Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-he
January 25, 2008 - February 11, 2008
>>
>> -------------------------
>> 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: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
At 10:20 PM 1/24/2008, Robert Laird wrote:
>
>I'm not suggesting 16-hr repairman courses for E-AB...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...
I wasn't suggesting that, either. I was only saying that any E-AB, even if
it falls within the LSA restrictions, may have a less ordinary construction
that an approved LSA kit, and less (or no) factory support, so the FAA
probably wants a more experienced mechanic than a 16 hour class graduate
doing the inspections.
Note that the original builder can still get the repairman certificate
without _any_ class. That doesn't help subsequent owners, but most
builders build for their own use, not resale.
-Dana
--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
I don't disagree with "...so the FAA probably wants a more experienced
mechanic than a 16 hour class graduate doing the inspections..."
Obviously, that's how the FAA feels about it.
I'm suggesting that a DAR or FAA inspector who grants, for example, an
E-LSA airworthiness certificate to a Kolb MkIII in 2007, should be
able to grant an E-LSA airworthiness certificate to a Kolb MkIII in
(post-Jan-31) 2008. I don't see any difference or logical or
practical reason, except for a mandate on paper.
-- Robert
On 1/25/08, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 10:20 PM 1/24/2008, Robert Laird wrote:
> >
> >I'm not suggesting 16-hr repairman courses for E-AB...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...
>
> I wasn't suggesting that, either. I was only saying that any E-AB, even if
> it falls within the LSA restrictions, may have a less ordinary construction
> that an approved LSA kit, and less (or no) factory support, so the FAA
> probably wants a more experienced mechanic than a 16 hour class graduate
> doing the inspections.
>
> Note that the original builder can still get the repairman certificate
> without _any_ class. That doesn't help subsequent owners, but most
> builders build for their own use, not resale.
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
beauford T 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
>
beauford T,
I use the 11G2 needle in the second notch from the bottom, standard
jets. I typically cruise at 5,000 to 5,200 rpm. Beautiful Amish
country side to see around here and I'm in no rush taking in the
scenery. I swing a Tennessee two blade wood prop which was stock for
the FireFly from the Old Kolb Co.
Hope this helps,
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com wrote:
> 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.
>
Bill,
Started flying Aug. 99 . Been trying to make up for lost years!!! I'm
a piker compared to my flying buddy, Willie. He has put almost 1,000 on
his FireStar in 3 1/2 years! You met him at Homer's. He is the one with
the orange wings and tail and is known as the "Candy Man".
Terry - Firefly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | The Inspection, or; Please, just shoot me |
The inspector just left. He has my airworthiness certificates and will send
them to me when I finish up with the short list of problems. He's a nice
guy, charged me $40 extra for driving 3 1/2 hours to do the inspections so I
wouldn't have to haul the Firestar and the Mk. 3 on an open trailer. The
whole bill for both airplanes was $500. I know many DAR's charge that much
for one airplane.
The last thing I had to do on the Mk.3 was put new batteries in the ELT. The
ones that were in it were good to 2010, but I wanted to be extra careful in
case he wanted me to activate it. The ELT had been switched off since I
started working on the Mk. 3. When I opened it up there was corrosion and
liquid goo sliming up the entire battery compartment. Luckily, I had a brand
new Ameri-King sitting on the shelf. I bought it for the trike before I read
FAR 91.207 carefully and found that it say airplane, not aircraft. He let me
go on that one.
The passenger warning sticker I had said ...blah, blah, blah..amateur
built...blah....instead of light sport aircraft. I actually found that one
and pointed it out....Ding!
I fixed the missing red line on the new tach. Ding, but fixed.
For all the help you all offered with drawings, he still wants a picture of
the tail with the N number. Ding.
For the Firestar, I called him yesterday to ask if it would be okay to fold
it up because the weather was supposed to be an ice storm in the morning. No
problem. Folded it up and put it in the carport. No ice storm, but major
winds that is still beating the crap out of the wings and tail, and it was
impossible to fold it out to read the N number and DEA tag. God only knows
how much damage there will be to the fabric, I found two spots where the
rubatex padding had blown away and the fabric now has a hole. I have all the
polyfiber stuff and a few yards of fabric, just more work. If I had left it
in the wind shadow of the house, everything would have been fine. D***.
