup..
> He tells me that he has built a 90 stroke 94 bore half vw..Mailed the
> moving parts to Scott to be balanced... Found the crank in
> California..from an advertiser in Hot Vw's magazine, he could not recall
> the name of the company..
>
> My half vw's weigh 84 lbs dry.. Globals..
>
> I am impressed with both the full Vw installation and also the Half Vw
> install for the firefly.. that were present at the gathering..
>
> The half vw with a 54 to 56 inch prop lends itself to a low engine pusher
> such as is on the Ultrastar.. I am planning to build a TRI FLY that will
> have some ideas from the Ultrastar and Firefly..High boom pusher with
> training gear..longer gear legs to improve the prop ground clearance..
> half vw, Time will tell..:-) Cooling is always the bugger when mounting a
> half or full vw in a pusher config.. Herb
> _____________________________________________________________
> Click here to obtain free information on accredited degrees.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iieXwl1Bwv4UyFFx0t8RfRwt9y6ZHedhFgczbx6WAO3qrpZ2N/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Gang:
Here is the first recorded save by SPOT, a gentleman in Alaska bush:
http://www.adn.com/outdoors/story/263545.html
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
wait until he gets the bill for the rescue :)
On 15, Jan 2008, at 12:19 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> Here is the first recorded save by SPOT, a gentleman in Alaska bush:
>
> http://www.adn.com/outdoors/story/263545.html
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Real Airplane :-) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I considered using Aluminum struts on my MK III Xtra. Right now, it has steel
covered by streamlined plastic. I liked the idea of just having a " Real " aluminum
strut. After talking to Kolb and some other people, there was some question
as to weather the aluminum struts would meet the compression requirements
( Not fold in case of negative G's ). Being that I could not determine that,
I stuck with the steel ones Kolb provides. The plastic covering seems strong
enough, and has not cracked or even started to work loose as I had feared.
It may work fine, but do your homework and be careful when making structural changes
to your Kolb. There can be many unintended consequences one never thinks
about when doing something like that.
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=158341#158341
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Real Airplane :-) |
> I liked the idea of just having a " Real " aluminum strut. After
talking to Kolb and some other people, there was some question as to weather
the aluminum struts would meet the compression requirements ( Not fold in
case of negative G's ).
>
> Mike
Mike B:
Jury struts on the lift struts insure the lift struts remain in column
during compression. I put them on my MKIII because Homer Kolb asked me to.
They were in the drawings. I had not intended to used them because we were
building 4130 streamlined struts like the ones I had on my Firestar.
I know of no lift strut failing in compression. I have had a very hard flat
crash which was a good test for the jury struts and lift struts. They
survived that one.
At Muncho Lake, BC, 2002, I lost the left main gear leg/axle socket. When
it let go, the weight of the MKIII was caught on the left wing strut when
the strut came down on the tire. Probably would have failed if the jury
strut had not been in place.
I understand the current MKIII plans do not include jury struts.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)commspeed.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb For Sale |
This item was posted on another list, but, thought
it might be of interest to someone on this list, too.
http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/rvs/538966024.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotten cage tubes found. Photos attached. |
Often a welder will make a small hole on the under side of a tube
somewhere, to relieve any buildup of air pressure when making the
final weld. Was plugged with beeswax, before SeaFoam was invented.
I knew a salvage Captain in the Caribbean who had a 4-seat steel
tube-&-fabric plane aboard his 90' salvage tug; hoisted aboard and
launched by crane., He went to the factory & checked until he found a
newly-made airframe that did not leak any air pressure. Then he had
it filled with oil, and the filler-hole plugged, and left it there.
Added some 20 lbs of weight, but those tubes are NEVER going to rust
from the inside out.
John H's practise of using tube seal is lots easier & likely just as
good. Listen to the experienced pilots!
For what it's worth (trivia really...) The plane Sean Tucker (the
airshow performer) flies has a steel tube fuselage. When it was built
there was a small hole drilled in the continuous tube at every joint
that would be covered by the adjoining tube. This means that there are
no closed tubes in the structure...there is basically just a continuous
truss...one tube open to the next and open to the next...etc. They
welded a fitting onto one of the tubes in the cockpit area that has a
valve and a gauge. They pumped nitrogen into the tubes to pressurize
them with the pressure reading on the gauge. The last part of the
preflight before he goes and subjects the airframe to 9+ G's is look at
the little gauge...if there is no pressure he gets back out of the
plane. Was told that he has had to cancel 2 different performances over
the years due to the "no-pressure" gauge. No pressure means cracked
weld, time to rip off fabric and have a look see...not surprising when
you see how hard he pushes an airplane.
Jeremy Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
I found a magneto puller on the Internet and thought I would give it a try.
I saw it at parker yamaha for $81.05 plus shipping which is less then half of what
the rotax tool costs.
The Rotax aircraft one is $169. The rotax tool has a longer tab sticking out.
This one has a part number cast into the side which is the same as the Rotax
part#, 876080. It doesn't appear to be made by Rotax but it says made in Austria
on the package. Probably made in China but it works well none the less.
SeaDoo Puller 529035547
Part#: 529-035-547
Manufacturer Part#: 529035547 (Qty: 1 x $27.10)
SeaDoo Flywheel Holder 420876081
Part#: 420-876-081
Manufacturer Part#: 290876080 (Qty: 1 x $43.95)
Parker Yamaha SeaDoo Polaris Honda Kawasaki
800 California Ave, Parker AZ 85344
(928) 669-2549 Parkeryamaha.com
--------
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop
Schenectady, NY
http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158437#158437
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/puller_112.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Real Airplane :-) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I really like your Jury struts, that gives a lot more strength in compression.
The only reason I did not copy them ( Like I did a lot of other things on your
plane [Wink] ) was because I don't know how I would have made the jury struts
work the the wing folding. Initially I was planning on keeping the plane
stored in a trailer.
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=158482#158482
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Streamlining struts |
I've published this method before, but the conversation is current again so
I'll reprise. My friend Ralph Senter invented this back in the day when hang
gliders had spars exposed to the wind.
Get a piece of .015 to .020 Mylar sheet 6 times as wide as the circumference
of the strut you wish to streamline and long enough to go end to end. Fold
in half on the short dimension, crease lightly and stick it together with
double sided sail makers seam tape. Sew along the long edge. Ralph used a
zig zag stitch so the stress was spread out better than a straight stitch.
Slip this sleeve over your strut and it's streamlined. No structural issues
and far cheaper than buying new metal.
Sheet mylar can be had from blueprint reproduction business's or found on
the web.
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Real Airplane :-) |
Mike
I have streamlined aluminum struts with jury struts on MKIIIC. My plane may
be one of the last MKIIIs with this arrangement. Shortly after I rigged my
plane there was a change where a tube was run the full length in side of the
aluminum strut so that the jury strut was no longer needed. I fold my MKIII
and the jury strut isn't a problem other than the additional connections.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:50 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Real Airplane :-)
>
> I really like your Jury struts, that gives a lot more strength in
> compression. The only reason I did not copy them ( Like I did a lot of
> other things on your plane [Wink] ) was because I don't know how I would
> have made the jury struts work the the wing folding. Initially I was
> planning on keeping the plane stored in a trailer.
>
> 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=158482#158482
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
I recently bought a replacement roof panel for a shed because of wind
damage.
The old one was the corrugated translucent fiberglass. The new one is
polycarbonate.
If you could find a piece of that in flat sheet it is extremely tough
and flexible.
-just thinking out loud.
BB
On 16, Jan 2008, at 9:18 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> I've published this method before, but the conversation is current
> again so I'll reprise. My friend Ralph Senter invented this back in
> the day when hang gliders had spars exposed to the wind.
> Get a piece of .015 to .020 Mylar sheet 6 times as wide as the
> circumference of the strut you wish to streamline and long enough
> to go end to end. Fold in half on the short dimension, crease
> lightly and stick it together with double sided sail makers seam
> tape. Sew along the long edge. Ralph used a zig zag stitch so the
> stress was spread out better than a straight stitch. Slip this
> sleeve over your strut and it's streamlined. No structural issues
> and far cheaper than buying new metal.
> Sheet mylar can be had from blueprint reproduction business's or
> found on the web.
>
> Rick Girard
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Streamlining struts |
The new one is polycarbonate.
If you could find a piece of that in flat sheet it is extremely tough
and flexible.
-just thinking out loud.
BB
polycarbonate is the generic name for LEXAN.same as your windshield.
Jeremy Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
That is pretty amazing. I wonder if my MK III would do that ? I have seen this
video before, but every time I even think about doing this, all I can imagine
are ground loops, so I have never tried it.
How much crosswind can you land in ?
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=158594#158594
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Bill V:
You make it look easy.
Imagine my surprise when I clicked on Kolb MKIII Flyby and got this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jfWIjFYDYA&feature=related
The airplane looks familiar, but it sounds more like a P-51. ;-)
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
I am currently operating a Rotax 503 DCDI with a Keywest regulator/ rectifier with
a Powersonic 12volt, 18amp battery. I seem to be getting allot of noise through
the com radio from the engine. If I reduce the engine power, the radio
noise goes away. The problem has aways been around but seems to be getting worse
now.
I have made sure I have good grounds, resistor spark plugs on the engine, and looked
at all the electrical connections to make sure they are clean and secure.
I suspect the regulator is beginning to fail. It has about 56 hours on it since
new. Is there a better voltage regulator/rectifier for the Rotax engine?
Inquiring minds would like to know!
Thanks in Advance,
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158697#158697
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
One thing that is often overlooked are the wires to your kill switches.
They are conducting AC from the engine to somewhere in your cockpit, in
effect they are fairly long antennas radiating AC from your magneto to
all over the place. You might try a simple experiment: Disconnect your
kill switch wires at the engine, and figure out how to kill the engine
with a switch or even a bare wire temporary rig at the engine. Tie the
airplane to something secure, and run it up with the normal wires
disconnected, and see if the noise in the radio is less. After the
experiment is over, reach across the leading edge and kill the engine
with your temporary kill device. This may not solve your problem, but it
will eliminate one notable noise maker as the culprit. If it turns out
that they are the culprit, here is how I fixed mine: Radio Shack sells
shielded microphone wire, two wires with a sheath around them. That is
what I used for the kill switches, and grounded one end of the
shield/sheath to the engine.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
The BaronVonEvil wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am currently operating a Rotax 503 DCDI with a Keywest regulator/ rectifier
with a Powersonic 12volt, 18amp battery. I seem to be getting allot of noise
through the com radio from the engine. If I reduce the engine power, the radio
noise goes away. The problem has aways been around but seems to be getting worse
now.
>
> I have made sure I have good grounds, resistor spark plugs on the engine, and
looked at all the electrical connections to make sure they are clean and secure.
>
> I suspect the regulator is beginning to fail. It has about 56 hours on it since
new. Is there a better voltage regulator/rectifier for the Rotax engine?
>
> Inquiring minds would like to know!
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Carlos G
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158697#158697
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier?
Carlos, Shot the capacitor value off from memory. Should have said a
20,000uf 25Volt cap. Sorry.
Rick
I don't suppose that you would have a good idea of where to get one of
these critters would you?
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
Carlos, Radio Shack doesn't have anything close; I had to order one through
an electronics supply house. Cost was about $30.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 1/16/2008 11:21:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com writes:
Carlos, Shot the capacitor value off from memory. Should have said a
20,000uf 25Volt cap. Sorry.
Rick
I don't suppose that you would have a good idea of where to get one of these
critters would you?
Larry C
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Yep a MK111 can do that.Have no photos but I regulary take off or land in
cross winds on 1 wheel. Nice smooth runway on grass .A lot of people seem
very concerned about the dreded ground loop. I have never ground looped the
MK111.And have never been in a position that I thought a ground loop may
happen.I completed all my flight training and and the next 300+ hrs on tail
draggers { the only real airoplane according to my instructor.The others
have training wheels} Since then I have added about 200hrs on the MK111 so
maybe its a time thing?May happen yet.
Happy flying from NewZealand
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>o: <kolb-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:37 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Video
>
> That is pretty amazing. I wonder if my MK III would do that ? I have
> seen this video before, but every time I even think about doing this, all
> I can imagine are ground loops, so I have never tried it.
>
> How much crosswind can you land in ?
>
> 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=158594#158594
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the input regarding my tale of woes. One would have thought that Keywest
would have put such a device into their little blue box.
Where does one find a 20,000 u.f. 25v.d.c. capacitor? I looked a bit on-line and
and most capacitors aren't nearly that high a value.
Mr Pike, I will definitely investigate the possibility that the noise is coming
from the ignition kill wires as I have not thought of that.
I suspect I will have to rearrange things in the wiring department aboard the plane.
Oh well, its not like I had anything in particular to do during this blasted cold
winter. Any one have a cheap nuclear reactor to loan so I can keep my hangar
warm?
Thanks again All,
Carlos G.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158730#158730
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
>
>
>Where does one find a 20,000 u.f. 25v.d.c. capacitor? I looked a bit on-line and
and most capacitors aren't nearly that high a value.
>
Carlos,
Check:
http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/browse.jsp;jsessionid=KEGM5RFWMW3UMCXDUZ0G2WQ?N=1001309+184292+148380+182144&_requestid=4838
$9.31 plus shipping
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
In a message dated 1/17/2008 7:58:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net writes:
Where does one find a 20,000 u.f. 25v.d.c. capacitor? I looked a bit on-line
and and most capacitors aren't nearly that high a value
Try _www.skycraftsurplus.com_ (http://www.skycraftsurplus.com)
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: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
Carlos, B & C Specialties of Newton, KS has them. You should also be able to
get them from Digikey or Mouser. Here's B & C's web address:
http://www.bandcspecialty.com/
Rick
PS when wiring this in you don't run the wires from the regulator to the
positive pole of the cap then out from the negative pole. Your output to the
battery is from the positive pole. The negative pole is wired to ground.
What this does is provide an electrical leak to ground that filters out the
noise.
On Jan 17, 2008 12:05 AM, The BaronVonEvil wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks for the input regarding my tale of woes. One would have thought
> that Keywest would have put such a device into their little blue box.
>
> Where does one find a 20,000 u.f. 25v.d.c. capacitor? I looked a bit
> on-line and and most capacitors aren't nearly that high a value.
>
> Mr Pike, I will definitely investigate the possibility that the noise is
> coming from the ignition kill wires as I have not thought of that.
>
> I suspect I will have to rearrange things in the wiring department aboard
> the plane.
>
> Oh well, its not like I had anything in particular to do during this
> blasted cold winter. Any one have a cheap nuclear reactor to loan so I can
> keep my hangar warm?
>
> Thanks again All,
>
> Carlos G.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158730#158730
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
One thing that is often overlooked are the wires to your kill switches.
They are conducting AC from the engine to somewhere in your cockpit, in
effect they are fairly long antennas radiating AC from your magneto to
all over the place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My kill switch wires are pieces of coax grounded at the engine... this helps
keep the noise in the hot wire shielded and out of the radio.
For a test of removing the wires,,, and you still need a way to kill the
engine without going through the prop..... try turning off the gas at the
tank. The engine will kill when the float bowls empty.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Rick,
Do I have this correct? For a 1 inch tube:
Circumference = 3.14"
6 * 3.14 = 18.8" wide
I tried this with paper to see what it looks like and it just seems like a lot
of material for a 1" tube.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158836#158836
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
Roger,
I don't mean to interupt your conversation with Rick, but the formula for circumference
is;
3.14 X Diameter (usually referred to as: pi*D) If you are talking about a 1"
tube, then the circumference is 3.14 X 1" = 3.14".
Mike Welch
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Streamlining struts
> From: rphanks(at)grantspass.com
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:06:00 -0800
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Rick,
> Do I have this correct? For a 1 inch tube:
> Circumference = 3.14"
> 6 * 3.14 = 18.8" wide
>
> I tried this with paper to see what it looks like and it just seems like a lot
of material for a 1" tube.
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158836#158836
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Two down, two to go |
You'ze Guys, It pays to be near the Air Capitol. I called the local FSDO and
gave the inspector a sob story about needing an inspection and not being
able to move the aircraft because of the wind storms we've been having. That
was a week ago Tuesday. Monday he came out and 614AG and 169RG are now legal
E-LSA's. I will have to transport the Mk.3 and the Firestar, but they're
robust enough to handle the trip. With a little luck, I'll take the
Mk.3tomorrow. It'll be cold, but the winds will be less than gale
force for a
change.
Yippeee!!!
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
Larry, try Mouser Electronics. Lar.
Larry Cottrell wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier?
>
> Carlos, Shot the capacitor value off from memory. Should have said
> a 20,000uf 25Volt cap. Sorry.
>
> Rick
>
> I don't suppose that you would have a good idea of where to get
> one of these critters would you?
> Larry C
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
Building Kolb Mk III
"Vamoose"
www.gogittum.com
www.gogittum.com/blog
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Who make a good Voltage Regulator/Rectifier? |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Carlos,
Check your plug caps. If they have any wiggle at all they are making some noise.
I changed mine out last year and noticed a dramatic drop in ignition noise.
If you decide to do it, don't by the $18 Rotax plug caps. You can get the proper
NGK LB05EZ caps from Sparkplugs.com for about 2.50 ea. They are black not
red, but otherwise identical to the Rotax OEM caps.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158971#158971
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, 13th |
| From: | "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net> |
Just wanted to let everyone know that we have settled on a date for the "2nd Annual
Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around". Mark your calenders for July 11, 12, and
13.
This is just a gathering of Kolbs and other fans of light planes. We fly, eat,
and visit. We had a great time last year even with marginal weather.
Ronnie Morgan will probably cook another wild pig Saturday night.
Nauga Field (LS35) is located about 15 nm NW of Baton Rouge, LA.
The runway is 1550 feet tree line to tree line. Trees are 60 - 80 foot tall at
both ends.
Don't want to insult anyone, but . . . .
This field will be a challenge if you are used to landing on 2500 to 5000 foot
runways all the time. It can be visually intimidating if you aren't used to it
and up on your short field techniques. Start practicing if you are rusty on
your short field techniques. We don't fly with passengers in the summer. Short-soft
field and high density altitude (damn hot and humid) doesn't leave a lot
of safety margin for two person operation.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/LS35
Folks planning on attending so far:
John Williamson
John Hauck
Gary Haley
Steven Green ?
David Key ?
On Saturday, we cross the Mississippi River and eat catfish dinners at False River
Airpark (HZR) hosted by EAA Chapter 244. Saturday evening we will probably
have a short landing contest. John "lock em up" Hauck won last year.
Most of the folks camp or bunk in a few places. This is a small community, if
you plan on hotel/motel make reservations early.
My wife and friends do all the cooking. She loves me and enjoys trying to be a
good host. As we get closer, let me know if you plan on attending so we can
get the groceries right.
Mark you calendars and come enjoy Starhill hospitality. We pass a good time.
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark IIIC w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158983#158983
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nauga_field_nw_end_348.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nauga_field_se_end_469.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, 13th |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Why host a fly in at a strip that is so short and dangerous, a place where many
people cant land ? Half the fun at a fly in is being able to bring wives, taking
people for rides etc, so why hold it at a strip where you cant take a passenger
for a ride?
It makes zero sense to try to have an event at such a sub standard field that it
keeps many away. There are airfields that are safer, where people would enjoy
flying during the event, rather than just barely getting in and dreading the
takeoff to leave. Even if I were off that week, I would not even consider
attending an event at such a substandard and intimidating strip.
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=159044#159044
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
..yeah...and DEEP, too..>
Beauford. I remember that joke.
Pat :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
Roger,
You reach a point of rapidly diminishing returns (streamline effect)
if the ratio of the airfoil length (fore to aft) to tube diameter
(airfoil thickness) goes past about 4 to 1. So for a tube diameter of
1" the airfoil material need not be more than about 8" (4 x 2) plus an
inch for deviation from straight line, or about 9" should do it for
each airfoil section.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
If you're scared now wait till you see it.> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Starhil
l-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, 13th> From: orcabonita@hotmail.
com> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:41:24 -0800> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com> >
host a fly in at a strip that is so short and dangerous, a place where man
y people cant land ? Half the fun at a fly in is being able to bring wives,
taking people for rides etc, so why hold it at a strip where you cant take
a passenger for a ride?> > It makes zero sense to try to have an event at
such a sub standard field that it keeps many away. There are airfields that
are safer, where people would enjoy flying during the event, rather than j
ust barely getting in and dreading the takeoff to leave. Even if I were off
that week, I would not even consider attending an event at such a substand
ard and intimidating strip. > > Mike> > --------> "NO FEAR" - If
you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!> > Kolb MK-II
I Xtra, 912-S> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matron
================> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
> Why host a fly in at a strip that is so short and dangerous, a place
where many people cant land ?
>
> It makes zero sense to try to have an event at such a sub standard field
> that it keeps many away.
Even if I were off that week, I would not even consider attending an event
at such a substandard and intimidating strip.
>
> Mike
Mike B:
Nauga Field keeps out the riff raff, and those that can not Kolbs.
Some of us had a ball last year at the first annual Nauga Field flyin at
Star Hill, LA.
I made the first landing at takeoff at Nauga Field the first of December
2005, on the way to the Last Flight of the Year down the coast of Texas and
up the Rio Grande.
Mike B, you might be able to land and take off there if you worked on it a
little. ;-)
john h
mkIII - Holder of the first Nauga Award for winning the Nauga Field Short
Landing Contest 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
I have a brand new 340 Kawasaki I bought for my Cumulus motorglider that
I've decided I don't want to use. No reflection on the engine, I'm just a
flyer, not a tinkerer and I'm also a cert'ed Rotax mechanic, so I decided to
use a 447 as per the design spec's. I have a 2:1 belt drive reduction for
the engine, too. All it needs is an electric starter and Northern power
quoted me $60 for a new one (versus $800 for a Rotax). Anyway, I can't even
start my Cummie until I get some other projects done, so I'm selling the
Kaw. $600 + shipping and you'll have a nice engine and redrive.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
> Nauga Field keeps out the riff raff, and those that can not Kolbs.
Shoulda read: "and those that can not fly their Kolbs."
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
I made the first two person landing.> From: jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> To: kolb-
list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Ar
ound - July 11th, 12th, 13th> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:54:58 -0600> > -->
Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > > > > Why
host a fly in at a strip that is so short and dangerous, a place > where m
any people cant land ?> >> > It makes zero sense to try to have an event at
such a sub standard field > > that it keeps many away.> Even if I were off
that week, I would not even consider attending an event > at such a substa
ndard and intimidating strip.> >> > Mike> > > Mike B:> > Nauga Field keeps
out the riff raff, and those that can not Kolbs.> > Some of us had a ball l
ast year at the first annual Nauga Field flyin at > Star Hill, LA.> > I mad
e the first landing at takeoff at Nauga Field the first of December > 2005,
on the way to the Last Flight of the Year down the coast of Texas and > up
the Rio Grande.> > Mike B, you might be able to land and take off there if
you worked on it a > little. ;-)> > john h> mkIII - Holder of the first Na
uga Award for winning the Nauga Field Short > Landing Contest 2007. > > > _
-========================
========================> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb-List Streamlining strutts |
I am going to use Streamlined Chrome Molly tubing and make new strutts for
the KX any one have an exact scource also what about having an adjustment in
one strutt seems I saw a discussion a while back ,,,Dave
**************
Start the
year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
David K:
And you almost made the first two person takeoff. ;-)
john h
mkIII
From: David Key
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July
11th, 12th, 13th
I made the first two person landing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Streamlining strutts |
Dave:
If you make them like the old ones, and the old strut length is correct,
there is no need for an adjustable strut. Of course, you might decide
to do some adjusting, then it would come in handy. However, I have need
found a requirement to adjust length of lift struts on Kolbs.
john h
mkIII
I am going to use Streamlined Chrome Molly tubing and make new strutts
for the KX any one have an exact scource also what about having an
adjustment in one strutt seems I saw a discussion a while back ,,,Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jimmy Young" <jdy100(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around |
Starhill-Nauga...looking forward to it, already charting my course. If I
can figure out the best way across that Achafalaya River Basin, I'll be
there!
Jimmy Young
FS II
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, 13th |
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
Mike:
I drove to John's place last year as a side leg of another trip. You can't imagine
how grateful I am that you enlightened me to the fact that I squandered away
400 extra miles, 8 extra hours driving time, about 25 gallons of extra gas
and an extra overnight away. Da#@$!!! I must be dumber than a bucket of dirt!
On the other hand, what that yielded was most gracious hospitality, delicious
food, usual good times with Kolb interested folk and above all, courteous, polite,
and delightful people. Probably a good thing you wouldn't go. From the
overall tone of your message, not likely to be your kind of people.
JetPilot wrote:
>
> It makes zero sense to try to have an event at such a sub standard field that
it keeps many away.
> Mike
--------
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159134#159134
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Streamlining strutts |
4130 strut source univair.com best price I've found so far.
For aluninum someone already mentioned Skytech, also best price for
extruded .
Vic
N740VP
Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
> Many times my landing roll can be stopped at center of the the runway
(775 ft) with no brakes. Watch out John H!
>
> John Bickham
John B:
Looks like you musta been landing with a tailwind. Try it the other way
round and you may be able to land a little shorter. ;-)
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
Wayne:
Wish I could say that.
Larry has a good place to practice dead stick landings, 2,600 feet of
gravel with some over run.
Bet way I know to be prepared when the engine stops unintentionally.
I'd rather take a chance on tearing up the airplane practicing than to
do it during an actual engine out and not be familiar with how the
airplane flies with the prop stopped.
john h
mkIII - Who does not do nearly enough actual dead stick landings.
I will never do a dead stick landing with the engine OFF again. Good
luck have fun be safe.
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around |
Jimmy --
Take a look at my story and map of my trip from Florida to Houston
(http://www.texas-flyer.com/ferry)... I flew from False River to
Southland (near Lake Charles). That route takes you over land the
whole way, and you don't have to worry about the swamp. Just do it in
reverse.
Maybe I'll join you on the trip! :-)
-- Robert
On Jan 18, 2008 6:43 PM, Jimmy Young wrote:
>
>
> Starhill-Nauga...looking forward to it, already charting my course. If I can
> figure out the best way across that Achafalaya River Basin, I'll be there!
>
> Jimmy Young
> FS II
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Thom,
That agrees with what I came up with using a piece of newspaper, some scotch tape
and a one inch tube. I left my copy of "Aerodynamics for Engineers" on the
shelf, along with my Mark's handbook for Mechanical Engineers. Sometimes a 20-20
eyeball will get you close enough. I assumed that rick had substituted circumference
for diameter and tried a six inch wrap, but it looked too short.
I then cut one so that it "looked" about right and came out with 8 1/2 inches.
I would like to try applying streamlining to all of my exposed tubing this spring
sometime and report the results to the list. I don't expect a huge difference,
but I should see some. I'll do the same thing with VG's one of these days.
Hoping for sunshine.......
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159176#159176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
At 02:54 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>
> > Why host a fly in at a strip that is so short and dangerous, a
> place where many people cant land ?
>
>Mike B:
>
>Nauga Field keeps out the riff raff, and those that can not Kolbs.
>
>Some of us had a ball last year at the first annual Nauga Field
>flyin at Star Hill, LA.
>
>
>john h
>mkIII - Holder of the first Nauga Award for winning the Nauga Field
>Short Landing Contest 2007.
------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't look any worse than the little strip we fly out of.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8022448200127542755&hl=en
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, |
13th
> Doesn't look any worse than the little strip we fly out of.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8022448200127542755&hl=en
Possum:
Nauga Field is twice as long as Gantt International Airport, 750 feet, 410
feet ASL. Been flying out of it for 24 years. Was a whopping 600 feet,
unimproved, for the first couple years flying the Ultrastar and Firestar.
I guess our little airstrips are intimidating when one is accustomed to
flying airborne taxi cabs off hard strips.
Reminds me of Crazy Ed out of Brooklyn, NY. He landed on a derelict barge
in NY Harbor. Or Possum landing on a sand bar next to a wrecked tug boat.
john h
mkIII - Waiting for the winter storm to start at hauck's holler, alabama.
Calling for lots of snow. So far 34F and rain.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Larry Cottrell wrote:
> about 100 feet only deviating enough to harass ( that would be Look
> closely) Coyotes, Antelope and Deer.
Look closely ?? Where is the pict?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | And speaking of VG's |
One of my contributors to EAA Chapter 88's newsletter is a retired
Beechcraft engineer. His article for the January issue was on vortex
generators. Anyone who wishes to read it can drop me a post and I'll send
along a pdf of the Beacon. If you have a phone modem, be sure and tell me
and I'll send it at a convenient time for you as it's about 1.5 megs.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: And speaking of VG's |
Rick G:
How about going to your EAA Chapter 88 web site, click on Beacon
newsletter, then scroll down to pg 5? ;-)
http://www.eaa88.org/beacon.pdf
A lot easier than fax'ing.
john h
mkIII - Lazy in the Heart of Dixie, watching the snow flakes fall.
One of my contributors to EAA Chapter 88's newsletter is a retired
Beechcraft engineer. His article for the January issue was on vortex
generators.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: And speaking of VG's |
John, The old webmaster used to keep the newsletters in the members only
area. I didn't know the new guy had changed the policy.
Rick
the Chapter 88 mushroom :-) and newsletter editor
On Jan 19, 2008 10:05 AM, John Hauck wrote:
> Rick G:
>
> How about going to your EAA Chapter 88 web site, click on Beacon
> newsletter, then scroll down to pg 5? ;-)
>
> http://www.eaa88.org/beacon.pdf
>
> A lot easier than fax'ing.
>
> john h
> mkIII - Lazy in the Heart of Dixie, watching the snow flakes fall.
>
>
> One of my contributors to EAA Chapter 88's newsletter is a retired
> Beechcraft engineer. His article for the January issue was on vortex
> generators.
>
> Rick
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: And speaking of VG's |
Hey Gang:
Check out the photo on Rick's EAA Chapter 88 Newsletter, page 8:
http://www.eaa88.org/beacon.pdf
A trio of homebuilts execute a loose version of the starburst
Might be loose to Rick, but not to the participants. ;-)
I think Karen Cottrell or Larry took that photo at the Alvord Desert get
together May 2005, the year we all camped out on the dry lake.
Brings back many fond memories of our adventures.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="boyter(at)mcsi.net"]Larry
Be careful with the dead stick landings, one of these times you are coming in
to high the engine will not start. Ask me how I know. I will never do a dead
stick landing with the engine OFF again. Good luck have fun be safe.
Wayne
> ---
For what it's worth, at least with the 2-stroke motors, this was one of the nicest
things about using the C box with the clutch. You could practice actual deadsticks
but with the engine still idling.
Pulling back the throttle to idle disengages the clutch, which gives you exactly
the situation of an engine out, minus only the total silence....
I did this a bunch with my FS II and it was really good practice.
Havn't shut off the motor in the titan yet and he's got the 912uls on it... So
for accurate simulations, I'll have to shut it down..... No good place found yet
to practice it, but this is a good reminder that I oughta at some point...
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159228#159228
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
> Pulling back the throttle to idle disengages the clutch, which gives you
> exactly the situation of an engine out, minus only the total silence....
>
> LS
Lucien:
I don't know much about clutches on C Gearboxes.
Doesn't the prop windmill if the throttle is pulled back to idle?
If it does, then you will be experiencing something similar to autorotation
which produces a lot of drag.
My experience indicates dead stick glide performance is a lot different than
gliding with an idling prop. An idling prop is like sticking a big disc in
the windstream as opposed to a dead stick which presents only the profile of
the prop blades.
For your particular FS with gear box clutch, if that is the way you practice
your dead stick landings, then that is what you will experience if you lose
the engine.
On the other hand, the pilot that practices emergency landings at idle will
be surprised when he does experience an actual dead stick. The Kolb will
glide much better than he anticipates because of reduced drag.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LEE CREECH <dcreech3(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Holes in the sky |
> > My experience indicates dead stick glide performance is a lot different
than > gliding with an idling prop. An idling prop is like sticking a big
disc in > the windstream as opposed to a dead stick which presents only the
profile of > the prop blades.> > > john h> mkIII> >
By "idling", do you mean freewheeling, disengaged from the engine? If you
just mean pulling the power back to idle, I've seen it argued that that con
figuration still produces some thrust, resulting in somewhat better glide p
erformance than with a stopped prop. I don't claim to know.
If we listed these three configurations in order of best-to-worst glide per
formance, would it be: (1) Power reduced to idle; (2) Stopped prop; (3) Fre
ewheeling (disengaged) prop?
Lee
Firestar II
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get yo
ur "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: And speaking of VG's |
A trio of homebuilts execute a loose version of the starburst
Might be loose to Rick, but not to the participants. ;-)
I think Karen Cottrell or Larry took that photo at the Alvord Desert
get together May 2005, the year we all camped out on the dry lake.
Brings back many fond memories of our adventures.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________
Rick, I sent you a email asking for the article, but then took John's
advise and went to the page directly. so disregard the original request.
The problem with the VG's is of course the placement, but even with a
blind placement such as I have done, the reduction in stall speed is
remarkable. I was wondering if perhaps a leaf blower could be used as a
makeshift wind tunnel to determine the best placement for a Kolb wing by
using tufts. Since sage doesn't have any leaves to blow, I do not own
one. I should think that someone should be able to angle the blower on
the wing to duplicate the angle of stall and move some VG's to the point
that the air reattaches. One set up should be viable for all Kolb wings,
or at least most.
Oh, the picture of the "starburst" was taken by my wife, Karen at the
Alvord. She thinks that you should give her credit for it. The next
newsletter, with a link so that she could actually verify that you did
give her credit would most likely keep her from hunting you down. :-)
By the way it was a good newsletter, I've done a few myself and know how
tough it is to get something to fill the space.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Holes in the sky |
----- Original Message -----
From: LEE CREECH >
> My experience indicates dead stick glide performance is a lot
different than
> gliding with an idling prop. An idling prop is like sticking a big
disc in
> the windstream as opposed to a dead stick which presents only the
profile of
> the prop blades.>
> john h
> mkIII>
By "idling", do you mean freewheeling, disengaged from the engine? If
you just mean pulling the power back to idle, I've seen it argued that
that configuration still produces some thrust, resulting in somewhat
better glide performance than with a stopped prop. I don't claim to
know.
If we listed these three configurations in order of best-to-worst
glide performance, would it be: (1) Power reduced to idle; (2) Stopped
prop; (3) Freewheeling (disengaged) prop?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
I know that this was originally addressed to John, but I wanted to add
an important part to the dead stick landing problems that those who have
never done it do not realize. That is the tendency to revert back to the
type of landings that you make every time you get into your plane.
Believe me in times of stress you will go into auto pilot mode. There
isn't a much more stressfull situation than having to do your first dead
stick when there isn't a good place to do it, or you are not prepared.
You are used to being able to apply just a bit more gas to correct a
slow flght condition, only at dead stick there is no more gas. If you
flare too soon, you are going to drop. The tendency is to keep pulling
back on the stick. It has always worked before and you will blindly
revert to muscle memory. The tendency to do so is very hard to ignore,
unless you practice. What I have found to work for me is to establish
best glide speed. For me 50 mph, to establish the point that I want to
land. When I get to about 50 feet I drop the nose to pick up as much
more airspeed as I can. Just a bit more air speed will help, since once
you pull back to flare your flying time is very limited. If you have
never done a dead stick, then you are going to have to learn as you go.
If you have done enough to understand what is needed to minimize damage
to yourself and hopefully your plane, then it is much easier to stick to
the plan that will allow you to do so.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="John Hauck"]
>
> Lucien:
>
> I don't know much about clutches on C Gearboxes.
>
> Doesn't the prop windmill if the throttle is pulled back to idle?
>
> If it does, then you will be experiencing something similar to autorotation
> which produces a lot of drag.
>
>
Yes, the prop does windmill as it's completely disengaged from the engine (at the
drive pinion anyway).
The drag generated, judging by the glide ratio I had vs. planes with fixed props
when stopped, was considerable.
The drag, tho, wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It did reduce the overall glide
ratio but, on the other hand, was very useful as a poor-man's drag brake which
could be very useful on an approach that was a bit too high.
When practicing deadstick, you have to learn the power-off glide ratio all the
same with the drag so the end result isn't any different. You just have to keep
the intended landing spots closer than you otherwise would...
>
>
> My experience indicates dead stick glide performance is a lot different than
> gliding with an idling prop. An idling prop is like sticking a big disc in
> the windstream as opposed to a dead stick which presents only the profile of
> the prop blades.
>
> For your particular FS with gear box clutch, if that is the way you practice
> your dead stick landings, then that is what you will experience if you lose
> the engine.
>
> On the other hand, the pilot that practices emergency landings at idle will
> be surprised when he does experience an actual dead stick. The Kolb will
> glide much better than he anticipates because of reduced drag.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Exactly my experience too....
But like I said, the clutch allowed an exact simulation of engine-off conditions
just by pulling back to idle, whereas with the prop engaged fulltime, you have
to actually turn the motor off for an exact simulation.
Well worth the 500 bucks for the clutch on that alone, not to mention all the other
advantages it gave....
Wish I had one on my 912....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159253#159253
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
>
> Wish I had one on my 912....
>
> LS
Lucien:
I feel the clutch takes away a very important factor in emergency power off
landings, glide. There are a lot of ways to reduce glide, but can not name
any to stretch it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
I can think of one... (snicker)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Lucien:
>
> I feel the clutch takes away a very important factor in emergency
> power off landings, glide. There are a lot of ways to reduce glide,
> but can not name any to stretch it.
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
Rev:
Perhaps you will share that with us. Might come in handy if I ever have to
stretch my glide.
john h
mkIII
> I can think of one... (snicker)
>
> Richard Pike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chris davis <capedavis(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
John Ive had to stretch my glide a few times ! Hey Donnie at TNK called me yesterday
and said my Firefly kit is ready and it should be delivered MONDAY !! now
if I can get my workbenches and a table set up in time as Ive only been in
Florida for two days and its been a short two days ,but at any rate I'll get a
month or two to work on it as I have to go back up north the first week of march
this year as my daughter is having a baby that week and my sweet wife wants
to be there for that , as do I . Chris
----- Original Message ----
From: John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:01:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Holes in the sky
Rev:
Perhaps you will share that with us. Might come in handy if I ever have to
stretch my glide.
john h
mkIII
> I can think of one... (snicker)
>
> Richard Pike
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
>
> options:
> kick out passenger
> jato bottle
> lift up on seat cushion
> restart engine
> -I'll skip any spiritual concepts :)
> BB
Bob B:
Guess you could lift up on the stick grip, and/or flap your arms out each
door, and/or pray..............
I don't know. When airspeed is less than flying speed, one would need
something spiritual to keep them flying.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Larry,
A different approach path than the official FAA approved method
might work better for you.
Instead of circles off the end of the runway, set yourself up
perpendicular to the runway about the distance you fly your base
leg. Fly away from the centerline and start a series of 180
degree turns. Always make your turns on the side toward the
runway. On the crossleg, aim slightly away from or toward the
runway if needed to maintain your distance. When you judge the
altitude is correct, turn 90 degrees to final.
This method has the advantages of twice as many opportunities to
be at a good approach altitude, a longer time to decide this is
the leg to turn final and never turning your back to the runway.
Very few of my fellow CFIs teach this method but every one I've
shown it to has adopted it. Try it and let us know what you think.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
I was thinking more along the lines of a simple device to reduce both
airspeed and flying speed at the lower end of the gliding airspeed
spectrum.
Too bad that such a thing apparently does not exist...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> I don't know. When airspeed is less than flying speed, one would need
> something spiritual to keep them flying.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> >
>
> > Wish I had one on my 912....
> >
> > LS
> >
> >
>
>
> Lucien:
>
> I feel the clutch takes away a very important factor in emergency power off
> landings, glide. There are a lot of ways to reduce glide, but can not name
> any to stretch it.
>
> john h
Again, one has to Ask The Man Who Flies One for the real skinny on such things,
especially with the RK-400 clutch since they're not too widely used. Shame, because
they solve so many more problems than they introduce.
At any rate, being one who actually flew the clutch and for a considerable amount
of time, I don't agree that it's a safety problem for two reasons:
- the reduction in glide, while noticeable, isn't that bad. My (now Bob's) FS II
did not glide like a brick compared to a friend of mine's FS II that had the
fixed 2-blade prop. In fact, I've flown other planes with far worse glide ratios
that didn't have a clutch and they were no less safe engine-off than my FS
II was.