Thank God for the bottle of 18 year old single malt in the pantry. I've had
it for two years and it's about 2/3 full. It may be empty in an hour or so.
:-)
Thanks, to all who sent drawings and suggestions. I didn't want to cut up my
plans to use the drawing and it wouldn't fit in my scanner.
Okay, I fell much better now, and that bottle of Scotch is calling my name.
Thanks again, guys.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
rlaird wrote:
> I don't disagree with "...so the FAA probably wants a more experienced
> mechanic than a 16 hour class graduate doing the inspections..."
> Obviously, that's how the FAA feels about it.
>
> I'm suggesting that a DAR or FAA inspector who grants, for example, an
> E-LSA airworthiness certificate to a Kolb MkIII in 2007, should be
> able to grant an E-LSA airworthiness certificate to a Kolb MkIII in
> (post-Jan-31) 2008. I don't see any difference or logical or
> practical reason, except for a mandate on paper.
>
> -- Robert
>
Personally, I don't see why FnAA went to the trouble of ELSA at all. I suspect
the time-bombed one was simply a pretense to make it all look applicable to UL's
and 2-place UL-like "aircraft" as stated in the preamble to the NPRM.
But now that we know it's not, I don't see any use whatsoever for the "approved
kit" ELSA category - the cost and trouble to the manufacturer is the same if
not more and really, SLSA was the real meat of LSA anyway.
And you can "downgrade" the certification to ELSA from SLSA as well - that's the
only use for the category now that I can see...
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160495#160495
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Since the subject has come up, maybe y'all can help an old boater with a
question. A few months ago the injectors on my 50 hp 2 stroke outboard
fouled and speed was reduced. In the local NAPA store, I saw - among
other remedies - a stock of SeaFoam. (sorry, gotta do this) Thinking
about the foofahrah on the List about that stuff, but remembering the
good things said, I grinned, bought a can and added it to the 19 gal
boat tank. Gas was fresh.
After about hour, instead of speeding up, all of a sudden the engine
bogged right down and quit. Hadta come back in on the kicker motor. I
*assume* the seafoam broke some gunk loose that worsened the restricted
injectors.
My question - will that stuff act as a stabilizer, or should I pour the
gas into my VW and put fresh gas with Sta-Bil in the boat tank ?? Will
it continue to dissolve the deposits in the injectors ?? Will it hurt
the 8 hp 4 stroke kicker motor ?? Haven't had time to get the boat to a
shop, so it's gonna sit there for the winter. Lar.
P.S. Kolb related in that the answers may help a 2 stroke Kolb-er.
Larry Cottrell wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>
>
--
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
Building Kolb Mk III
"Vamoose"
www.gogittum.com
www.gogittum.com/blog
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
At 05:21 PM 1/25/2008, lucien wrote:
>Personally, I don't see why FnAA went to the trouble of ELSA at all. I
>suspect the time-bombed one was simply a pretense to make it all look
>applicable to UL's and 2-place UL-like "aircraft" as stated in the
>preamble to the NPRM.
Pretty much... though there may well have been a few types in the FAA (who
really should get out more) who really believed that we'd all trade our
ultralights for LSA's if they'd just shave a few hours off the Private
requirements.
>But now that we know it's not, I don't see any use whatsoever for the
>"approved kit" ELSA category...
A few manufacturers will find it useful. Aircraft like Quicksilver (they
have an "approved" kit yet?) that can be easily bolted together in a couple
of days fit that category (saves shipping costs of an assembled plane from
the factory), but that's about it.
Hopefully the FAA will realize that they've killed the ultralight training
system. When they see how few BFI's go and become CFI's, they'll have to
do something. What the industry needs is a new "training exemption" (or
write it into the regs): Let pilots with at least a Sport Pilot
certificate (so they can already legally carry passengers), flying any LSA
aircraft, who get some additional training (like the BFI program), provide
primary instruction (for a fee, which ordinarily a SP couldn't do). Not
that informal instruction doesn't happen now anyway, but this would
legitimize it for the small operators.
-Dana
--
Mary had a little lamb. The doctor was very surprised.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
So Lar, not to change the subject, but what are you going to do with your mark
III out at KSAF?