- because you can simulate the exact conditions of an engine-off landing by simply
pulling back to idle, you DON'T actually have to shut off the motor. Thus,
practicing them is much safer and less nerve wracking. So, you're a lot more
inclined to do the practice, even in places and in conditions you otherwise wouldn't,
such as at a busy or towered airport (simply ask for the option and you're
ready to rock and roll).
You have to learn how to glide your particular plane in to a safe landing deadstick
anyway the way it's configured. You're far more likely to do the practice
under safe conditions like a warm, idling engine in case you really do screw
up an approach.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159313#159313
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Herron <drherron(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Excellent procedure |
Tom,
I had a CFI demonstrate and teach that method to me for forced
approaches, it sure makes the event a little more comfortable.
Its not the standard approach here or in the Transport Canada manual,
but its in my routine for sure.
Thanks for putting this in the list.
drh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
Lucien, I flew with the rice king for almost a year and absolutely hated
what it did to the glide of the Kolb. They should be used for what they were
made, pushing an airboat through a rice paddy. MHO
Rick
On Jan 19, 2008 9:22 PM, lucien wrote:
>
>
> John Hauck wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Wish I had one on my 912....
> > >
> > > LS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Lucien:
> >
> > I feel the clutch takes away a very important factor in emergency power
> off
> > landings, glide. There are a lot of ways to reduce glide, but can not
> name
> > any to stretch it.
> >
> > john h
>
>
> Again, one has to Ask The Man Who Flies One for the real skinny on such
> things, especially with the RK-400 clutch since they're not too widely used.
> Shame, because they solve so many more problems than they introduce.
>
> At any rate, being one who actually flew the clutch and for a considerable
> amount of time, I don't agree that it's a safety problem for two reasons:
>
> - the reduction in glide, while noticeable, isn't that bad. My (now Bob's)
> FS II did not glide like a brick compared to a friend of mine's FS II that
> had the fixed 2-blade prop. In fact, I've flown other planes with far worse
> glide ratios that didn't have a clutch and they were no less safe engine-off
> than my FS II was.
>
> - because you can simulate the exact conditions of an engine-off landing
> by simply pulling back to idle, you DON'T actually have to shut off the
> motor. Thus, practicing them is much safer and less nerve wracking. So,
> you're a lot more inclined to do the practice, even in places and in
> conditions you otherwise wouldn't, such as at a busy or towered airport
> (simply ask for the option and you're ready to rock and roll).
> You have to learn how to glide your particular plane in to a safe landing
> deadstick anyway the way it's configured. You're far more likely to do the
> practice under safe conditions like a warm, idling engine in case you really
> do screw up an approach.....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159313#159313
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Larry for what it's worth, I've flown hundreds of dead stick approaches with
this method. Well, okay, there was no stick, and no engine either for that
matter, but I never failed to make the field. The only thing I would add is
that if there is any crosswind, stay on the upwind side of the runway.
Rick
On Jan 19, 2008 5:38 PM, The Kuffels wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> A different approach path than the official FAA approved method
> might work better for you.
>
> Instead of circles off the end of the runway, set yourself up
> perpendicular to the runway about the distance you fly your base
> leg. Fly away from the centerline and start a series of 180
> degree turns. Always make your turns on the side toward the
> runway. On the crossleg, aim slightly away from or toward the
> runway if needed to maintain your distance. When you judge the
> altitude is correct, turn 90 degrees to final.
>
> This method has the advantages of twice as many opportunities to
> be at a good approach altitude, a longer time to decide this is
> the leg to turn final and never turning your back to the runway.
>
> Very few of my fellow CFIs teach this method but every one I've
> shown it to has adopted it. Try it and let us know what you think.
>
> Tom Kuffel
> Whitefish, MT
> Building Original FireStar
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Streamlining struts |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
That is some nice work ! I have never seen anyone weld aluminum that thin before
[Shocked] Stopping the vibrations is reason enough to do that, did you get
any speed gain with the stream line sleeves ?
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=159337#159337
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, 13th |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I loved the videos Possums, watched all of the ones on your site. Your glide
looked a little better than what I get, the MK III comes down quicker. I guess
the extra weight and wide cockpit of the MK III take their toll on the glide.
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=159338#159338
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starhill-Nauga Field Fly Around - July 11th, 12th, 13th |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi John,
I wasn't trying to trash your fly in, the runway just looks really intimidating...
More difficult than I would try to operate out of at this point. I have
managed to get over 100 hours in my Kolb without bending anything, mostly by
expanding my limitations slowly :)
Its cool you are going to the trouble to host something like this, I just took
a look at some pictures and though " Oh my Gawd " , and wrote a post...
Anyways look at the bright side, my post caused more discussion and advertisement
than you would have gotten all year [Wink]
The best luck to you and your fly in.
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=159339#159339
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 36 Msgs - 01/19/08 |
nope
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
Richard, disappointed your fellow kolbers are a little slow on the draw?
could the magic device be???...... (drum roll) ......
VGs?
nawwww
BB, first REAL day of winter here by the arctic circle. warmed up to 9F
and going out for breakfast.
On 19, Jan 2008, at 10:17 PM, Richard Pike wrote:
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of a simple device to reduce
> both airspeed and flying speed at the lower end of the gliding
> airspeed spectrum.
> Too bad that such a thing apparently does not exist...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> John Hauck wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't know. When airspeed is less than flying speed, one would
>> need something spiritual to keep them flying.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
> What kind of glide do you get with your MK III ? How long to make a 180
and at what speed and bank angle ?
>
> Mike
Mike:
I guess my mkIII glides about like the rest of them. Well..........maybe
not as good because she is on the heavy side.
Never timed a 180 or a 360. She'll turn on a dime though, or turn on a wing
tip with power. I never paid any attention to quick turns without power.
Next time I fly, I will see what kind of results I get.
Was 20F this morning with a high expected around 40F. Yesterday was snow.
Bet Gantt International Airport is a little soggy this morning, if not
frozen, not to mention the cow crap.
I got caught up in the gear swap SB on my Rotax 912ULS. Will fly down to
Lucedale, MS, the end of this month to let Ronnie Smith swap them out. Eric
Tucker is teaching the Rotax engine classes at the same time. He can take a
look at the gear box too.
Take care,
john h - Putting another log on the fire and pouring another cup of coffee.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Holes in the sky |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Lucien, I flew with the rice king for almost a year and absolutely hated what
it did to the glide of the Kolb. They should be used for what they were made,
pushing an airboat through a rice paddy. MHO
>
> Rick
>
Again I can't agree (that the clutch should be used only on airboats). I do of
course grant that the glide is affected by the windmilling prop but I can't agree
otherwise.
Does it make the FS II less of a glider than it already is? Sure. Does it present
a safety hazard? Absolutely not.
As I said, whatever the glide ratio of your plane you have to learn to glide it
to a safe landing engine-off anyway if you really want to be a safe pilot for
that plane. An engine-out should never result in death in our light aircraft,
that's just irresponsible and stupid regardless of the plane's glide ratio.
It is my opinion that if you die or are severaly injured merely because the engine
quit, you should not have been solo. There should have been an instructor
on board teaching you emergency procedures including keeping landing spots within
gliding distance and simulated deadsticks until you know (knew) how to survive
an engine-out event. End of story.
As for the clutch, it solves many more problems than it introduces and is well
worth the 500 bucks it costs. Among the advantages:
- vastly easier starting
- eliminates the possibility of high-rpm/low-throttle opening situations in a rapid
descent, a significant hazard for a 2-stroke motor.
- the aforementioned ability to truly simulate engine-off flight
- eliminates low-rpm stress on the gearbox and engine botttom-end at low rpms.
- makes the already long-lasting rotax 2-stroke last even longer
and on and on....
If anyone wants to get rid of their clutches, send them to me. If I get a 2-stroke
powered plane again, I'll definitely put it to use.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159371#159371
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
I was at the Sebring Expo yesterday with Jim Swan. It was 85 degrees.
Sorry couldn't resist mentioning the weather. I understand it was 6
degrees as a high back in Michigan where I spend my summers but that's
why I go to Florida.
I got in a discussion with John Hovan a member of the EAA Ultralight
Council. I mentioned that I wanted a trash can and a porta potty in the
Ultralight/LSA campground at AirVenture. He figured that it could be
done and Timm Bogenhagen would be told to make it happen if necessary.
John also mentioned that they are looking for suggestions to improve
participation in the Ultralight/LSA campground and the vendor area. He
also pointed out the article in the EAA's Sport Pilot & Light -Sport
Aircraft Magazine January 2008 page 50 requesting our comments via
E-Mail to Ultralights(at)EAA.org I will be sending comments. If you have
comments please send them also. I know John H, John W, Mark G, Scott T
and the guys at New Kolb all have things to say. They seem to be
listening so this might be a good time to give your comments.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Tom,
I want to be sure I understand what you are describing. Are you talking
about long and tight "S" turns starting at off your normal base leg and
approaching the runway?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Locktite for sealing weld porosity |
Sure enough, being the packrat that I am I found the locktite I mentioned
for sealing weld porosity. It is Locktite 290.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Locktite for sealing weld porosity |
http://tds.loctite.com/tds5/docs/290-EN.PDF
Steven
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 5:44 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Locktite for sealing weld porosity
Sure enough, being the packrat that I am I found the locktite I
mentioned for sealing weld porosity. It is Locktite 290.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Credit for page 8 photo |
Okay, Karen Cottrell was the photographer and the pilots, from left to right
were John Hauck, John Williamson, and Richard Nielsen. Working from memory
here, guys, but I would like to get it right.
If you belong to an EAA chapter kindly pass my email address along to your
chapter's newsletter editor and I'll add him / her to my exchange list.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Here is what VG's did to my airspeed. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Ok, you all saw what VG's did to my runways :) Now, on the serious side, here
is a picture I took of my MK III Xtra panel with the VG's on the plane. I
had two people, my wife and I, and this picture was taken at idle power, level
flight just before the stall break, I dont remember if I had one notch of flaps
in or clean on this one, it does not seem to make much difference in the stall
speeds. You can see engine RPM of 2200, and a 100 FPM sink rate, and if you
look outside, you can see the plane is still level, and under control. I did
no pitch ups, or any wild things to make the airspeed go down suddenly, speed
is also reading on the GPS which has a bit of a lag. This stall was from level
flight, slow speed reduction, power off. The instrument readings speak
for themselves.
I'm not trying to talk anyone that does not want VG's into getting them, but this
is good information for people that may be considering them and are wondering
what the effect on performance might be.
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=159496#159496
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aerialultralightkolbmikeperformancefloridahomestead07_09_2007_009_228.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Here is what VG's did to my airspeed. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
One Correction, I was at 3500 RPM to maintain level flight just barely above the
stall break with the 912-S ... I was at 2200 feet if you are familiar with
the EIS readout.
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=159497#159497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Jack,
<< Are you talking about long and tight "S" turns starting at off
your normal base leg and approaching the runway? >>
Not sure. In no wind your flight path resembles a narrow
figure-8 perpendicular to the runway, like the symbol for
infinity. The object is to keep a constant average distance from
your intended landing point. Some people prefer to use their
normal base leg distance and turn final at a higher than normal
altitude. Others use a shorter distance and turn final at their
normal altitude. This is an issue of personal preference after
some practice.
In any event, the decision that you are starting your final cross
leg begins about half way through the 180 turn at the end of the
previous cross leg. If half way through the reverse turn you
decide you are low, head straight toward your touchdown point at
an angle. If you seem "about right" finish your reversing turn
and head cross leg. As you approach the centerline and still
seem about right, turn 90 degrees to final. If you are high but
not high enough for a full cross leg and reversing turn, continue
past the centerline then turn 3/4 of 180 degrees (135 degrees)
back toward the centerline and then a 1/4 of 180 degrees (45
degrees) turn to final.
It is important to remember to maintain a constant airspeed
throughout the entire maneuver. If you do this you will not
increase your load factor in the turns. However steep, you are
simply trading more altitude for turning force which means your
stalling speed will *not* go up with bank angle. This helps you
avoid the tendency to "help" a turn with excess rudder, which
usually is a fatal error. But that is another saga.
Hope this makes clear what I teach.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
> Jack,
>
> However steep, you are
> simply trading more altitude for turning force which means your
> stalling speed will *not* go up with bank angle. This helps you
> avoid the tendency to "help" a turn with excess rudder, which
> usually is a fatal error. But that is another saga.
>
> Hope this makes clear what I teach.
>
> Tom Kuffel
> Whitefish, MT
> Building Original FireStar
I like your technique for keeping the runway right where you need it with figure
8's while practicing landings engine off. It sounds by far the best and safest
way to do it if there is not other traffic to worry about on final. The
runway is always within about a 90 degree turn or less if you get to low need
to land quick.
The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply will
not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed. It does not
matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes energy AND increased
load on the wings to change the direction of the plane. There is just
no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the direction of the
plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to change the direction of
the plane, which will increase the stall speed. To teach otherwise is possibly
dangerous to someone that might take it to literally.
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=159504#159504
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Credit for page 8 photo |
I do hope that you realized that my post on this subject was tongue in
cheek. However the other pilot was Gary Halley, not Richard.
Larry C
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:58 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Credit for page 8 photo
Okay, Karen Cottrell was the photographer and the pilots, from left to
right were John Hauck, John Williamson, and Richard Nielsen. Working
from memory here, guys, but I would like to get it right.
If you belong to an EAA chapter kindly pass my email address along to
your chapter's newsletter editor and I'll add him / her to my exchange
list.
Rick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
1/20/2008 2:15 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
>
>The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply will
not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed. It does not
matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes energy AND increased
load on the wings to change the direction of the plane. There is just
no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the direction of the
plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to change the direction
of the plane, which will increase the stall speed. To teach otherwise is possibly
dangerous to someone that might take it to literally.
>
Mike,
Just think about it. The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.
Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the
aircraft. If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings
remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because
the lift is not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as said the only danger is
to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate
a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the
spin starts.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 01/20/08 |
in reply to the person who wondered about my reply: "nope".
I have to apologize because I was answering another email and I apparently
sent the reply to the wrong sector. I was asked if I had a belt reduction
unit and I replied "nope". Sorry for the confusion. Just pushed the wrong
button. I am in the process or selling a couple of props. I still have a
beautiful WARP left: 68" off a 582 with E box. Almost brand new. Sold 582
and updated to 912UL. Had to buy a new one, again. Want $750 but make
offer.
Ted Cowan, Alabama.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> I've stumbled across a used 912uls.
>
> --------
> Scott
Morning Scott:
Obvious way to see if it is a 912ULS is green valve covers. 912UL has black
valve covers. Of course, valve covers can be painted or swapped, so the
best way is run the serial number of the engine. I'd contact a Rotax
Service Center for that info, Ronnie Smith at South Mississippi Light
Aircraft, Lockwood, or others.
Don't know if the 2004 model 912ULS was produced with the high torque
starter and slipper clutch, but this info can also be obtained from a Rotax
Service Center when running the serial number.
Other than that, I can't think of any other way to verify by outward
appearance.
Probably be a good idea to have a written agreement to the effect that if
the engine is not as advertised, you will get a full and speedy refund of
your money.
Items that should come with the engine (items in a new engine package) are
oil tank, voltage regulator/rectifier, operators manual, installation
manual, and, of course, the little tool bag with a couple wrenches and a
"crank shaft fixing pin" used to lock the crankshaft for certain serious
maintenance procedures.
Good luck with your new engine.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Scott, I agree with John, plus trying to ascertain if the engine was
overheated. See if your Rotax service center can Rockwell hardness test the
heads. If they test soft, run away like your feet were aflame. Four new
heads for the 912 are now almost $10,000, and that doesn't include
installation.
I'd also recommend you remove the oil filter, cut it open and check for
metallic debris.
An oil analysis would be a good investment, too.
Rotax engines are built like fine jewelry and it takes very little in the
way of mistreatment to do major damage. As an example, the engine we worked
on with Eric Tucker had been run for 10 seconds without oil pressure and had
a nice big hole in the case where a rod made a hasty departure. The owner
had hooked the oil lines up backward.
Last, make the owner pay for all evaluation work. If he balks, be very
suspicious.
Rick
On Jan 21, 2008 8:59 AM, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> > I've stumbled across a used 912uls.
> >
> > --------
> > Scott
>
>
> Morning Scott:
>
> Obvious way to see if it is a 912ULS is green valve covers. 912UL has
> black
> valve covers. Of course, valve covers can be painted or swapped, so the
> best way is run the serial number of the engine. I'd contact a Rotax
> Service Center for that info, Ronnie Smith at South Mississippi Light
> Aircraft, Lockwood, or others.
>
> Don't know if the 2004 model 912ULS was produced with the high torque
> starter and slipper clutch, but this info can also be obtained from a
> Rotax
> Service Center when running the serial number.
>
> Other than that, I can't think of any other way to verify by outward
> appearance.
>
> Probably be a good idea to have a written agreement to the effect that if
> the engine is not as advertised, you will get a full and speedy refund of
> your money.
>
> Items that should come with the engine (items in a new engine package) are
> oil tank, voltage regulator/rectifier, operators manual, installation
> manual, and, of course, the little tool bag with a couple wrenches and a
> "crank shaft fixing pin" used to lock the crankshaft for certain serious
> maintenance procedures.
>
> Good luck with your new engine.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
>
>
> Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the
aircraft.
>
>
Hi Jack,
It does not matter if the plane is decending in a glide, or in level flight, there
the same amount of load on the wings. Or in other words, a stable glide or
level powered flight = same 1 G load on the wings.
>
>
> If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings remains constant
and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because the lift is
not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as said the only danger is to tighten
the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate a spin, but
if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the spin starts.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
You can use that technique, and not load the airplane up much in a turn, but if
you maintain only 1 G in the turn, your descent angle and descent rate will increase
as long as you are in a 1 G banked condition, you wont be able to maintain
just 1 G loading for long before you have to either level out or start pulling
more G's. In all likelyhood, you would start to put some extra loading
on the wings during the turn even if you dont realize you are doing it.
Either way, when you level out, you will have a descent rate greater than what
you started with, which will take more wing loading to arrest, AND you will be
wasting more alitude by letting the nose fall and getting fast in the turn and
then using that energy to stop the extra descent rate you now have going.
But bottom line is, sooner or later, to change the direction of the plane, you
will have to put extra loading on the wings, there is no way around it. It takes
energy and lift to change the direction of a moving airplane no matter how
you fly the turn.
I do understand Toms point, which is to do a turn without loading up the plane
to much, use the rudder correctly, and you will minimize the impact of the turn
on stall speed. But in the end you never get something for nothing, and will
have to put extra load on the wings to accomplish this, weather do you it durring
the turn, or put the extra load on the wings while pulling out at the bottom,
there has to be more than 1 G on the wings at some point to accomplish
this.
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=159571#159571
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Credit for page 8 photo |
Thanks Larry, but kidding or not you're right about giving credit where due.
If nothing else, it might encourage someone to submit something knowing
he'll get credit in print for his submission. Besides that, it'll fill a
small space in the newsletter and every little bit helps. :-)
Rick
On Jan 21, 2008 12:08 AM, Larry Cottrell wrote:
> I do hope that you realized that my post on this subject was tongue in
> cheek. However the other pilot was Gary Halley, not Richard.
> Larry C
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:58 PM
> *Subject:* Kolb-List: Credit for page 8 photo
>
> Okay, Karen Cottrell was the photographer and the pilots, from left to
> right were John Hauck, John Williamson, and Richard Nielsen. Working from
> memory here, guys, but I would like to get it right.
> If you belong to an EAA chapter kindly pass my email address along to your
> chapter's newsletter editor and I'll add him / her to my exchange list.
>
> Rick
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> ------------------------------
> Release Date: 1/20/2008 2:15 PM
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
>
> Mike,
>
> Just think about it. The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.
Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support
the aircraft. If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings
remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because
the lift is not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as said the only danger
is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate
a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the
spin starts.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
On thing we should reemphasize here is that stall is determined by angle of attack,
not airspeed. True, we think in terms of airspeed when it comes to stall,
because we're often discussing the limits of lift available from the wing in
lower energy situations like low airspeeds with the engine power reduced (or absent)
such as during landing.
So, Jack is quite right here. If the loading on the wing remains constant, there
won't (need to) be any change in the AOA. In fact, no matter what lift or airspeed
conditions prevail, if the wing is below the critical AOA, it is not stalled.
If it is above the critical AOA, it will be stalled.
Again, under landing conditions, our airspeed is typically low enough that we're
near the maximum available lift from the wing to keep the airplane at the desired
sink rate (in turn meaning that we're flying very close to the critical
AOA). In a turn, of course, the vertical lift vector is reduced in magnitude,
so the amount of actual lift required to maintain the same sink rate goes up.
You have 2 choices in that situation - either generate more lift from the wing
to maintain the same sink rate or keep the generated lift the same and simply
accept the resulting higher sink rate induced with the turn.
If you're high enough, the latter choice is perfectly acceptable. Putting it another
way, going into a turn at a low airspeed does NOT mean that you're going
to stall. As long as you don't exceed the critical AOA, the wing won't stall
no matter what the airspeed or angle of bank is.
However, if you're too low and can't afford a higher sink rate, then you have to
either conserve energy or add more back - shallower bank in the turn to keep
the vertical component of lift higher to prevent loss of too much altitude or
adding power while in the turn to increase lift without exceeding the critical
AOA.
FWIW, all this is why we go out and practice steep turns, descending/ascending
turns, slow flight and minimum controllable airspeed on a regular basis, so that
we maintain a feel for maintaining our angle of attack in as many conditions
as possible.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159589#159589
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Jack, I've been flying with the invisible engine for 35 years. It's the only
one that never ever fails. When the mechanical engines goes kaput, the
invisible engine takes over. It works by way of two forms of energy. Kinetic
energy, your movement through the air, and potential energy, the altitude
you have available before the gentle touchdown or the impact. The speed
required to keep flying at a given bank angle doesn't give a whit which
engine is driving the plane. Increased bank angle requires more speed. A
perfectly coordinated turn at too slow an airspeed will move toward an
incipient spin just as well as a badly coordinated turn.
Rick Girard
On Jan 21, 2008 7:31 AM, Jack B. Hart wrote:
>
> >
> >The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply
> will not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed. It
> does not matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes
> energy AND increased load on the wings to change the direction of the plane.
> There is just no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the
> direction of the plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to
> change the direction of the plane, which will increase the stall speed. To
> teach otherwise is possibly dangerous to someone that might take it to
> literally.
> >
>
> Mike,
>
> Just think about it. The engine is out and you are flying at best glide
> speed. Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to
> support the aircraft. If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the
> load on the wings remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate
> than before because the lift is not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as
> said the only danger is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the
> inboard wing and intiate a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load
> remains constant until the spin starts.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Credit for page 8 photo |
Rick:
There is a lot more to the photo than "three guys in a loose star
burst".
This photo was taken in May 2005, during our first flyin at the Alvord
Desert in Oregon.
John W, Gary H, and I, flew from Monument Valley to a set of GPS
coordinates in the SE corner of Oregon, to rendezvous with Larry and
Karen Cottrell, their two dogs, a cat, and a Perigrine Falcon. Roger
Hankin and his nephew, and Wayne (crs his name) was also there.
Highlight of the flyin was a 3,000 ft AGL bomb drop with a bowling ball.
;-)
john h
mkIII
Thanks Larry, but kidding or not you're right about giving credit
where due. If nothing else, it might encourage someone to submit
something knowing he'll get credit in print for his submission. Besides
that, it'll fill a small space in the newsletter and every little bit
helps. :-)
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Mike,
Sigh. I said this was another saga. In fact, this point is
number 1 in the series of articles I keep threatening to write
entitled "The FAA Is Trying To Kill Me". The source of the worry
that "increased bank angle means increased stall speed" is the
diagram in the AIM, copied in every student pilot ground school
book, showing increased bank angle equals increased load factor
equals increased stall speed. The flaw in this diagram is
insufficient emphasis that it only applies *if you maintain
constant altitude*. Look at the vectors in the diagram. The
total load increases to keep the vertical component constant
(i.e. constant altitude).
Now all this is before we are established on final so we are not
talking about very low altitude maneuvering. And, for all
practical purposes, keep bank angles below 90 degrees, better yet
below 60 degrees to avoid aerobatic flight. With constant (here
zero) power if you maintain a constant airspeed then you are
maintaining a constant 1 g load on the wing no matter what your
bank angle.
With wings level you are descending at a stable rate, trading the
potential energy of altitude for the energy needed to overcome
your drag. Roll into a stable bank angle and your rate of decent
will increase but then stabilize again. The change is not
instantaneous because your roll is smooth (right?) and because of
something called inertia.
Rolling level again is the same process in reverse. You end up
at the same wings level rate of decent as before. And if you've
maintained a constant airspeed throughout, the load on the wings
has stayed at 1 g throughout and the margin between your airspeed
and stall speed has not changed.
While it is true there is an additional transient load caused by
changes in decent rate, it's magnitude is a secondary effect,
particularly if your rolls are smooth, and your margin above
stall is essentially unchanged. And the same situation applies
to one or more changes in bank angle during the turn.
Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank
angle always means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people
than holding a constant airspeed turing a turn. For example,
look at turn-to-final spin fatalities. As a student pilot I kept
trying to sneak the airplane around to final with excess rudder.
Fortunately I had a very alert instructor who kept me from
premature spin practice. Still, it took quite a while to figure
out why I was afraid to steepen my bank angle and how to properly
and safely increase my turn rate.
But forget theory and logic, go out and try it yourself. At
altitude and constant power set up your normal glide speed.
Smoothly enter, wait and then exit turns of increasing bank while
staying obsessed with maintaining your glide speed. You will get
increasing but stable rates of decent with increasing bank but
nary a stall buffet.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
..................
Jack, I've been flying with the invisible engine for 35 years. It's the only
one that never ever fails. When the mechanical engines goes kaput, the
invisible engine takes over. It works by way of two forms of energy. Kinetic
energy, your movement through the air, and potential energy, the altitude
you have available before the gentle touchdown or the impact. The speed
required to keep flying at a given bank angle doesn't give a whit which
engine is driving the plane. Increased bank angle requires more speed. A
perfectly coordinated turn at too slow an airspeed will move toward an
incipient spin just as well as a badly coordinated turn.
.................
Rick,
I agree with what you have said. If you fly at constant best glide speed it
limits your rate of bank and you will never stall or spin, and you have the
longest, except for a straight line, glide path from were the engine quit to
the flare and touch down. This is converting the potential energy or
altitude into kinetic energy at an almost uniform or constant rate. One of
the most difficult things I had to learn flying sailplanes and when I
thought I was too low to make it back to the airport was to push the stick
forward and to maintain best glide.
Flying a sailplane was good training, in that, if something did not feel
right, you learned to always let the stick go forward a little while you
were figuring out what was going on.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
FireFlyer's & Kolbers,
A nephew took some photos of the FireFly during any annual 4th of July fly
by. They are the best I have of the FireFly in flight. I thought you may
like to see them. I put them up at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly137.html
If you click on the smaller images it will take you to a larger detailed
image that are up to 205kb in size. I cropped them to keep the size down.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
> A nephew took some photos of the FireFly
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack:
Those are some great photos of your FF.
You look like you are enjoying yourself.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary aman <gaman(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
Jack,
Nice pictures.How much did you raise the horizontal stab leading edge?
FireFlyer's & Kolbers,
A nephew took some photos of the FireFly during any annual 4th of July fly
by. They are the best I have of the FireFly in flight. I thought you may
like to see them. I put them up at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly137.html
If you click on the smaller images it will take you to a larger detailed
image that are up to 205kb in size. I cropped them to keep the size down.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
Jack,
Nice pics of the fly! What is the difference in weight with the simonini
instead of the 447 Rotax? Do you have to have an electric starter. How many
hours do you have on the simonini ? I am contemplating putting a 37 HP 1/2
vw from Scott Cassler on my Fire fly, but I am nor sure how to get in
contact with the fellow mentioned on the list who is currently flying with one
on
his Firefly?
Ed Diebel
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Tom,
Your advice on how to fly the turn without loading up the plane to much is a very
good technique to avoid a stall spin while in the turn. It is exactly what
I would do in that situation.
My point here is purely technical. If you are banked lets say at a very reasonable
45 degrees at 1 G loading on the wings, you will be falling into the turn
at a pretty good rate. IF you never load the plane to more than one G during
a 45 degree turn, or after the turn, your descent rate would be so high that
it would be fatal to hit the ground at that rate. What is happening is that
you are doing your pullout so smoothly, you are probably not aware of the increased
G loading, which is exactly the way you should do it. But in the end,
you are putting more than the 1 G load on the wing either during the turn, or
during the pull out to arrest your descent, even if its so smooth and gradual
that you are not aware of it.
Like I said, this is purely a technical point. Your technique sounds good to
me. Engine shut off is something everyone should practice while you are ready
for it and over a long runway, rather than practice for the first time when
the engine fails. A cold hard facts of ultralights and experimental airplanes
is that our engines are far more likely to fail than Certified aircraft. We
should all be proficient in real engine out landings.
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=159711#159711
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> As an example, the engine we worked on with Eric Tucker had been run for 10 seconds
without oil pressure and had a nice big hole in the case where a rod made
a hasty departure. The owner had hooked the oil lines up backward.
> Last, make the owner pay for all evaluation work. If he balks, be very suspicious.
>
> Rick
>
10 seconds without oil pressure is just at the limits for the 912-s after an oil
change, but still in limits. I don't believe for a second that a rod went through
the case in just 10 seconds of being started without an oil supply. According
to the Rotax manual, 10 seconds is where you shut down the engine if you
don't get an oil pressure rise.
Someone either got their 3rd hand story wrong, or downright lied about what happened
there. Either way, if you knew much about the Rotax 912 engine, you should
have known this instead of passing along and putting into writing a BS story
that is so obviously wrong.
As far as the tests on the engine, if I were selling the engine, I would not pay
to have hardness tested, oil tested, etc. etc. Especially if the price were
good, I would tell you to go take a hike and sell to a buyer that was not such
a pain in the butt to deal with. Nothing worse than to do business with
someone that makes unreasonable demands.
Just like buying an airplane, if you want to get the engine inspected, it is customary
for the BUYER to pay the mechanic to do the inspection. If I were the
seller, would not pay for inspections, just to have the buyer change his mind
and leave me with the inspection bill.
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=159712#159712
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Hi Tom,
I'm afraid the FAA isn't 'trying to kill' us. The diagram you
reference does emphasize 'constant altitude'.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)
>
> Mike,
>
(Snip)
With constant (here
> zero) power if you maintain a constant airspeed then you are maintaining a
> constant 1 g load on the wing no matter what your bank angle.
Not true. Think about it. To maintain a 1-G load at different bank angles,
airspeed must change.
>
(Snip)
> Rolling level again is the same process in reverse. You end up at the
> same wings level rate of decent as before. And if you've maintained a
> constant airspeed throughout, the load on the wings has stayed at 1 g
> throughout and the margin between your airspeed and stall speed has not
> changed.
This sounds like 'seat-of-the-pants' flying - and logic.
> While it is true there is an additional transient load caused by changes
> in decent rate, it's magnitude is a secondary effect, particularly if your
> rolls are smooth, and your margin above stall is essentially unchanged.
> And the same situation applies to one or more changes in bank angle during
> the turn.
What you're describing defies physics. One airspeed is not necessarily safe
at all bank angles.
> Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank angle always
> means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people than holding a
> constant airspeed turing a turn.
Just the opposite is true. Increasing airspeed with increasing bank angle
keeps the stall safety margin the same, and trying to hold an arbitrary
airspeed with increasing bank angle may just make one a statistic.
(Snip)
>
> But forget theory and logic,
No thanks, theory and logic seem to work fine. Don't forget the laws of
physics, too.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
My wife and I finally took delivery last week of a used Firestar. I am going
t need all the advice everyone can feed me, as to how to go about various repairs
and prep work until I am satisfied with it's condition. I purchased it from
a man out on Long Island, N.Y., and he delivered it to my house in Windsor Locks,
Ct. He used fly it until he got a Buccaneer. Just prior to the sale beling
completed, the tie down rope broke in a storm, and damaged the wings. A nice
set of new wings were acquired, and both sets came with it. During shipment,
a couple of holes were put in the new wings. There are also a couple of hanger
rash type spots. Except for the holes, the plane would be flyable, but a little
on the rough side.
The plane has a 447 with points (I'm told) and a two blade Warp Drive prop.
Streamlined struts and round struts came with it. Engine starts on the third
pull, and sounds good.
For the benefit of lurkers and new buyers of used Kolbs, Ellery thought it
would be a good idea to put everything on the List.
I could not find a serial number on the cage tube, or a tag. The LG struts
are the smaller diameter type, and the original wings (and the new ones) are the
five rib type. Kolb estimated that it is probably early 90's. There is an ID
plate on the engine, and it appears to have a "B" gearbox. I was told there
is about 200 hours on it. No Hobbs meter.
Too cold to work on it, so it is tarped up in the yard with the wings off and
covered. Right now I'm going to order what I can see- tires, exhaust springs,
and whatever I can easily identify. I am going to see if the former owner knows
who the original owner is. No manuals or records came with it. The owner
was kind of casual about it. Any comments at all would be a big help. They delivered
price was $5,100.
Thanks
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
From: DAquaNut(at)aol.com
................
Nice pics of the fly! What is the difference in weight with the simonini
instead of the 447 Rotax? Do you have to have an electric starter. How many
hours do you have on the simonini ? I am contemplating putting a 37 HP
1/2 vw from Scott Cassler on my Fire fly, but I am nor sure how to get in
contact with the fellow mentioned on the list who is currently flying with
one on his Firefly?
................
Ed,
Yes I got it on for the same weight as the Rotax 447. Yes, I have electric
start. I am too old to manually pull or prop start anything. The battery
is what you see behind my head up under the tube that supports the engine
mount holders. This keeps the cables short and the weight down. The Victor
has 156+ hours on it.
About the 1/2 VW, get a hold of Herb at herbgh(at)juno.com. He has the name
and the telephone number.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
> About the 1/2 VW, get a hold of Herb at herbgh(at)juno.com. He has the name
> and the telephone number.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack H/Ed D:
I didn't pay much attention to the FS with 1/2 VW at the Kolb Homecoming,
except to watch it fly. It seemed to fly well. However, Homer spent some
time with the owner. Homer commented to me that the engine produced an
excessive amount of vibration. I recall seeing Homer helping the owner hold
down the FS while he ran up the 1/2 VW.
Might be worthwhile to check into possible vibration problem.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi William,
Congratulations on getting a Firestar. They are great flyers and a whole lot of
fun.
With the way you described your plane it sounds like you will have a bit of work
to do before it is safe to fly. Did it come with an "N" number and airworthiness
certificate ?
If Yes you are set. If No then my first suggestion is to weigh the plane immediately
to see if it falls within the limitations of ultralight operation, I.E.
254lbs maximum weight is usually the most critical of the limitations.
If the plane exceeds this weight buy allot (Say 20 lbs. or more) you will need
to find out why fast. If there is some widget on the plane not necessary for
flight that can be removed easily to get you under the weight limit you may be
okay.
If there is no obvious accessory or part to be removed, and it is way over weight
you will have to move quickly if you want to get it registered as an Experimental
Light Sport Aircraft with the FAA.
The Expiration Date for this process is January 31, 2008!
I would highly recommend that you initiate the registration process as soon as
possible to cover your bases.
Good luck with your Firestar
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159783#159783
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Mike, I spent six days, nine hours a day with Eric Tucker and came away with
a deep respect for the depth of his knowledge of the Rotax product line. I
imagine John Hauck would say the same.
Per the Rotax Installation Manual 13.6 page 13-5," The oil pressure must
rise within 10 seconds to at least 2 bar (30 psi)" This is not the time
limit to begin to show a pressure rise, as you claim, this is the time limit
to reach minimum operating oil pressure.
On new 4 stroke engines regardless of their usage, I turn them over with the
spark plugs out until I get oil pressure. Why risk a dry start when all it
takes to insure against it is a little extra time.
Why is this so important and the time so short to see pressure on a Rotax
engine? Refer to the Rotax Maintenance Manual II (Heavy Maintenance) Form
Sheet for cylinders and pistons, 3)Grading and clearance: the clearance
limits for piston to cylinder wall is .0000" to .0009" the absolute wear
limit is .0051" for "red" pistons, "green pistons give you an extra .0001"
for maximum clearance, but still specify .0000" as the minimum and the wear
limit is the same. Consider that a human hair is .003" to .004" thick. These
engines are tight. There isn't much room in there for assembly lube,
basically it fills the hatch marks from the diamond honing process and
that's it.
As I said, Rotax engines are built like fine jewelry, and require more
attention to detail because of it.
There are a lot of less than honest people out there making all sorts of
claims about what they sell. Just watch the engines that come up on eBay.
One of our EAA chapter members bought a 503 with a "new" crank in the recent
overhaul. There was no mention of the 3" long weld on the bottom of the of
the crankcase. Or the seizure marks on the exhaust side of the pistons. It
was junk and the seller was long gone with his money.
A seller who balks at reasonable requests to verify what he claims is not
worth dealing with in the first place, IMHO.
Rick
On Jan 22, 2008 1:09 AM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > As an example, the engine we worked on with Eric Tucker had been run for
> 10 seconds without oil pressure and had a nice big hole in the case where a
> rod made a hasty departure. The owner had hooked the oil lines up backward.
> > Last, make the owner pay for all evaluation work. If he balks, be very
> suspicious.
> >
> > Rick
> >
>
>
> 10 seconds without oil pressure is just at the limits for the 912-s after
> an oil change, but still in limits. I don't believe for a second that a rod
> went through the case in just 10 seconds of being started without an oil
> supply. According to the Rotax manual, 10 seconds is where you shut down
> the engine if you don't get an oil pressure rise.
>
> Someone either got their 3rd hand story wrong, or downright lied about
> what happened there. Either way, if you knew much about the Rotax 912
> engine, you should have known this instead of passing along and putting
> into writing a BS story that is so obviously wrong.
>
> As far as the tests on the engine, if I were selling the engine, I would
> not pay to have hardness tested, oil tested, etc. etc. Especially if the
> price were good, I would tell you to go take a hike and sell to a buyer that
> was not such a pain in the butt to deal with. Nothing worse than to do
> business with someone that makes unreasonable demands.
>
> Just like buying an airplane, if you want to get the engine inspected, it
> is customary for the BUYER to pay the mechanic to do the inspection. If I
> were the seller, would not pay for inspections, just to have the buyer
> change his mind and leave me with the inspection bill.
>
> 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=159712#159712
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Tom,
I'm so glad you have cleared up this issue for the list. For years
I've been telling other pilots that maintaining constant airspeed in a
turn, even steep turns, while descending at idle/no power increases
descent rate but not the stall speed. I discovered this myself while
practicing the "turn back to airport" practice at safe altitudes with
sudden loss of engine power. I do this on every "new to me" airplane
so I know how much time and altitude it costs me to do that. Once that
is determined I know before take-off what AGL altitude I need as a
minimum to even consider turning back in the event of a power failure
during initial climb. The slower your airspeed (but safely above stall
speed/aoa) the faster you can turn with least altitude loss. As you
noted, coordinating the turn is very important to avoid nasty surprises.
I've attached an image of a table I created showing the time to make a
270 degree turn at various bank angles and airspeeds. It also gives
the amount of altitude loss assuming a 600 fpm descent rate.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb-List Digest: 912 Engine |
I buy and sell all kinds of Engines and I do ALL the tests I can so I know
the buyer is getting a good Deal ...
There is somthing to look for on any 4 stroke Rotax and that is marks where
the valve springs are fretting in the heads (Ido not remember why phil says
this happens ) but it is a Very BAD thing and the engine needs a TOTAL OVERHAUL
if this is evedent !
Also never ever rotate the engine backwards !
Dave
**************
Start the year
off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
Hey All
Yep! The half vw ,even with a good balance job still has pistons that go in
and out together..I did not think the vibration was excessive . More than a
Rotax however.. :-) My Global versions are not well balanced and run in a tractor
airplane(N3 Pup) .. It is necessary to shock mount the instruments . New
motor mounts and a balance job of the rotating and reciprocating parts is in
the plans.
The half vw at the show was a hasty configuration, since the engine was on loan
from a fellow in East Tenn. Normally installed on a firefly..
IMHO.. VW's and half vw's are decent "poor folk" alternatives to the more expensive
power plants..
An up side is that my N3 could fly a 200 mile round trip to the Ky state EAA
gathering without taking on additional fuel(illegal at abt 8 gals :-) ) .. my
Firefly required a top off at Glasgow,Ky where I met Mike Thomason in his Fly,
and more fuel at the state park..topped off again at Glasgow and flew home to
Scottsville,Ky..