Dunno if you ever get out to the airport but I try to keep an eye on it, as I'm
out at the airport all the time... I usually stroll by to make sure nothing's
hit it or anything's walked off....
Sure would be great to have another flying light a/c out there, only a couple of
us at this point. And that plane would be a sight. The controllers just loved
the FS II when I had it....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160510#160510
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bourne <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
It appears that it might start warming up a bit soon, and I'll be out
there to start cleaning it up and preparing for a new engine. Anyone
want to buy 5 acres with a tremendous view in Yucca Valley, CA ?? Price
is dropping for a quick sale. :-) When that sells, the new engine
will soon come along.
I still need answers to the questions in my original
post. Lar.
lucien wrote:
>
> So Lar, not to change the subject, but what are you going to do with your mark
III out at KSAF?
>
> Dunno if you ever get out to the airport but I try to keep an eye on it, as I'm
out at the airport all the time... I usually stroll by to make sure nothing's
hit it or anything's walked off....
>
> Sure would be great to have another flying light a/c out there, only a couple
of us at this point. And that plane would be a sight. The controllers just loved
the FS II when I had it....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160510#160510
>
>
>
--
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
Building Kolb Mk III
"Vamoose"
www.gogittum.com
www.gogittum.com/blog
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
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
Actually, the 'repairman's certificate' is *only* for inspection
(condition inspection) authority. With E-AB, anyone can do maintenance,
repairs, and modifications.
As far as the A&P requirement for E-AB, that's a logical (hard to
believe, I know) response to the recognition that the original
builder/repairman certificate holder may not always be around or
available. Note that an IA ticket is not required like factory planes;
just an A&P ticket. Remember, E-AB rules are decades old; created long
before the LSA concept was even a gleam in some EAAer's eye.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Folks we had that discussion a couple of years ago. What I've done back then is
take a bunch of nitrile o-rings and some other rubber parts including silicon
and stuck them in a jar of E-85. There has not been any observed degradation
in two years.
What does it mean, I am not sure but some alcohol does not seem to destroy the
regular rubber stuff that we buy in automotive stores. I guess we can start buying
viton O-rings during replacements and that would solve the alcohol concerns.
Ron (Arizona)
======================
---- Dana Hague wrote:
============
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.
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
the Earth sucks.>>
Hi Bob,
I did hear that helicopters don`t really fly. They are just so damned
ugly that the Earth repels them.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For all 912 users |
| From: | "kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net> |
[Laughing]
--------
Kevin
N701DZ Reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160546#160546
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
In Newzealand I think we use the RON system. I have always either used 91
lead free or avgas or a mixture of both . 500 plus hrs on 503s no problems.
Only difference is that the 503 seems to run cooler on avgas and idle a
little smoother .No performance difference.
Tony
MK111 classic
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Inadvertent spins |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com> |
I've been reading several recent articles about spins. The latest was a piece in
the AOPA Pilot written by Barry Schiff (December 07). Has any Kolb owners got
themselves into a situation that resulted in a inadvertent spin? Any words of
advise on what / how to avoid them? It looks like a spin in a landing situation
is non recoverable, ie. fatal? I guess the last question, do any of you practice
spins in your Kolb?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160656#160656
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inadvertent spins |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
John:
I have practiced spins in my KXP both to the left and right. Recovery is within
1/4 turn with relaxation of back pressure and release of crossed controls.
I had to force the plane to get it to spin. I experimented by doing approach
stalls while holding increasing amounts of cross control. I was able to get
the Firestar to drop a wing this way, but it really didn't want to spin. I had
to sharpen the stall break and put in maximum control to get it to go around.
When it does spin, it rotates quickly!
I should add, that the manual that came with my kit advised against spins.
Waiting for the rain and fog to lift.........
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160667#160667
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
I have used both regular and supreme (premium) in my 503. The regular seems to
give me a little lower EGT's (about 40-50deg). I use regular when I know the
fuel will not be sitting in the tank for an extended period. I use the premium
when my schedule is hectic or the weather is iffy and I don't know when I will
get to fly next. I fill up after every flight to keep the tank full to prevent
condensation. I also use Sta-Bil as Larry C. mentioned. It does a great
job; even the left over premix in my empty cans smells fresh after several months.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160668#160668
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | re: inadvertent spins |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Has any Kolb owners got themselves into a situation that resulted in a
inadvertent spin? Any words of advise on what / how to avoid them? It looks
like a spin in a landing situation is non recoverable, i.e. fatal? I guess
the last question, do any of you practice spins in your Kolb?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did a few spins during the test phase just to see how it would respond...
each time the mark III recovered very nicely, I did not have to go to
opposite controls... just relax the controls and it came right out.. at
first I recovered at the first sign of the spin.. and progressed to a fully
developed spin. All without problems... that day was the first and last day
I have ever done spin practice in the kolb..... in order to get into the
spin I had to really try to get into one by forcing a lot of rudder at the
stall... it would be hard to get into a spin without ignoring the warning
signs. I have stalled the kolb many times and if you keep the nose pointing
straight with use of the rudder and relax the back pressure when you feel
the stall buffeting, you are not likely to spin. Depending on the power
setting you will even get some different sounds from the prop as you
approach stall. Just keep your speed up and you should not stall to a
spin... I hear of pilots that fly base to final at just above stall....
to me that is asking for trouble, low level wind sheers, momentary loss of
attention, etc, will cause problems.... these planes will lose their
airspeed so quickly in a flair, that I fly fast all the way to the flair.
Now if you have to come into a very short field... you would slow down a
bit sooner, but anything 1000 ft or more, keep your speed up. The time
when you are going to mess up is when you are coming into a field that you
have used 1000 times before, you put yourself in kind of an autopilot mode
and don't pay as much attention to details as you should... when you are
out of your element you will be paying more attention and have a better
chance of survival.
Now because my plane exited from a spin without issue!!!!! Please don't
try it without proper training, safety chute, etc,, your mileage may vary.
Stall spins have and will kill pilots flying all makes and models of planes.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jimmy Young" <jdy100(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | HKS on a Slingshot |
Hello to all,
I thought this might be of interest to a lot of Kolb List folks. Friday
I was in Florida to see an HKS 700 installation on a Slingshot at
Greensky Adventures. Jerry Olenik, the owner of Greensky, took the time
to give me a tour and he took the plane up for a loop around the pattern
while I watched from his Rotax 377-powered golf cart off the runway. I
thought it was pretty impressive. The engine looks and sounds great on
that Slingshot, and the winds were up there in the 20 mph range as a
cold front had blown thru that morning.
Click here to see a few pics. Enjoy!
www.flickr.com/photos/jdy12755
Jimmy Young
FS II
Houston
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Slingshot |
| From: | "Mnflyer" <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi jimmy great photos looks like a nice installation. The HKS is a great engine
I have over 200 hrs flying behind one.
--------
GB
MNFlyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160771#160771
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I would not worry a bit about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight. Sure, there well
be many that say " Its not legal " , or " The law is the law ".... etc.
etc. But you will see those same people going slightly over the speed limit
and not thinking twice about it.
15 pounds is inconsequential given a 254 pound limit. I say only an anal idiot
would worry about 15 pounds, lets put this into perspective. Its only 6 % over
the limit.
If you were driving 58 MPH in a 55 MPH Zone, which is 6 % over the limit, and someone
complained that you were speeding, what would you say ??? If you given
a ticket for doing 58 MPH in a 55 zone, I guarantee that you would be telling
everyone you knew what BS it was to get a ticket for just 3 MPH over... Just
about as stupid as worrying about 15 pounds, or 6 % extra on an ultralight
no ?
As far as safety, you are far more likely to hurt someone else by doing 58 MPH
in a 55 Zone in your car than you ever would be to hurt anyone or anything by
having 15 extra pounds on an ultralight. So its nothing short of hypocritical
for people say " The law is the law ", unless they never break the speed limit
by more than 3 MPH, there is far more danger in that.
People tend to get super anal when it comes to aviation, and yes they are idiots.
In reality if you are the type that is super paranoid, super legal, and worried
about causing an accident, NEVER go more than 3 MPH over the limit, because
this is something that is far more likely to hurt yourself and others than
having 15 extra pounds on your Firestar.
Anyone on this list that never drives 3 MPH over the limit ? I didn't think so...