Additionally, two Piston,Jug sets, including wrist pins and rings is about 100
dollars. Hard to spend more than 200 bucks for a full over haul.. doing it yourself..
Herb
_____________________________________________________________
Find custom shirts that suit you to a "t"! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifpMvUFZGx90KP7SsyBWUUgcG998lHBp9CTTjHCgZ6Ucfhnv/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "herbgh(at)juno.com" <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireFly Photos |
Ed
My fault...I called Keith and failed to clear it with him. If he is willing,
I will sent his phone number to you...
That said...the half vw list at Yahoo is a place to get the info that you need
to have a successful installation.. The engine mount is the
only thing specific to the Firefly or Firestar.. Herb
_____________________________________________________________
Save on Real Estate Investments. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iie74UX1C8tBl9kxQlh9OuD46x52jrZbEzaLlfvja9P9oYBQp/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 04:07 PM 1/21/2008, The Kuffels wrote:
>...The source of the worry that "increased bank angle means increased
>stall speed" is the diagram in the AIM, copied in every student pilot
>ground school book, showing increased bank angle equals increased load
>factor equals increased stall speed. The flaw in this diagram is
>insufficient emphasis that it only applies *if you maintain constant
>altitude*. Look at the vectors in the diagram. The total load increases
>to keep the vertical component constant (i.e. constant altitude)...
It's not only valid at constant altitude, but constant acceleration (or
rather, unaccelerated flight, but not necessarily level unaccelerated
flight). You don't descend because you have less lift; you START decending
because you (momentarily) have less lift, causing the aircraft to
accelerate downward... then as your speed (or AOA) increases you stabilize
in a descent (an unaccelerated descent, where lift (or the vertical
component of lift) again equals the weight of the aircraft.
If you are in a coordinated turn in either level flight OR a constant
descent, your g-load will correspond to the bank angle in the normal manner
(1.4g for 45=B0, 2g for 60=B0, etc.), and you stall speed increases in the
normal manner. Any less g's and you are either accelerating downward, i.e.
increasing your rate of descent, or your turn is not coordinated (i.e. ball
not centered, as in a slipping turn).
>Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank angle always
>means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people than holding a
>constant airspeed turing a turn. For example, look at turn-to-final spin
>fatalities. As a student pilot I kept trying to sneak the airplane around
>to final with excess rudder...
It's not a misconception about bank angle versus stall speed that kills
them, it's being more afraid of increased bank angles than they are of a
skidding turn at low speed.
-Dana
--
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, for if you hit a man
with a plowshare, he'll know he's been hit!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
You guys keep talking about overuse of the rudder.
>From my experience flying Kolbs, once in the air there is very little
use of rudder. The Kolb model aircraft are aileron airplanes. For the
most part, they don't much care if they are trimmed up or not, they
still fly the same way.
I can turn a Kolb on a wing tip, the rudder is not involved. It is all
aileron and elevator.
Takes a tad of rudder to maintain a coordinated turn, but not enough to
really be aware of.
True, they do not like to fly below stall speed, no matter what bank
angle is being used.
If I am in doubt, I always carry a little extra airspeed. I also keep a
continuous cross check on my airspeed indicator. I know, some you more
experienced pilots don't need one, but I fly with mine.
As far as engine outs and making your forced landing area, be it
airstrip or a deer feeding patch in the woods or a Walmart parking lot,
if I keep the touch down point on a spot on my windshield and it does
not move up or down, I am going to make my spot. If the spot moves down
the windshield, I am going to overshoot. If it moves up the windshield,
I am going to come up short. We learned to shoot approaches in Primary
Rotary Wing Training in the Army this way. John W will have to help me
now. I can not remember for sure, but.........I think once we turned
base from downwind we obtained our approach speed, kept it constant, and
maintained our approach angle with collective (the up and down stick).
john h
mkIII
For example, look at turn-to-final spin fatalities. As a student
pilot I kept trying to sneak the airplane around to final with excess
rudder...
-Dana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> From my experience flying Kolbs, once in the air there is very little use of
rudder. The Kolb model aircraft are aileron airplanes. For the most part,
they don't much care if they are trimmed up or not, they still fly the same way.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
This is one thing I love about the Kolb, it turns with ailerons like a " Real "
airplane. Most ultralight guys use a whole bunch of rudder when they first get
in my Kolb, I tell them to keep their feet on the floor, and then try a turn.
They are very surprised to find a plane of this class that does not require
a whole bunch of rudder to turn.
This makes the Kolb a heck of a lot more enjoyable and nicer to fly than the more
primitive designs ( Im not trying to knock the flying qualities of the Qucksilvers,
Challengers, etc. ) Wait a minute.... yes I am !!!
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=159892#159892
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Per the Rotax Installation Manual 13.6 page 13-5," The oil pressure must rise
within 10 seconds to at least 2 bar (30 psi)"
>
>
Rotax is saying you have 10 seconds to get to minimum oil pressure. If you get
no oil pressure rise at all, or if you just get some, you must shut down withing
10 seconds. What Rotax is NOT saying is that you must shut down earlier
with no rise at all, they are saying you have 10 seconds PERIOD.
Its written in very plain English. I take them at their word, and am not trying
to read something extra into it like you are...
Given that, 10 seconds is within limits, and I don't believe for a second that
a 912-S is going to throw a rod 10 seconds after startup just because there was
no oil pressure.
I dont care who you spent a week with, or what you have studied, this is just not
going to happen according to the Rotax Maintenance manual.
It is pretty obvious to me, as it should have been to you, someone lied, or got
their stories mixed up somewhere. Don't believe everything you hear.
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=159895#159895
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Dana, all,
I'm trying to shut up about this topic since it has been beaten
to death. Still I'm compelled to comment where I think Dana has
misunderstood what I said.
<< "increased bank angle means increased stall speed"
It's not only valid at constant altitude, but constant
acceleration (or rather, unaccelerated flight, but not
necessarily level unaccelerated flight). You don't descend
because you have less lift; you START decending because you
(momentarily) have less lift, causing the aircraft to accelerate
downward... >>
Actually, you start and continue descending because the vertical
component of your constant 1g lift vector is less. The
horizontal component correspondingly increases from zero to
effect the turn.
<< then as your speed (or AOA) increases you stabilize in a
descent >>
But this is exactly what I'm saying *not* to do. Keep your speed
constant, it keeps your total load constant and keeps your stall
margin constant. We are talking about 90 or 180 degree turns
here. In theory your decent rate will continue to increase at
constant airspeed in a bank. In practice the increased vertical
component of drag slows the increase in decent rate and things
remain nicely stable on rollout. Doing 60 degree bank turns for
a full circle or more will make the vertical situation
interesting but that is not the problem we are discussing. Go
out and fly it for yourself.
<< If you are in a coordinated turn in either level flight OR a
constant descent, your g-load will correspond to the bank angle >>
But that is not what I am saying. Maintain a constant *airspeed*
and you then maintain a constant wing loading which maintains a
constant stall margin. Go out and fly it for yourself.
<< It's not a misconception about bank angle versus stall speed
that kills them, it's being more afraid of increased bank angles
than they are of a skidding turn at low speed. >>
And what makes us afraid of increased bank angles at low speeds
at pattern altitudes is the AIM diagram and associated training.
Go out and fly it for yourself.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 12:43 AM 1/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>Dana, all,
>
>I'm trying to shut up about this topic since it has been beaten to
>death. Still I'm compelled to comment
I should show you guys what you can do with the engine off & vg's &
no one watching.
But - I would get in trouble---------I'm legal now after 24 yrs.
Like they say in the song. "Dance like no one is watching".
I've got a one-seater - and an "iPod" tied into my helmet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Morning Gang:
Got a G Meter and a GPS.
If I can get a flight in between rain showers, I'll fly over to Wetumpka
Airport and shoot some dead stick landings to the north/south grass
strip.
What are you guys looking for? Maintaining 1G during a dead stick
approach while performing 180 deg turns?
I'll see what I can do.
I need to fly anyhow. I have a 400 rpm mag drop on one side. Talked to
Ronnie Smith about it yesterday. He told me to double check to insure
the throttle lever clevis's are lubed and free, where they attach to the
throttle cables. Told me this can cause a mag drop by getting the carbs
out of sync/balance. My first thought was spark plugs. I have a set to
stick in if the throttle lube does not cure my mag drop. Never had this
problem before, but there is always a first time.
Eric Tucker will be at Ronnie's tomorrow. Rotax classes begin Friday.
Ronnie will coordinate a time for me to fly down to replace the gears in
my 912ULS. If Eric can fit it in, he will incorporate my gear change
with that portion of the 912 course.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
Of course, one good test beats a thousand theoretical arguments. All
that would be required is a recording accelerometer and a sensitive GPS.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
John, Could your throttle cables have stretched or changed in such a way
that your carbs got out of synch?
Rick
On Jan 23, 2008 8:39 AM, John Hauck wrote:
> Morning Gang:
>
> Got a G Meter and a GPS.
>
> If I can get a flight in between rain showers, I'll fly over to Wetumpka
> Airport and shoot some dead stick landings to the north/south grass strip.
>
> What are you guys looking for? Maintaining 1G during a dead stick
> approach while performing 180 deg turns?
>
> I'll see what I can do.
>
> I need to fly anyhow. I have a 400 rpm mag drop on one side. Talked to
> Ronnie Smith about it yesterday. He told me to double check to insure the
> throttle lever clevis's are lubed and free, where they attach to the
> throttle cables. Told me this can cause a mag drop by getting the carbs out
> of sync/balance. My first thought was spark plugs. I have a set to stick
> in if the throttle lube does not cure my mag drop. Never had this problem
> before, but there is always a first time.
>
> Eric Tucker will be at Ronnie's tomorrow. Rotax classes begin Friday.
> Ronnie will coordinate a time for me to fly down to replace the gears in my
> 912ULS. If Eric can fit it in, he will incorporate my gear change with that
> portion of the 912 course.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
> Of course, one good test beats a thousand theoretical arguments. All that
> would be required is a recording accelerometer and a sensitive GPS.
>
> Rick
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Rick:
I doubt it, but anything is possible when Murphy is there to help.
I have put over 2500 hours on three 912 engines. Until this last
engine, never synchronized the carbs with gauges. This is the first
occurrence of a mag drop I have experienced, unless I had a plug trying
to foul. Then, the problem was solved by some good hard running of the
912.
john h
mkIII
John, Could your throttle cables have stretched or changed in such a
way that your carbs got out of synch?
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 12:43 AM 1/23/2008, The Kuffels wrote:
>...Keep your speed constant, it keeps your total load constant and keeps
>your stall margin constant. We are talking about 90 or 180 degree turns
>here. In theory your decent rate will continue to increase at constant
>airspeed in a bank. In practice the increased vertical component of drag
>slows the increase in decent rate and things remain nicely stable on rollout...
If you roll into a bank and AND keep it coordinated (ball in center), then
you have to either pitch up by pulling back on the stick (thus pulling more
than 1g), or you have to yaw toward the bottom of the turn, which means
your nose drops (the plane naturally does this if you don't pull back on
the stick to keep the nose up). Thus you'll accelerate down and pick up
speed, since the drag doesn't increase that much (except as a function of
speed). Either way, in a bank at least one of three things MUST
happen: You pull more than 1g, or you're flying uncoordinated (slipping),
or your speed increases.
I do agree with what I presume was your original point, that you avoid an
accelerated stall by letting the nose drop and the aircraft accelerate...
though this is probably more effective in a slow draggy airplane like an
ultralight than a faster, cleaner GA plane.
Later, of course, you have to exceed 1g pulling out of the resultant dive.
-Dana
--
Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of religion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 07:55 AM 1/23/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
> From a physics of flight standpoint there is no such thing as
> unaccelerated flight. In straight and level, constant speed flight the
> acceleration forces are in balance. Lift equals weight and drag equals thrust.
You're confusing force and acceleration. The _forces_ are in balance, and
thus the _acceleration_ is zero.
> In turning flight the aircraft's inertia wants to keep it going
> straight, and gravity keeps accelerating the aircraft downward. Lift must
> counteract both. Wish though I might, there is no free lunch. You've
> added a new acceleration force, inertia, to the mix thereby disturbing
> the equilibrium. You've also changed the acceleration vector of the lift.
> It no longer directly opposes the gravity vector.
Inertia isn't really a force (although it can sometimes be treated as such
depending on your frame of reference).
In turning flight at a constant altitude, the lift vector is no longer
vertical (due to the bank). Lift must increase so that the vertical
component of lift is still equal to the force from gravity. The horizontal
component of lift is unbalanced, so it causes an _acceleraton_ to the side
(F=MA), causing the turn. This acceleration, multiplied by the mass of the
aircraft, is what you're terming inertia (the plane "wanting" to keep going
straight).
I realize this is basic, you clearly understand it despite incorrect
terminology, but in physics (and aerodynamics!) it's important to use exact
terminology.
To maintain 1g in a banked turn, the aircraft must accelerate downward as a
result of the reduced vertical component of lift, _and_ accelerate to the
inside of the turn according to the horizontal component of lift. The
result is a steepening spiral dive, which, over the course of a 180 turn,
may or may not develop to alarming speeds or pitch angles.
-Dana
--
Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of religion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: For all 912 users |
> After checking the link, I'm still laughing! [Laughing]
> John Williamson
John W/Grey Baron:
I think it was a 710 that put Dennis Kirby in the mud hole.
john h - Removed my 710 to check my oil, but made sure I put it back on so
I would not have to land in a mud hole.
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
> At 12:43 AM 1/23/2008, The Kuffels wrote:
>>...Keep your speed constant, it keeps your total load constant and keeps
>>your stall margin constant. We are talking about 90 or 180 degree turns
>>here. In theory your decent rate will continue to increase at constant
>>airspeed in a bank. In practice the increased vertical component of drag
>>slows the increase in decent rate and things remain nicely stable on
>>rollout...
Tom K
> I do agree with what I presume was your original point, that you avoid an
> accelerated stall by letting the nose drop and the aircraft accelerate...
> though this is probably more effective in a slow draggy airplane like an
> ultralight than a faster, cleaner GA plane.
>
> Later, of course, you have to exceed 1g pulling out of the resultant dive.
>
> -Dana
Dana:
You need to get out and fly a little. It did wonders for me. The computer
monitor is no substitute for some good old fashioned aviating.
I landed about 15 minutes ago after practicing gliding to touch down at idle
power and also dead stick. While gliding, I also practiced left and right
turns of 90 and 180 degrees, keeping my airspeed constant (well.........as
best I could ;-) ).
Results, 1 G all the way to the ground. Hard to get into an accelerated
stall at 1 G. Hard to stall a Kolb, unless you violate the minimum stall
speed.
john h
mkIII - Still got a mag drop, even though I oiled up the throttle cable
clevis's at the carb throttle levers. Next, replace the spark plugs Travis
sent me yesterday. I might have gotten some heat sink paste too far down on
one or more of the plugs when I recently replaced them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> In turning flight the aircraft's inertia wants to keep it going straight, and
gravity keeps accelerating the aircraft downward. Lift must counteract both.
Wish though I might, there is no free lunch. You've added a new acceleration
force, inertia, to the mix thereby disturbing the equilibrium.
> [b]
This is what I have been saying all along. If you turn, you MUST generate more
than 1 G load on your wings. You either load the plane with 1 G either during
the turn, or after the turn to arrest the resulting dive, or both. But, as
I said before, you don't get something for nothing. It takes force to turn a
moving airplane, and that force is generated by the wings.
What is happening is that some guys are flying it so smoothly, that they don't
realize that they are putting more than 1 G on the wings, but realize it or not,
they are... Its a physical law that no amount of good piloting is going to
break. Most likely they are putting some extra load on the wing, not much,
but some during the turn, and again more than 1 G load while pulling out while
leveling off, they just don't realize it.
What Tom suggested is good piloting and very good technique, if I was writing about
it, I would not say you never put more than 1 G load on the wing, because
it is just plain wrong. Teach your technique, but get the theory correct also
when you teach it... It will be more credible and make for much happier readers
:) It will also save embarrassment when pilots that are familiar with
flight physics read your article.
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=160025#160025
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="Possums"]At 12:43 AM 1/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> I should show you guys what you can do with the engine off & vg's &
> no one watching.
>
> .
Now you have done it, I gotta see this !!! Just put the video on YouTube and
post the link here :)
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=160026#160026
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
> This is what I have been saying all along. If you turn, you MUST generate
> more than 1 G load on your wings. You either load the plane with 1 G
> either during the turn, or after the turn to arrest the resulting dive, or
> both. But, as I said before, you don't get something for nothing. It
> takes force to turn a moving airplane, and that force is generated by the
> wings.
>
> What is happening is that some guys are flying it so smoothly, that they
> don't realize that they are putting more than 1 G on the wings, but
> realize it or not, they are... Its a physical law that no amount of good
> piloting is going to break. Most likely they are putting some extra load
> on the wing, not much, but some during the turn, and again more than 1 G
> load while pulling out while leveling off, they just don't realize it.
>
> What Tom suggested is good piloting and very good technique, if I was
> writing about it, I would not say you never put more than 1 G load on the
> wing, because it is just plain wrong. Teach your technique, but get the
> theory correct also when you teach it... It will be more credible and
> make for much happier readers :) It will also save embarrassment when
> pilots that are familiar with flight physics read your article.
>
> Mike
Mike B:
Read my last post reference gliding and turning pulling 1g. I just flew it.
No big deal. Keep the air speed constant and the turns will remain at 1g.
Sorry to disagree. Yes, I have a certified Accelerometer installed in my
mkIII. Rate of descent remained constant as long as I kept the air speed
contant.
I don't think Tom Kuffle has anything to be embarassed about. Maybe you
need to do some homework before you tell somebody else they are full of
crap. ;-)
Take care,
john h
mkIII - Super 1g glider guy!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
On the Firestar project I recently started, yesterday I ordered a couple of tires
from Aircraft Spruce. You guys were right- excellent service. I also called
Aitcraft Tech and talked to both Jim and Dondi- again excellent. I took some
scrap wood and built a boom support so I could work on the tailwheel. Too cold
for more. Today I put the wings on, and tried to weigh it. I don't trust the
bathroom scale anymore- re-weigh everything, and kept getting different results.
I had to stop and take the wings off when the wind picked up, but it might
be 15 pounds heavy. Or it's the scale. I was having trouble with the door catch,
but my Dremel smoothed off a bumpy weld on the catch, and I polished the
rotary arm. I still have to clamp the window frame it's mounted on- it slides
back and forth. Epoxy, maybe, or a pop rivet. I tried to start it, and the primer
would not pump up, and I was afraid to blow a gas line. The filter looks to
have crud in it, and I was looking at the Mikuni
pump. It tilts to the front. Is there any possibility that it could have water
in that corner and froze? The temp only went up to about 34 today.
Bill (old Firestar)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
I forgot- we checked the wings, and the only damage is to the ailerons. Three
small holes no bigger than 2". I just have to check the color chip chart, and
order a small kit from Aircraft Tech.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Good luck on finding your 912-S, its a great engine. Its expensive, but well
worth the money... Reliable and the smoothest running 4 stroke I have ever flown,
much less vibration than a 172 or similar plane.
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=160061#160061
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Here is what VG's did to my airspeed. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Yep, on other boards I just edit my post if I make a mistake or miiistyyype something
[Wink] But a lot of people here use the email, and once I hit the submit
button, there is no taking it back [Embarassed]
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=160063#160063
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 03:05 PM 1/23/2008, John Hauck wrote:
>You need to get out and fly a little. It did wonders for me. The
>computer monitor is no substitute for some good old fashioned aviating.
You're right, I do! Just too damn cold here, right now.
>I landed about 15 minutes ago after practicing gliding to touch down at
>idle power and also dead stick. While gliding, I also practiced left and
>right turns of 90 and 180 degrees, keeping my airspeed constant
>(well.........as best I could ;-) ).
>
>Results, 1 G all the way to the ground. Hard to get into an accelerated
>stall at 1 G. Hard to stall a Kolb, unless you violate the minimum stall
>speed.
John, how sensitive is your G meter? In a 30 banked turn you only pull
1.15g; 20 only 1.06g. And how much bank, and were all turns coordinated?
I'll stick with Mike here; no amount of good piloting can break the laws of
physics. An object moving along a curved path experiences acceleration in
the plane of the curve, perpendicular to the direction of motion. The
vector sum of that acceleration and the 1g downward pull of gravity is the
total g's you're pulling, so unless you push the nose down to reduce the
vertical 1g, that vector sum will be greater than 1.0... and if you push
the nose down you won't maintain that constant speed. It is impossible to
make a coordinated turn at a constant velocity in an airplane while
maintaining only 1g, unless you have some means to continuously increase
drag (or decrease thrust) as the airplane pitches down... and even then you
will see more than 1g pulling out of the resultant dive. TANSTAAFL (There
Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
I _will_ believe it's possible (in a shallow bank), within the accuracy of
the instruments installed on most aircraft.
-Dana
--
It feels great to wake up and not know what day it is, doesn't it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Personally I would not worry about 15 pounds overweight. An early firestar makes
a very passable ultralight. Trying to pass off a 2 seat MK III as an ultralight
probably wont work, but if its just 15 pounds only an anal SOB would care
either way.
Your best option is to N Number you plane. I just heard through the grapevine
that if you are an EAA member, and you send in all your paperwork, that the FAA
is giving extensions to get the inspection done. But you MUST have your paperwork
in by Jan 31. Dont take this as gospel, but I just heard this today...
Call the EAA before doing anything and confirm it with them.
If for some reason you just can not get an N number, I would not worry about 15
pounds. There will always be some idiot that will tell you to throw your plane
away, or take weight off the structure, etc etc but I never listen to anal
idiots.
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=160072#160072
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
>>Results, 1 G all the way to the ground. Hard to get into an accelerated
>>stall at 1 G. Hard to stall a Kolb, unless you violate the minimum stall
>>speed.
>
> John, how sensitive is your G meter? In a 30 banked turn you only pull
> 1.15g; 20 only 1.06g. And how much bank, and were all turns coordinated?
>
> I _will_ believe it's possible (in a shallow bank), within the accuracy of
> the instruments installed on most aircraft.
>
> -Dana
Dana:
My accelerometer is as accurate and sensitive enough to get a yellow tag.
Most folks that know me and my flying style will tell you me and Miss P'fer
don't know what a 20 and 30 degree bank are. We fly, and have a hell of a
lot of fun doing it. I can assure you my banks were well over 45 degrees
because it takes that and much more to to nice tight 90 and 180 degree turns
at 60 mph in a mkIII. If I made the turn and maintained altitude, it pulled
a g. If I maintained 60 mph until I touched down, I never pulled more than
1 g.
I just got back from doing some more maintenance and test flying. What a
beautiful day to fly. Calm air, 48F on the ground and 40F at 3,000. Makes
no difference whether you believe me or not. The mkIII still glides and
turns at 1g with constant airspeed. To be honest, I would not have believed
it entirely either, until I did it this morning.
Guess you'll just have to go out and do this exercise yourself to see what
the results are. I'd be glad to demonstrate if you are in the area.
Take care and watch your g meter.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
> If for some reason you just can not get an N number, I would not worry
about 15 pounds. There will always be some idiot that will tell you to
throw your plane away, or take weight off the structure, etc etc but I never
listen to anal idiots.
>
> Mike
Mike B:
If the aircraft weighs more than 254 lbs, it is an airplane.
If the aircraft weighs 269 lbs and is not registered maybe you can explain
away those 15 lbs to the first FAA type that ramp checks you. Yes, ramp
checks are real, even back in prehistoric times of the 1980's.
I don't consider myself an anal idiot, however, I would not recommend to
anyone to fly a fat ultralight because if is not an ultralight but an
unregistered airplane.
What do you think about those 1g glides to touch down with a few 90 and 180
deg turns thrown in there for good measure? Like I said, I would never have
believed it if I had not done it.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi John,
I did not know you had a G Meter, but here is a question I have been wondering
about for a long time, and I bet you have the answer.
On one of those normal summer days in Alabama, mid day when the cumulus clouds
are growing pretty big, no storms, but just one of those summer days when the
thermals kick the carp out of the Kolb.. How many G's does this type of Turbulence
put on the airframe ?
And one more question, in really bad, unusually bad turbulence, how many G's are
you seeing ?
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=160093#160093
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi John,
I think you are one lucky dog because you got to go flying your Kolb today and
the rest of us did'nt !!! I plan on practicing engine out turns some more as
soon as I get a chance...
Did you notice what your altitude loss was in the 180 degree turn back to the field
?
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=160094#160094
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Bill,
Please take the time to review the requirements for Ultralights in the FAR's Part
103.
This will help you decide weather or not you can operate under those rules or if
you need to get registered as a experimental light sport or amateur built experimental.
Sometimes those real anal guys are with the FAA. Most of the FAA guys are there
to help you but they are only human and can have a bad day like any of us.
The FAA has the authority to levy fines and can impose other penalties including
confinement etc.
Please make sure you are okay with the "Rules" so that you can avoid any hiccups
that life can throw at you.
Good Luck with your Project and Welcome to the Kolb List.
Best Regards
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160095#160095
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
> I did not know you had a G Meter, but here is a question I have been
wondering about for a long time, and I bet you have the answer.
> Mike
Mike B:
Can't answer another set of questions until I find out if you believe I can
glide my mkIII to the ground while performing 90 and 180 high banked turns
and never pull over 1 g. ;-(
Turbulence in the SE in nothing in comparison to turbulence out West,
especially in the Rockies. Never seen more than +3.5 g's or -2 g's. That
is more than enough to be quite painful, especially in my neck. -2 g's will
shut down the engine momentarily as the floats are forced closed and the
engine is starved for fuel. It will also shuffle all my stuff from the left
seat to the roof of the cabin and back down, not necessarily to the left
seat, but all over the damn airplane. At times like this I hold on to the
seat pan with my left hand and cinch the harnesses up tight. When it gets
too uncomfortable to fly, I find a nice little airport and take a nap.
john h
mkIII - 2,731.9 hours
912ULS - 163.4 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
> Did you notice what your altitude loss was in the 180 degree turn back to
the field ?
>
> Mike
Mike B:
Nope. Wasn't concerned with altitude loss, but making my touch down point
on the grass. Worked every time.
I'll have to watch the VSI next time and see if there is much difference
between 1g glide straight and 1g glide in 90 and 180 deg turns.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FAA Grants Extension... |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
This was just posted on the EAA website that The FAA is going to grant an extension
for those have the registration in the works for ELSA.
So there is now a little breathing room for those who are frantically working on
getting those planes done.
Best Regards
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160100#160100
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I registered my Original Firestar at 319 lbs. After I built it, it was about 290
lbs. I switched to a 447 Rotax engine, added streamlined struts, bigger wheels,
lexan gap seal, and a nice cushion seat. All of this adds weight. I wanted
to have the capability to fly cross country, so I carry an extra 6 gallons. Under
103, I couldn't add anything or carry more fuel. Now I can.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160101#160101
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For all 912 users |
Bob, now ya have me worried, my firefly doesn't have one either, worse yet,
I can't find a place to put one!
steve
firefly on Floats
In a message dated 1/23/2008 2:54:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck"
> After checking the link, I'm still laughing! [Laughing]
> John Williamson
John W/Grey Baron:
I think it was a 710 that put Dennis Kirby in the mud hole.
john h - Removed my 710 to check my oil, but made sure I put it back on so
I would not have to land in a mud hole.
mkIII
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: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
EAA's E-LSA Exemption Request Approved More time granted for aircraft
already registered but awaiting inspection
*January 23, 2008* =97 FAA's senior staff arrived for the annual mid-winter
EAA/FAA summit meeting at the EAA Aviation Center in concert with official
approval of EAA's exemption request for the transition of ultralights and
two-place machines to the Experimental-Light-Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) categor
y
after the January 31 deadline.
The exemption allows aircraft owners who have submitted their aircraft
registration (n-number) application to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch
and had it entered into the FAA system on or before January 31, 2008, to
complete the process, including issuance of an airworthiness certificate,
beyond the deadline.
"EAA is very pleased that FAA saw the necessity of this exemption to meet
the backlog of applications to the E-LSA category," said Earl Lawrence,
EAA's vice president of government and industry programs. "Our good working
relationship with FAA allowed us to understand exactly what these aircraft
owners needed, what the FAA would allow within a request, and the
time-essential nature of this exemption approval."
The exemption provides additional time for those already registered but
awaiting inspection, and also provides relief for those facing certificatio
n
issues beyond their control (i.e., severe weather preventing DAR travel,
shortage of critical flight safety components from manufacturers, etc.) to
complete the certification process beyond the deadline.
More information on the exemption is available from EAA Aviation Services a
t
877-359-1232.
The FAA senior staff is in Oshkosh for its annual session with EAA
representatives, a unique gathering that allows for productive discussion o
f
important aviation issues on many fronts, including homebuilt and vintage
aircraft, sport pilot, warbirds, aerobatic flights, and more. This unmatche
d
environment is allows an active exchange of concerns and ideas with top
aviation policymakers, and direct progress toward workable solutions.
More updates from the EAA/FAA summit session will be coming on the EAA
website, e-Hotline and EAA publications.
On Jan 23, 2008 6:56 PM, The BaronVonEvil wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This was just posted on the EAA website that The FAA is going to grant an
> extension for those have the registration in the works for ELSA.
>
> So there is now a little breathing room for those who are frantically
> working on getting those planes done.
>
> Best Regards
> Carlos G
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160100#160100
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Dana,
<< The vector sum of that acceleration and the 1g downward pull
of gravity is the total g's you're pulling, so unless you push
the nose down to reduce the vertical 1g, that vector sum will be
greater than 1.0. >>
But we aren't keeping a vertical 1g. At constant airspeed and
level flight we are keeping 1g on the wings. Now rotate the
wings. The 1g load vector rotates with the wing to produce 2
components. One horizontal to produce the turning acceleration
and a correspondingly lower vertical to oppose (partly) earth's
gravity. Which is of course why we start descending more rapidly.
The point remains if you maintain a constant airspeed while
maneuvering to land you will never reduce your stall margin (+/-
the secondary effect of increasing and decreasing your decent
rate). This is most important in the 90 degree turn to final
where every year pilots try to hasten the turn with rudder. In
the 180 reversing turns on a dead stick approaches (remember dead
stick approaches, this is a thread about dead stick approaches)
it doesn't matter where you roll out left or right so just use a
constant shallow bank and constant airspeed. This is good habit
building practice for the 90 turn to final where you might want
to tighten the turn by increasing the bank angle without fear.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Gang:
Well, I'm still sorting through causes for my mag drop, 200 one side and 400
the other side at 4,000 rpm. I oiled the throttle cable clevis connections
at the carb throttle levers. That didn't solve the problem.
Travis had sent me a set of plugs. Installed those and still got a drop of
200 and 400. The old plugs had 70 hours on them.
Now I am a little stumped. So....while I was sitting at the end of the run
way doing these mag checks, I reached up and pulled the enricher on full.
Momentary rpm drop, then the tach went to 4,200 rpm. Now...I did the mag
check with enricher off: 200 and 400 rpm drop. Pulled the enricher on,
performed the mag check and got 150 rpm drop on both sides. ;-) Easy fix.
Raise the fuel needle a notch. Will have to do that tomorrow. Was getting
too dark and too cold to mess with it this evening.
Back in 1994, on my first flight to Alaska, I encountered some terrible
engine problems as soon as the temps dropped down into the 40's. The engine
was new to me, having flown it less than 100 hours prior to departure for
Alaska. Those hours were all flown in moderate to hot temps. No problems.
It really got bad between Cold Foot and Dead Horse, Alaska. I landed on the
road 60 miles south of Dead Horse. Changed plugs, fuel filter, dumped the
float bowls, and whispered a very sincere prayer. Made it into Dead Horse
and the remainder of my flight home. However, I had no idea what was wrong.
It did get better when I opened up the idle screws while weathered in for
four days at Dead Horse. I wasn't willing to tear into the carbs on this
new engine where I was located for fear of losing a part and not being able
to replace it.
When I got home to Alabama and Winter arrived, I discovered the enricher.
On a flight to Lucedale, MS, on a very cold day, the engine started losing
that nice crisp feel it normally had. I pulled the throttle back to 4,000
rpm and pulled on the enricher. RPM increased to 4,200 rpm. ;-) When I
got back to Gantt International Airport I tore into the carbs. Raised the
fuel needles a notch and never looked back, nor had a mid-range leaning
problem again. Guess that is what it is going to take to get the new 912ULS
tweaked up to where she belongs.
My last 912ULS was not sensitive to cold and mid-range blues. I flew it to
Alaska a couple months after I installed it. In fact, flew this engine to
Alaska twice. Never had a problem the 1,233.0 hours I flew it. Just goes
to show, they ain't all alike.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mag Drop 912ULS |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks for the engine info. I have never flown my 912-S in cold weather. I would
have never thought a 4 stroke engine would have been that sensitive to temps.
Now when I do fly cross country, and it happens, I will know how to fix
it easily enough :)
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=160120#160120
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now building,
in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I missed the boat or
is the extension your talking about changing the way a completed aircraft is now
registered? I do want to be able to work on the aircraft myself and be able
to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160121#160121
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
Rick, You will have to really bust ass, but it might be possible. Go to
FAA.gov and reserve an "N" number right now, you can pay with a credit card.
Download form 8050-88A Fill it out checking the "I don't have any receipts"
box and the "I can't get copies from the manufacturer" box. Do not sign it
until in front of the Notary Public at your bank. Get a form 8050-1 from
your local FSDO (it's a three parter and can't be downloaded. Get a money
order and make it payable to the Dept of the Treasury just as 8050-1 says to
do. Send it off tomorrow by next day delivery. Then pray, promise the Dear
Lord your first born, be a better person, whatever you think will move the
Man to work in your favor. As the announcement from EAA and FAA says "The
exemption allows aircraft owners *who have submitted their aircraft
registration (n-number) application to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch
and had it entered into the FAA system on or before January 31, 2008,* to
complete the process, including issuance of an airworthiness certificate,
beyond the deadline."
Good Luck,
Rick Girard
On Jan 23, 2008 8:21 PM, Rick Lewis wrote:
>
> Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now
> building, in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I missed
> the boat or is the extension your talking about changing the way a completed
> aircraft is now registered? I do want to be able to work on the aircraft
> myself and be able to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160121#160121
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 08:40 PM 1/23/2008, The Kuffels wrote:
>
><< The vector sum of that acceleration and the 1g downward pull of gravity
>is the total g's you're pulling, so unless you push the nose down to
>reduce the vertical 1g, that vector sum will be greater than 1.0. >>
>
>But we aren't keeping a vertical 1g. At constant airspeed and level
>flight we are keeping 1g on the wings. Now rotate the wings. The 1g load
>vector rotates with the wing to produce 2 components. One horizontal to
>produce the turning acceleration and a correspondingly lower vertical to
>oppose (partly) earth's gravity. Which is of course why we start
>descending more rapidly.
Right, you start accelerating downward if the vertical component is less
than 1g.
>The point remains if you maintain a constant airspeed while maneuvering to
>land you will never reduce your stall margin...
That's the part I have a problem with, if you're accelerating downward your
airspeed won't be constant. Since you're _accelerating_ downward your
descent rate will continue to increase, as will your airspeed. The only
way to keep the speed from increasing is to slip the plane, which adds a
whole new set of variables.
A good example is the second half of a wingover (or the last quarter of a
standard Lazy-8). At the highest point in the wingover, you're banked,
say, 45, the ball is centered, pulling 1g or maybe even less, but you are
accelerating downward since the vertical component of lift is greater than
the airplane's weight. But the pullout at the bottom will be greater than
1g, since the wings then are both supporting the aircraft's weight but also
providing the force to accelerate the plane upward to slow the increased
descent rate.
But again, I agree as a matter of good technique: Let the nose drop in the
turn, which lets the plane speed up a bit while simultaneously reducing the
load factor.
Hmmm, just thought of something: In a pusher like a Kolb the instruments
(including John Hauck's g-meter) are well forward of the C.G., unlike a
conventional tractor plane. A g-meter mounted forward of the aircraft's
C.G. will show less than the actual g's while the aircraft is pitching
downward (just as a g-meter mounted on the tail would show a _greater_
reading). Not sure how significant (if at all) that would be, though.
-Dana
--
The secret of the universe is @*^^^ NO CARRIER
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mag Drop 912ULS |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
I've flown my 912s for about 100 hours now in cold and high-altitude weather with
no problems running-wise, but there were a couple things I had to correct (apart
from some damage in the 1/3 float bowl) going to the higher altitude of
my airport (about 6300'):
- the idle mixture at the factory setting is too rich and gives a pretty fuel fouled
plug after idling for a little while. I chased this a while on the 1/3 carb
and just discovered the 2/4 side is also idling too rich at annual a few weeks
ago. I had to go in a half turn on the idle mix screw on 1/3 and looks like
I'll have to do thta on 2/4.
- the carburettor vent tubes have to be at the same pressure as the intake venturis
on the carbs, meaning the vent tubes have to go into the air cleaners if
you're not using the air box. Otherwise, the carbs run noticeably rich at high
altitudes. I made some fittings for mine with brass barbs from Lowes and that
completely cured the rich running.
As for ignition possibilities for the mag drop, one possibility could be the spark
plug wires and/or the caps. The caps are a frequent maintenance item on the
2-strokes, the parts inside, the resistor assy ,etc., deteriorates and breaks,
leading to sometimes strange behavior.
Havn't encountered any problems with the ones on my 912, but they don't look like
nothin' special to me....
If the plugs are ok and the ignition stuff is ok, it could very well be the wires/caps
messing up the works?
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160135#160135
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
At 09:21 PM 1/23/2008, Rick Lewis wrote:
>Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now
>building, in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I
>missed the boat or is the extension your talking about changing the way a
>completed aircraft is now registered? I do want to be able to work on the
>aircraft myself and be able to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
Since you're building it yourself, why do you want to register it as E-LSA
rather than experimental-amateur built?
-Dana
--
The secret of the universe is @*^^^ NO CARRIER
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
> Hmmm, just thought of something: In a pusher like a Kolb the instruments
> (including John Hauck's g-meter) are well forward of the C.G., unlike a
> conventional tractor plane. A g-meter mounted forward of the aircraft's
> C.G. will show less than the actual g's while the aircraft is pitching
> downward (just as a g-meter mounted on the tail would show a _greater_
> reading). Not sure how significant (if at all) that would be, though.
>
> -Dana
Dana:
When the aircraft is flying at 1g, in a glide, it is not pitching if the
airspeed is held constant.
I flew the maneuvers many times on two seperate flights today.
Based on the g meter and my own flying experience, I am quite satisfied the
turns were done without loading the aircraft to more than 1 g.
Guess the only way to convince you is take you for a ride. ;-)
Damn! The g meter is on the wrong side of the cg. (scratching my head)
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Dana,
<< Since you're _accelerating_ downward your descent rate will
continue to increase, as will your airspeed. >>
Taint so on the second part. Your decent rate will increase
slightly until the vertical component of your drag cancels the
loss of vertical lift (if you turn long enough). But your
airspeed is your velocity forward, almost orthogonal to vertical.
In non-aerobatic flight it is a simple matter to adjust your
airspeed and accept the resulting descent rate.
And I say again, your vertical accelerations are a secondary
effect. Even a 500 feet/min descent is less than 1 percent of
your forward velocity at 60 mph. And a change in descent rate
from 250 to 500 ft/min is a change in your vertical velocity of
less than 3 mph. This is well within the ability of any pilot to
compensate as he maintains constant *forward* airspeed.
High-g pullout examples don't apply here because they involve
large changes in airspeed, power or vertical speed.
Go try it for yourself. In a simulated turn to final, holding
constant airspeed results in a 1g maneuver no matter what bank
angle (within reason, say 60 degrees).
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Thanks for the advice on the FAA extension, but I'm going for 103 legal, even
if I have to fill the wings and tires with helium. I've had it for a week, and
I finally got around to sitting in it. Strange thing is that it fits me perfectly.
The previous owner was about 5" taller than me, and I have no idea where
his knees were.
After I tried weighing it, I started cleaning and throwing out unnecessary
junk. Radio brackets, mouse nests in the cables, and who knows what else. Couldn't
weigh them- no scale small enough.
Weather permitting, engine work today. The local snowmobile dealer says they
might have the carb mounting rubber and filter. If not, order and wait. also
a gas filter and plugs.
Question: On the "B" gear box there are two holes- one each side and about
3/4 of the way up. Are they supposed to be open, or plugged?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 10:26 PM 1/23/2008, John Hauck wrote:
>When the aircraft is flying at 1g, in a glide, it is not pitching if the
>airspeed is held constant.
It is if it's in a banked turn. (It pitches relative to its own lateral
axis, not relative to the horizon).
-Dana
--
Starve a feeding bureaucrat...vote Libertarian.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 01:45 AM 1/24/2008, The Kuffels wrote:
><< Since you're _accelerating_ downward your descent rate will continue to
>increase, as will your airspeed. >>
>
>Taint so on the second part. Your decent rate will increase slightly
>until the vertical component of your drag cancels the loss of vertical
>lift (if you turn long enough)...
What causes this additional vertical component of drag?
-Dana
--
Starve a feeding bureaucrat...vote Libertarian.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 10:26 PM 1/23/2008, John Hauck wrote:
>When the aircraft is flying at 1g, in a glide, it is not pitching if the
>airspeed is held constant.
It is if it's in a banked turn. (It pitches relative to its own lateral
axis, not relative to the horizon).
-Dana
--
Starve a feeding bureaucrat...vote Libertarian.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Bill S:
Go here to get, at no charge, all the manuals for your engine.
http://www.kodiakbs.com/tiintro.htm
Not saying you can't do it, but I know of no one that has come close to
legal ultralight weight for a Firestar.
john h
mkIII
Question: On the "B" gear box there are two holes- one each side
and about 3/4 of the way up. Are they supposed to be open, or plugged?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Open. Saves weight.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
william sullivan wrote:
>
> Question: On the "B" gear box there are two holes- one each side and
> about 3/4 of the way up. Are they supposed to be open, or plugged?
> Bill
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net> |
It's been awhile but I'll add my 2 cents worth.
Anytime you change directions you produce acceleration. It may not be much or
enough to feel or register but it's there. Whether it's on a merry-go-round or
on a bike going around a corner. If you're sitting in a centrifuge and are
going around at 1 rpm you will still have slightly over 1 g on you as it is a
function of radius and rpm squared. Even though your speed is constant your direction
vector is changing.
Rex Rodebush
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160179#160179
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
Seems I've recently read an awful lot of semi-conflicting things
about speed, acceleration, etc.
Well FWIW, unless they've changed things since my student days,
acceleration is a CHANGE in velocity. A car doing a steady 60MPH
down the highway has NO acceleration. If the speed is changed, it
accelerates or decelerates.
An aircraft in steady cruise flight has NO acceleration or
deceleration unless its speed is changed.
Sure seem to be an awful lot of experts out there.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Seafoam Approaches |
Rex,
<< Whether it's on a merry-go-round or on a bike >>
Which are not changing altitude so there is a constant 1g load
vector vertically. This is not true for an airplane in a
descending turn. Take the 1g load vector on the wings at zero
bank. Now rotate the wing and change nothing else. The wing is
still seeing only a 1g load but now the vector is split into
horizontal and vertical components to produce the turn and resist
descent.
Go fly and try it for yourself.
And I swear any future comments by me on this topic will be off list.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to qualify
a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More importantly
has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is that
if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance on
the plane.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:21 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAA Grants Extension...
>
> Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now
> building, in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I
> missed the boat or is the extension your talking about changing the way a
> completed aircraft is now registered? I do want to be able to work on the
> aircraft myself and be able to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160121#160121
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote:
> The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
> built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to qualify
> a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
> kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More importantly
> has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
>
> My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
> Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is that
> if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance on
> the plane.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ---
After the deadline, the only version of ELSA that will exist is the "approved kit"
one, where the manufacturer first makes an SLSA version, etc.
Basically, the requirements for making these are the same as SLSA, since manufacturers
will have to go through the SLSA process to begin with.
So I don't see too many of these appearing in the future or ever.
There are one or two here and there, but I don't remember which they are.
I don't believe Kolb is going to go the ELSA route with their kitplanes (smart
move), so EAB looks like it'll remain the option with them.
As for EAB, the annual condition inspection is the only thing that requires either
the repairman's cert or an AnP. Any and all maintenance can be done my anyone
in the usual way. This is also true for ELSA, since it's also an experimental
certification.
ELSA seems to give a higher resale because of the ability to do the annual CI's
on them after taking the 16 hour class.
SLSA is more like a dwarven Standard category with reduced certification/maint/annual
requirements.
The Kolb flyer looks like Kolb's SLSA entry, but the kitplanes look like they're
remain EAB.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160218#160218
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dead Stick approaches |
Larry C wrote:
That aspect is one that most do not see as a
problem, but it is as real as not making the runway. With 2600 feet of
runway I managed to slip enough altitude that I landed in a safe spot. I
have to admit that at first I "mushed" it to lose altitude, then decided
that a slip would work better and be safer as well. It never occurred to me
to use something as simple as your method. I will keep it in mind and
utilize it when that situation comes up again. I do however doubt that I
will give a RATS ASS if I do happen to exceed one G.
Thanks again
Larry C
I own a MKIII but do not have much time in one. I have found one other
option of loosing altitude is the "dive". The MKIII is so draggy that I can
point the nose at the ground (no flaps) and run her up to 80mph, then when I
am on glide path pull her back to my approach of 55mph and she slows right
down again. Obviously this is not something that should be done from 5000
feet when trying to choose a landing spot, but if you are at 1000 feet and
find your self a little high on final, it seems to work.
Jason
MKIII
Portland OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
To market a qualifying kit after 01-31-2008 the manufacturer must build one
aircraft and document it per ASTM F37 requirements as an S-LSA. Then they
can sell kits that can be certificated as E-LSA per FAR 21.191i(2). The kit
must be presented to the DAR or FAA rep in EXACTLY the same configuration as
the qualifying S-LSA. Once you have the experimental certificate in your
hand, you can do anything that falls within the LSA definition All that is
required is a log book entry and putting the aircraft back into phase 1
flight testing for 5 hours. I verified this with Edsel Ford, director of the
Light Sport branch in Oklahoma City, a couple of months ago.
At this time M-Squared and Quad City Ultralights are the only companies
selling qualifying kits, I think. Vans should have the RV-12 out any time
now. I don't know of any others.
Rick Girard
On Jan 24, 2008 9:54 AM, Richard & Martha Neilsen
wrote:
> NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
>
> The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
> built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to
> qualify
> a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
> kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More
> importantly
> has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
>
> My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
> Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is
> that
> if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance
> on
> the plane.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:21 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAA Grants Extension...
>
>
> >
> > Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now
> > building, in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I
> > missed the boat or is the extension your talking about changing the way
> a
> > completed aircraft is now registered? I do want to be able to work on
> the
> > aircraft myself and be able to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
> >
> > Rick Lewis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160121#160121
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
| From: | "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> |
I guess this is where I get my flying from.
My great grandfather is the person in front of the wing with the suit and hat on.
He is the 4th person from the left.
This picture information from the website says this was taken in 1904. Thats really
strange and cool since the Wright brothers flew 1st in 1903. This plane has
the horizontal stabilizer in the rear like modern planes vs. the front like
the Wright flyer of 1903 and 1904 and 1905.
I wish I could find out more abut this picture and the airplane.
Any historians know anything about the picture?
http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/meta/html/dlg/vang/meta_dlg_vang_cly058-82.html?Welcome
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160234#160234
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/1904_biplane_207.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Rick,
...At this time M-Squared and Quad City Ultralights are the only companies selling
qualifying kits, I think. Vans should have the RV-12 out any time now. I don't
know of any others....
Many, but not all, of the SLSA manufacturers are selling ELSA kits. For example,
Allegro, Rans (S-7), Zlin Savage....
--------
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=160253#160253
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Regular Unleaded |
I was tired of the spills and hassel every time I fueled my Firefly. After I bought
a 100 gal gasboy tanker for fueling my cross-country bird with regular unleaded,
I decided to give regular unleaded a try in the Firefly to see if I could
standardize on one fuel in my hangar.
Everybody I know uses Premium unleaded (91 octane) auto fuel in the Rotax 503 engines.
The owner of a Rotax Repair Station said he used premium unleaded fuel,
but that regular unleaded (87 octane) meets the Rotax fuel grade specification.
The Rotax manual says to use minimum 90 RON fuel. But the RON method of octane
measurement is not used in the United States. In the US, a different method entirely
is used, called the CLC method. The number that results from this method
is the average of the RON octane number and the MON octane number, so (RON
+ MON)/2 = CLC octane number. This is the number that you will find printed on
a yellow label on gas pumps in the United States which indicate (R+M)/2.
91 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane, so the 87 CLC octane of regular unleaded
exceeds the 90 RON specified by Rotax.
Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used Regular unleaded
with no problems. Does anybody else out there use regular unleaded? Ever
had any problems?
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160256#160256
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 09:57 AM 1/24/2008, Russ Kinne wrote:
>
>Seems I've recently read an awful lot of semi-conflicting things
>about speed, acceleration, etc.
>Well FWIW, unless they've changed things since my student days,
>acceleration is a CHANGE in velocity. A car doing a steady 60MPH
>down the highway has NO acceleration. If the speed is changed, it
>accelerates or decelerates.
>An aircraft in steady cruise flight has NO acceleration or
>deceleration unless its speed is changed.
An object (e.g. an aircraft) traveling in a curve at a constant speed is
experiencing acceleration at 90=B0 to its direction of travel at any moment.
Acceleration IS a change in velocity, since velocity is a vector quantity,
defined as speed in a certain direction. Speed is a scalar quantity, which
doesn't include a direction vector. So technically in a turn, the velocity
changes while the speed stays constant.
-Dana
--
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...
Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.
-- Cherokee saying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rex Rodebush" <rrodebush(at)tema.net> |
Russ,
You are correct if the car is going in a straight line. If you take a sharp corner
keeping your speed the same you will feel side acceleration g's.
You will feel g's if you slow down, go faster, or just change directions. Ask
the guy who is feeling 6 g's in an Air Force centirfuge. His speed is the same
but he is constantly changing directions.
Rex Rodebush
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160257#160257
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
Grant, That's the Curtiss Golden Flyer built by the Curtiss-Hemming Co., or
a copy of it. The year is wrong as Curtiss didn't fly until 1908 in the
"June Bug" built by Alexander Graham Bell's Aerial Experiment Association.
Here's a better picture of the aircraft at the 1909 air race at Reims,
France:
http://www.earlyaviators.com/ecurti01.htm
Rick Girard
On Jan 24, 2008 10:57 AM, grantr wrote:
>
> I guess this is where I get my flying from.
>
> My great grandfather is the person in front of the wing with the suit and
> hat on. He is the 4th person from the left.
>
> This picture information from the website says this was taken in 1904.
> That's really strange and cool since the Wright brothers flew 1st in 1903.
> This plane has the horizontal stabilizer in the rear like modern planes vs.
> the front like the Wright flyer of 1903 and 1904 and 1905.
>
> I wish I could find out more abut this picture and the airplane.
>
> Any historians know anything about the picture?
>
>
> http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/meta/html/dlg/vang/meta_dlg_vang_cly058-82.html?Welcome
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160234#160234
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/1904_biplane_207.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used
Regular unleaded with no problems. Does anybody else out there use regular
unleaded? Ever had any problems?
>
> --------
> Jim
Jim in Idaho
All the Rotax engines except the 912 (turbo), 912ULS four strokes, 618 and
532 two strokes are authorized to operate on 87 octane auto fuel. Ain't no
more power in a gal of regular than there is in a gal of super hi-test.
Wish I could run 87 in my912ULS.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
All of this Nuts and Bolts, facts and figures are interesting however, if I
take my little Firefly out and stick his little nose towards the ground, wri
ng
him out with a bunch of bank and pull back on the stick the results are not
only fun but very effective in changing direction and losing altitude with
very little gain in the weight I feel in my seat. It is nice to know why th
is
happens by the numbers but I suggest that you go out and try it.
In a message dated 1/24/2008 2:08:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net writes:
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An object (e.g. an aircraft) traveling in a curve at a constant speed is
experiencing acceleration at 90=B0 to its direction of travel at any
moment.
Steve
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
| From: | "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> |
Wow thats really cool!! Thanks for the information.
I saw where this plane cost around $4500 to $6000 new back then. I seriously doubt
my great grandfather or any of the farmers in Clay county could have afforded
that in 1908.
My great grandfather did work at a saw mill at one time in his life losing part
of his arm in an accident. Maybe some of them built the plane.
No one know anything about that picture except that my great grandfather is in
it.
Gosh I can wait to start flying my Kolb! :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160285#160285
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
>From http://www.csgnetwork.com/octaneratecalc.html
Gasoline pumps typically post octane numbers as an average of two different values.
Often you may see the octane rating quoted as (R+M)/2. One value is the research
octane number (RON), which is determined with a test engine running at
a low speed of 600 rpm. The other value is the motor octane number (MON), which
is determined with a test engine running at a higher speed of 900 rpm. If,
for example, a gasoline has an RON of 98 and a MON of 90, then the posted octane
number would be the average of the two values or 94.
Because of the different measurement RPMs, I would guess that the RON will always
be higher than the MON.
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160294#160294
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Replacing Hoses on a Rotax |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Kolb Friends -
The time has come for me to replace some of the rubber fluid lines on my
912ul. This would include the fuel, oil, and coolant hoses. These are
the original hoses that came with the engine from the factory over 5
years ago, and they are showing signs of deterioration (cracks, splits,
etc.)
Looking in the Rotax catalog, I found the following prices on
replacement sets of fluid lines:
"Fuel Hose Assembly" - $223.
"Oil Tube" - $56.
"Coolant Hose" - $53.
Yikes!
Are there any acceptable "Auto Parts Store equivalent" hoses that I can
use instead?
When Rotax warns us to only use "Genuine Rotax parts" on our engines, I
can understand if they're referring to the hardware. But it seems that
fuel hoses, etc., could be replaced with "generic" products, and not
compromise the integrity or reliability of the engine. Does anyone
agree? Has any body done this?
Thanks for your opinions -
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Replacing Hoses on a Rotax |
> Are there any acceptable "Auto Parts Store equivalent" hoses that I can
> use instead?
>
> Dennis Kirby
Dennis K:
I use 1" ID heater hose, 1/4" black neoprene fuel line. I like Gates, but
other name brands are just as good.
Oil line I get from Travis at TNK. He has access to that nice blue line.
Remember, the oil line is primarily vacuum on the intake side and 3 to 5 psi
on the outlet side. I think the most important factor is hose that can
handle the temps, up to 300F working temp, not ultimate, and will hold its
shape in bends without crimping. Give Travis a call on the blue hose. If
you do, you can join the blue oil hose gang at Monument Valley in May. It
is almost as prestigeous as the Black Hat Gang at MV. ;-)
john h
mkIII with blue oil hose and black hat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
Pure flight of fancy here, but.........
.... it seems to me that if the EAA really wanted to do something
useful to it's newly minted LSA crowd, they'd petition the FAA so
that, once a kit plane was finished and gotten it's airworthiness and
registration, that they then give the builder the option to make it an
E-AB or an E-LSA (assuming it's within the LSA performance envelope).
I'm sure someone will point out that a kit plane not built to ASTM
spec may get an airworthiness, but the FAA will want an A&P inspecting
it every year, to make sure it's safe. But, if you take a E-LSA/ASTM
kit plane, get it built to spec and then get the airworthiness, from
that point on, just about anything could change on it since it's
experimental. So, what's the difference between an E-AB and a heavily
modified E-LSA? If you say you need an A&P to inspect one kind, then
why is a 16-hour class okay for the other?
So, I think there's some bad faith here by the FAA (uh, -more- bad
faith; I'm still pissed about how future UL pilots are gonna get
trained), because the logic of it is faulty.
-- Robert
On 1/24/08, lucien wrote:
>
>
> NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote:
> > The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
> > built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to qualify
> > a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
> > kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More importantly
> > has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
> >
> > My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
> > Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is that
> > if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance on
> > the plane.
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> > Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
> >
> > ---
>
>
> After the deadline, the only version of ELSA that will exist is the "approved
kit" one, where the manufacturer first makes an SLSA version, etc.
> Basically, the requirements for making these are the same as SLSA, since manufacturers
will have to go through the SLSA process to begin with.
>
> So I don't see too many of these appearing in the future or ever.
>
> There are one or two here and there, but I don't remember which they are.
>
> I don't believe Kolb is going to go the ELSA route with their kitplanes (smart
move), so EAB looks like it'll remain the option with them.
>
> As for EAB, the annual condition inspection is the only thing that requires either
the repairman's cert or an AnP. Any and all maintenance can be done my anyone
in the usual way. This is also true for ELSA, since it's also an experimental
certification.
>
> ELSA seems to give a higher resale because of the ability to do the annual CI's
on them after taking the 16 hour class.
>
> SLSA is more like a dwarven Standard category with reduced certification/maint/annual
requirements.
>
> The Kolb flyer looks like Kolb's SLSA entry, but the kitplanes look like they're
remain EAB.....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160218#160218
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
jim wrote:
> Rotax.
>
> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used Regular unleaded
with no problems. Does anybody else out there use regular unleaded?
Ever had any problems?
>
> --------
> Jim
> N. Idaho
>
>
Jim,
Got 775 hr.s on my FireFly using only regular octane 87 with no
ethanol. Same engine, not tear down, just flying using good oil.
Concerned about when the time comes and regular isn't available without
ethanol where I'm at!
Terry - Firefly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Do you have specific concerns wrt ethanol in a 2-stroke?
I've been using 91 octane mogas, sometimes with ethanol. I've not been
aware of any problems other than if gas gets older than a couple months
the engine is hard to start and I don't trust it. I've assumed gas goes
stale mostly because of other ingredients, not ethanol.
-Ben
TK wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
>> Rotax.
>>
>> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used
>> Regular unleaded with no problems. Does anybody else out there use
>> regular unleaded? Ever had any problems?
>>
>> --------
>> Jim
>> N. Idaho
>>
>>
>
> Jim,
>
> Got 775 hr.s on my FireFly using only regular octane 87 with no
> ethanol. Same engine, not tear down, just flying using good oil.
> Concerned about when the time comes and regular isn't available
> without ethanol where I'm at!
>
> Terry - Firefly #95
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Rick Lewis wrote:
> Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now building,
in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I missed the boat or
is the extension your talking about changing the way a completed aircraft is
now registered? I do want to be able to work on the aircraft myself and be able
to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
>
> Rick Lewis
Rick, there is no deadline for Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB). If you built
it, you can register and repair it without taking a repairman course.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160332#160332
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
At 01:22 PM 1/24/2008, beauford T wrote:
>
>The Airplane is a Curtiss Pusher...
>
>Read up on Glenn Curtiss and you will learn more about it.
Also see http://tinyurl.com/37zdoz ; Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome still flies
theirs (a very similar but later model). Twenty feet high the length of
the runway is as far as they ever take it during their airshows, but it's
an awesome sight.
-Dana
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de
Saint-Exup,ry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
At 05:32 PM 1/24/2008, Robert Laird wrote:
>.... it seems to me that if the EAA really wanted to do something
>useful to it's newly minted LSA crowd, they'd petition the FAA so
>that, once a kit plane was finished and gotten it's airworthiness and
>registration, that they then give the builder the option to make it an
>E-AB or an E-LSA (assuming it's within the LSA performance envelope).
>...If you say you need an A&P to inspect one kind, then
>why is a 16-hour class okay for the other?
It's hard to guess why the FAA does many things, but in this case I'd guess
that they figured LSA's are slow, simple aircraft, unlikely to do much
damage if they hit anything, with the basic structure originally, at least,
made to some standard... and thus simple to inspect.
An E-AB, OTOH, can be ANYTHING... bigger, heavier, faster, the potential to
do more damage, an possibly untested structure, so they hold it to a higher
standard. Note that the builder, at least, can get a repairman certificate
(which, if I'm not mistaken, includes the inspection authority) for that
particular aircraft without even taking the 16 hour class.
-Dana
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de
Saint-Exup,ry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
Thanks for the link.
For a great video of the curtiss:
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/action_footage.htm
BB
On 24, Jan 2008, at 8:29 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 01:22 PM 1/24/2008, beauford T wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Airplane is a Curtiss Pusher...
>>
>> Read up on Glenn Curtiss and you will learn more about it.
>
> Also see http://tinyurl.com/37zdoz ; Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome still
> flies theirs (a very similar but later model). Twenty feet high
> the length of the runway is as far as they ever take it during
> their airshows, but it's an awesome sight.
>
> -Dana
> --
> "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
> nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -
> Antoine de Saint-Exup,ry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 02:09 PM 1/24/2008, Jack B. Hart wrote:
>This only so if your reference point is on the ground.
>
>But if your reference point is in the plane, it is the earth that is
>accelerating. This is why John's G meter read 1g over a constant speed
>flight path. The G meter could care less about what the earth was doing or
>the G meter's relation ship to the earth.
It doesn't matter what your reference point is, you can't ignore the Earth,
since the aircraft is being attracted to it by gravity. That force is part
of the vector sum of forces on the aircraft, which must equal zero or else
the aircraft accelerates in the direction of the imbalance-- downward and
inward in the case of coordinated 1g banked turn.
The laws of physics don't vary, but experimental error does.
-Dana
--
The gene pool has no lifeguard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
At 06:57 PM 1/24/2008, Ben Ransom wrote:
>Do you have specific concerns wrt ethanol in a 2-stroke?
>I've been using 91 octane mogas, sometimes with ethanol. I've not been
>aware of any problems other than if gas gets older than a couple months
>the engine is hard to start and I don't trust it. I've assumed gas goes
>stale mostly because of other ingredients, not ethanol.
There are concerns about ethanol's compatibility with rubber parts such as
seals, fuel pumps, and carburetor parts.
Gas goes stale because some of the more volatile components evaporate
out. That's one reason I use avgas in my Cuyuna (that and concerns about
alcohol); avgas is much better controlled as to vapor pressure so it stores
much better... I believe it's supposed to remain good for 2 years.
-Dana
--
The gene pool has no lifeguard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Bill,
You can save 2 lbs. or more going with 4" Azusa wheels ,but the ground
handling wont be as forgiving.
Ed D.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
I'm not suggesting 16-hr repairman courses for E-AB... you've
concluded the opposite of what I meant... One of the main advantages
of E-LSA is that you don't need an A&P, just a 16-hour course to do
the annual condition inspection. A E-LSA can be bought and sold,
bought and sold, bought and sold, and the current owner can do the
annual inspection as long as he took the course and got his repairman
cert for that current plane. What I'm saying is, if you had a kit
plane -- a Kolb for example -- that didn't have an approved S-LSA
"template", then you have no choice but to get it certified as an
E-AB... thus depriving the owner of selling it to someone who doesn't
want to pay the A&P each year, that has already taken the LSA
repairman course. It would be an advantage of the original
builder/owner to be able to offer it up as an E-LSA rather than an
E-AB.
This isn't about E-ABs, this is about E-LSAs. I'm suggesting that a
kit built E-AB that falls inside the LSA category should be able to be
considered an E-LSA if the builder wants it that way (but no going
back). The way the FAA rules are now, you have to wonder why, say, a
RV-8 kit builder should be able to get it certified as an E-AB unless
Vans creates a factory-built RV-8 first.
Clear as mud? :-/
-- Robert
On Jan 24, 2008 7:50 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 05:32 PM 1/24/2008, Robert Laird wrote:
>
> >.... it seems to me that if the EAA really wanted to do something
> >useful to it's newly minted LSA crowd, they'd petition the FAA so
> >that, once a kit plane was finished and gotten it's airworthiness and
> >registration, that they then give the builder the option to make it an
> >E-AB or an E-LSA (assuming it's within the LSA performance envelope).
> >...If you say you need an A&P to inspect one kind, then
> >why is a 16-hour class okay for the other?
>
> It's hard to guess why the FAA does many things, but in this case I'd guess
> that they figured LSA's are slow, simple aircraft, unlikely to do much
> damage if they hit anything, with the basic structure originally, at least,
> made to some standard... and thus simple to inspect.
>
> An E-AB, OTOH, can be ANYTHING... bigger, heavier, faster, the potential to
> do more damage, an possibly untested structure, so they hold it to a higher
> standard. Note that the builder, at least, can get a repairman certificate
> (which, if I'm not mistaken, includes the inspection authority) for that
> particular aircraft without even taking the 16 hour class.
>
> -Dana
> --
> "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
> left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de
> Saint-Exup,ry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
I know this one has been beat to death - I would expect nothing less
from all of us on this list. Nevertheless, I still have enjoyed reading
it and it made me think a lot about good piloting skills. I agree with
Mike and Dana as far as the theory goes, but I also believe that Tom and
John's experience shows that for moderate bank angles the additional
g-load is near negligible. One thing I've noticed, by the way, is that
many of us tend to over estimate our bank angle. When I've done true
30-degree banks on the gyro it sure felt a lot steeper than that.
I suspect you may get the highest g-load when you pull-out of your
descent on the turn to final, also when you are least likely to have
your eyes on the g-meter - but a very smooth technique could minimize
that. I think that maintaining constant airspeed is a very important
discipline to develop. I know I will be practicing this technique next
time I can get flying.
Dan G.
503 F2
Tucson
The Kuffels wrote:
>
> Dana,
>
> << Since you're _accelerating_ downward your descent rate will
> continue to increase, as will your airspeed. >>
>
> Taint so on the second part. Your decent rate will increase slightly
> until the vertical component of your drag cancels the loss of vertical
> lift (if you turn long enough). But your airspeed is your velocity
> forward, almost orthogonal to vertical. In non-aerobatic flight it is
> a simple matter to adjust your airspeed and accept the resulting
> descent rate.
>
> And I say again, your vertical accelerations are a secondary effect.
> Even a 500 feet/min descent is less than 1 percent of your forward
> velocity at 60 mph. And a change in descent rate from 250 to 500
> ft/min is a change in your vertical velocity of less than 3 mph. This
> is well within the ability of any pilot to compensate as he maintains
> constant *forward* airspeed.
>
> High-g pullout examples don't apply here because they involve large
> changes in airspeed, power or vertical speed.
>
> Go try it for yourself. In a simulated turn to final, holding
> constant airspeed results in a 1g maneuver no matter what bank angle
> (within reason, say 60 degrees).
>
> Tom Kuffel
> Whitefish, MT
> Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="John Hauck]
Guess the only way to convince you is take you for a ride. ;-)
john h
mkIII[/quote]
I want a Ride !!!! I would love to see how John flys his Kolb from inside his
plane :)
This topic has been beat to death, but in this case its a good thing. I am willing
to bet there will be a lot of people practicing engine out turns to final
in the coming days. I know I will be trying it the next chance I get.
So if we all get some more practice, and get better and flying our Kolbs engine
out, its all good.
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=160362#160362
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
In a message dated 1/24/2008 6:35:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tkrolfe(at)toast.net writes:
Got 775 hr.s on my FireFly
Hi Terry,
Wow! I know you fly a lot, but that is a lot of hours. When did you start
flying that FireFly? I also use regular grade fuel per the Rotax 447
operators manual. Also, in NJ, all automobile pump gas is mandated to contain
up to
10% ethanol. So far I haven't had any problems using it and it does contain
ethanol.
One other item about fuel for 2-strokes. Most 2-cycle engine manufacturers
(leaf blowers and such) caution/recommend against using oil/mixed fuel after
it has sit for a couple of weeks. Well, I found this to be impractical to
do. I mean, what do you do with unused mixed fuel? You have to PAY to have it
disposed of, or maybe you could use it in your OLD car (not my new one).
Anyway, I disregarded the caution and used the old fuel. Guess what, in 13
years of flying, nary a problem cropped up. In fact, one buddy went on vacation
for three months, and when he returned, took his Kolb out for a flight with
old gas and no problem. Now, I am not recommending anyone follow our
practice, but we have had trouble free performance. So Far :)
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Measly 480 hrs since 94
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick approaches |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I do the same thing with My MK III when landing, if it is looking a bit high,
all I have to do is drop the nose, increase speed to 70 for a little high, 80
for way high, and it drops like a rock and before I know it I am no longer high
:)
On a draggy, light airplane like a Kolb, speed bleeds off almost instantly when
the nose is pulled 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=160363#160363
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
also when you are least likely to have your eyes on the g-meter
Dan G.
Dan G:
With a recording needle (don't know what the actual name fo the third
needle is) don't have to keep my eye on the g meter.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
Hi,
all this talk about gravity and `G` forces reminds me of a one liner
someone sent to me recently.
`The World may suck, but if it didn`t we would all fly off``
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick approaches |
I do however doubt that I will give a RATS ASS if I do happen to
exceed one G.>>
Hi,
Did I miss something?. What is all this sudden interest in G loads? The
makers spec for the Mark3 is +4g -2g (limit +6g -3g) You would have
to seriously mishandle things to register those figures Limits for other
planes in the Kolb stable are probably similar
Of course if you drive your plane flat out into a barn its a whole
different ball game......
Cheers
Pat (In a very wet UK with a plane ready to fly and a field under
water.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flykolb" <flykolb(at)wowway.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III for sale |
I have a Kolb Mark III which has been rebuilt by an A&P who is also a
machinist for US Airways, It has been stripped to the metal, powder
coated, recovered, and painted. It has a BRS, a custom gas tank with 15+
gal capacity, new panel, etc. It will be almost like new - or better
than new in some respects.
It has a Rotax 532 (65hp). .
It is located in Concord, NC (near Charlotte). I left it there for
restoring when I moved to Michigan and I am not going to be able to keep
it up here. I've had lots of great flights in it!
I added up the cost for a new Kolb Mark III Classic on The New Kolb
Company and got a total of $22,000 for the kit including what is on my
plane. That is without engine or instruments and without the time and
tools needed to build it. $16,900. It is N numbered and makes a great
light sport plane!
Give me a call if you might be interested. I have pictures available.
Jim
1-800-383-1868
Mt. Clemens, Mi
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Thanks for the info, guys. I checked my fuel system, and everything was okay.
Tried to start it- no good. had to get help, and put an in-line spark checker
at the plug- no spark. I found a funny switch under the seat cushion, right near
the BRS handle. It was wired to the kill switch. There was a very small (1/4")
red hard dot in the center, and it wouldn't move. Took it apart- It was a
push kill switch, and the rubber in the center had jammed the push button down.
Took it out and threw away. Engine started first pull, and more weight gone.
Even new, I would have had to take a pen or something to use it. I don't know
what someone was thinking.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | G Meter Question |
John,
When you bent your landing gear, what did your G meter read?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: G Meter Question |
> When you bent your landing gear, what did your G meter read?
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack:
G Meter readings on the ground are almost frightening.
A hard landing will max out the g meter.
The other day when I was experiementing with 1 g glides, the wind and
weather was perfect. My last landing was going to be a greaser as I eased
it on the grass. Thought I was going to see a 1 g landing, but just as I
barely touched down, it hit 2 g's.
I have been flying with a certified g meter since my Ultrastar days. I
liked to fly aerobatics in the US and FS. The g meter helped me to be
honest and was fun to experiement with. Of course, it did not prevent me
from wearing out the FS before it was all over.
Now days it keeps me informed of how badly I am flying or how much I am
getting beaten up.
I'll have to make a mental note of max readings on the g meter, + and -.
But hard landings will certainly max it out.
john h
mkIII 19F and rising.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> Do you have specific concerns wrt ethanol in a 2-stroke?
> I've been using 91 octane mogas, sometimes with ethanol. I've not
> been aware of any problems other than if gas gets older than a couple
> months the engine is hard to start and I don't trust it. I've assumed
> gas goes stale mostly because of other ingredients, not ethanol.
> -Ben
>
> TK wrote:
Ben, Bill,
I am fortunate to still be able to get 87 octane without ethanol. As
mentioned, the concern is with the effect ethanol has on seals and pump
and carburetor parts. Also for what I believe it will do to my EGT's.
I will probably have to richen up my carb setting when I'm forced to use
the ethanol. I have my 447 tuned to get a two gallon to an hour burn
rate and hate to have to change.
As far as old gas! I usually don't have gas around too long, try to fly
as much as possible. Have used gas that was 2 to 3 months old without
any noticeable problem or change of readings. Can't afford to through
out liquid gold with very expensive mixing oil in it. !!!!
Looking for some decent flying weather next week. Cold & windy here
right now,
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Did you have any problems with control in turbulence that severe ? What speed
were you flying at.
3.5 and -2 is more than I expected. What kinds of loads do you see on a typical
summer day in the southeast, when you are getting beat up, but the turbulence
is knocking you around but not severe ?
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=160408#160408
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: G Meter Question |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I never really thought about a G meter in my Kolb, but the more I think about it
the more I would like to get one. It would be interesting to see the loads
of turbulence, wake, landings etc. and like John H , when it just gets to bad
you need to land !
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=160411#160411
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "beauford T" <beauford173(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Terry:
You are getting about 50% better fuel burn out of your 447 than
I have managed.... Mine burns slightly over three gal/hr with the stock
jets and needle... What jetting are you running and what RPM do you
cruise yours at...?
Envious beauford
FF076
Brandon, FL
-------------------------
I have my 447 tuned to get a two gallon to an hour burn
rate and hate to have to change.
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
> Did you have any problems with control in turbulence that severe ? What speed
were you flying at.
>
>
> 3.5 and -2 is more than I expected. What kinds of loads do you see on a typical
summer day in the southeast, when you are getting beat up, but the turbulence
is knocking you around but not severe ?
>
> Mike
For what it's worth,
I got into stuff similar to this in the FS II in a flight in TX. At one point I
had the stick all the way over to the left and the left pedal all the way down
and the plane was still going to the right. Got down on the ground ASAP to say
the least.
When I flew my titan back from nebraska last spring, I was in heavy turbs over
almost all of Kansas (clear, warm day). My stuff in the back seat was tied down,
but I was occassionally being tossed up into the straps .Altitude excursions
were 200' sometimes and unwanted bank angles up to 20 or more degress would
happen.
Even slowed down sometimes to 85mph to keep the hammering down, I don't recall
ever having to put any control to a stop.
But... my point being...... I'm with John on this - when it gets like that I prefer
to be on the ground ;). I pressed on because there were no airports and I
was still well in control of the plane, but I was eying alternative landing spots
on the GPS and the charts in case it kept getting worse.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160418#160418
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Mine burns slightly over three gal/hr with the stock
> jets and needle...
> Envious beauford
Beauford T:
I consistantly burned 3.5 to 3.75 gph in my old point ign 447 turning 5800
rpm on long cross country flights.
Around the patch, about half that.
john h
mkIII - Heading to Woodville, FL, and parts south, like Panacea to pick me
up a bushel of oysters. ;-) Life is good.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
> Did you have any problems with control in turbulence that severe ? What
> speed were you flying at.
>
>
> 3.5 and -2 is more than I expected. What kinds of loads do you see on a
> typical summer day in the southeast, when you are getting beat up, but the
> turbulence is knocking you around but not severe ?
>
> Mike
Mike B:
No control problems, for the most part, but does get exciting at times.
Normally slow down from 85 mph to what ever is most comfortable for me and
the mkIII.
Turbulence in the SE? Tubulence is tubulence. Some greater than others. I
don't know haven't paid that much attention to it.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> Mike B:
>
> No control problems, for the most part, but does get exciting at times.
>
> Normally slow down from 85 mph to what ever is most comfortable for me and
> the mkIII.
>
> Turbulence in the SE? Tubulence is tubulence. Some greater than others. I
> don't know haven't paid that much attention to it.
>
> john h
> mkIII
I can sort of answer this.
Lived in central TX for 30 years, did all my flying there until a year ago when
I moved to northern new mexico.
judging by the FS II, the turbulence here I would say is significantly worse especially
when the wind puts you downwind of some mountain range (obviously). When
the wind blows, it blows a fair bit harder.
However, we get a lot more breaks here for a lot larger part of the year. Also
the weather and climate is so much better you don't really care - you're just
so happy to not be covered with sweat and being eaten alive by fire ants while
on the ground a little more wind doesn't bug you that bad.
I'd have to say here in the southern rockies most of the turbulence aloft is mechanical
turbs off the mountains. on a recent trip to taos, I hit some really
strong turbs aloft and sure enough the mountains to the NW were right in between
me and the wind. That stuff was bad enough that I decided to turn around.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160427#160427
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Hey All, Beauford and Terry..
Looking at my Firefly log..Best fuel burn was 2 gal hr.. had a
tail wind going down and 2.55 gal hr coming back.. Seem to average
2.75 or there bouts..Stock carb and jets.. The worst that I see is 3.05..
I noticed , flying with a buddy who has a Firefly, that he was
flying with the tail somewhat lower than I... Early on, I found that
the Fly has a "step" and with some finess and careful
attention,(don't have much of either at 64! ) I could keep it
there...No doubt the full enclosure helps .. Bit of a cruise setting
on my IVO too.. 62 inch two blade.. When flying with others... tend
to cruise at abt 5200 and by myself...57 to 5800.. Herb
At 09:42 AM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
>
>Terry:
>You are getting about 50% better fuel burn out of your 447 than
>I have managed.... Mine burns slightly over three gal/hr with the stock
>jets and needle... What jetting are you running and what RPM do you
>cruise yours at...?
>
>Envious beauford
>FF076
>Brandon, FL
>
>-------------------------
> I have my 447 tuned to get a two gallon to an hour burn
>rate and hate to have to change.
>
>
>Terry - FireFly #95
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Three view drawing of the Mk. 3 |
All, Well, now I've done it. The DAR will be here in two hours to sign off
Zulu Delta and I haven't got a picture or a drawing of her. The wind is
blowing so strong I don't dare open the hangar doors to get enough light to
take a picture. Anybody got a three view drawing of the Mk.3?
Thanks,
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
>
> As far as old gas! I usually don't have gas around too long, try to fly
> as much as possible. Have used gas that was 2 to 3 months old without any
> noticeable problem or change of readings. Can't afford to through out
> liquid gold with very expensive mixing oil in it. !!!!
You should give some consideration to adding 2 oz of "Sta Bil" per 5
gallons of gas. It does work and has not harmed anything that I have ever
used it in. I use it in lawn mowers, tractors, rototillers and Rotax. The
difference in the smell of gas with Sta bil and without is very noticeable.
I used to use my "old" gas from the plane in my lawn mowers or the car. The
last time I used some untreated gas that had been setting in the plane for a
too long time in the tractor, I had to add twice as much fresh gas just to
get it to pull its self along. Sta bil does work and do what it says.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Travis Brown (Kolb Aircraft)" <travis(at)tnkolbaircraft.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Three view drawing of the Mk. 3 |
Rick,
Will get one e-mailed to you right away!
Ken Bryant
The New Kolb Aircraft
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Three view drawing of the Mk. 3
All, Well, now I've done it. The DAR will be here in two hours to sign
off Zulu Delta and I haven't got a picture or a drawing of her. The wind
is blowing so strong I don't dare open the hangar doors to get enough
light to take a picture. Anybody got a three view drawing of the Mk.3?
Thanks,
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Sounds a bit odd to me that you're getting such a wide ranging fuel burn
rate Herb. It will hinge on things such as prop load, rpm, jetting, but
wind of course is irrelevant. Enclosure, or tail high or low would be a
minor influence on prop load, so indirectly influence GPH.
I've perhaps underestimated the idea as Terry suggests that ethanol
could be contributing to poorer fuel rate or a need to jet richer. I
know ethanol has less power than gasoline, but do we know that it makes
an engine run hotter?
-Ben
herb wrote:
>
> Hey All, Beauford and Terry..
>
> Looking at my Firefly log..Best fuel burn was 2 gal hr.. had a tail
> wind going down and 2.55 gal hr coming back.. Seem to average 2.75 or
> there bouts..Stock carb and jets.. The worst that I see is 3.05..
>
> I noticed , flying with a buddy who has a Firefly, that he was
> flying with the tail somewhat lower than I... Early on, I found that
> the Fly has a "step" and with some finess and careful attention,(don't
> have much of either at 64! ) I could keep it there...No doubt the
> full enclosure helps .. Bit of a cruise setting on my IVO too.. 62
> inch two blade.. When flying with others... tend to cruise at abt 5200
> and by myself...57 to 5800.. Herb
>
> At 09:42 AM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
>>
>> Terry:
>> You are getting about 50% better fuel burn out of your 447 than
>> I have managed.... Mine burns slightly over three gal/hr with the stock
>> jets and needle... What jetting are you running and what RPM do you
>> cruise yours at...?
>>
>> Envious beauford
>> FF076
>> Brandon, FL
January 09, 2008 - January 25, 2008
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-hd