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=160801#160801
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
In a message dated 1/28/2008 3:34:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
orcabonita(at)hotmail.com writes:
I say only an anal idiot would worry about 15 pounds
I think you are missing the point here Mike, To me, it is not a matter of
right or wrong, but rather a challenge. I enjoy the challenge of putting
somethng together that performs well and meets the guidelines of a category.
Sometimes the FAA gives you limits and sometimes nature or physics does. Now
if
the category is poorly defined or has loopholes then I have no problem
exploiting them.
Now is almost 254# like almost not pregnant? The tires almost needed to be
replaced / I almost replaced them
I hope to have Firefly on Floats #2 less than 338# done for SnF 08, Hope to
see you there,
Anal and not so bright in Florida, :-)
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: | "Edward Bonsell" <ebonsell(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi All,
I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made cables did
you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind them off?
Thanks,
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the cable
passes over the cut.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Edward Bonsell wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind
> them off?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
Ed, I use my Felco F-9 cable cutters to trim the ears. I cut from the inside
of the thimble out and there is no burr left to dress where the cable
touches.
If you haven't made cables before, go to AC 43.13-1B "Aircraft Inspection,
Repair and Alteration Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices" pages
7-32 and 7-33 for instruction on how to use Nicopress ovals. Use the proper
tool and inspect each swage with the proper gauge.
Rick Girard
On Jan 28, 2008 7:51 AM, Richard Pike wrote:
>
> Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the cable
> passes over the cut.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Edward Bonsell wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> > cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind
> > them off?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
I flew my overweight, overspeed, over fuel capacity KXP as an ultralight since
1999. I stayed to the spirit of the law; no brakes, no electric start, empty
weight of 292# with a 503. I stayed out of trouble, gave way to GA aircraft in
the pattern etc. If not for the sport pilot rule change shining the spotlight
on all of us, I probably would still be flying that way.
Over time, I made many small changes. I added side doors, a little carpeting,
extended range tanks, radio and GPS mounts and battery, new wheels, tires, and
brakes. Gradually, I moved further and further away from being an ultralight.
When sport pilot came out, I decided to take the opportunity to legitimize my
unregistered aircraft and quit looking over my shoulder.
It is a personal decision that you must make for yourself. If you are only going
to fly around the local patch and nearby non-controlled fields, you will PROBABLY
never get checked. If you ever want to take your plane to a fly-in or
have a cross-country adventure, your odds of getting caught go up. Just don't
kid yourself that you are an ultralight. If you are overweight, or have a top
speed over the limit, or a stall speed above the limit, you are flying an unregistered
aircraft. It is kind of like driving around without a drivers license.
Unless you get pulled over, or have an accident, everyone just assumes you
are legal, but it gets tiring keeping one eye glued to the rear-view mirror.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160868#160868
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
15 pounds is inconsequential given a 254 pound limit. I say only an anal
idiot would worry about 15 pounds>>
I am all for pushing the limits a bit but if the law says `that is the
limit` then that is it.
I am sure it must be something similar in the US but here in the |UK the
whole point of a weight limit is not that it is dangerous to exceed the
limit ot that it will make your flying less safe it is the simple fact that
above a certain weight the plane is no longer classed as an ultralight and
must then conform to the same rules as GA..
That automatically means that you are no longer entitled to the breaks in
the maintenance schedules which are enjoyed by the ultralight category. You
will have to pay a `certified` mechanic to carry out anything but the
smallest job on the plane
The flying medical which for an ulralight pilot here is signed off by your
local doctor for about 20 will revert to a full light aircraft category
medical by an `approved` doctor and will be around 180/200. . Most
important of all is the fact that your insurance will be invalid. Of course
if you are the type who habitually drives a car without insurance then there
is no point in talking and you should be locked up for the general good of
society.
The comparison to breaking the speed limit is puerile. Your car license and
insurance will not become invalid if you go over 30 mph.
The rules and regs governing ultralights have been hard fought for here in
the UK and probably in the USA too. Because ultralight pilots generally have
stuck to the rules and been professional in their conduct they are now
welcomed by nearly all airfields, big and small. That was not the case a few
years ago when we were looked on as hairy arsed. bikers of the sky.
If the weight limit is too low, and as our planes have become more
sophisticated, acquired bigger engines, electronics etc., that may well be
so then get the legislation changed, as we have here, not just pretend it
doesn`t exist. The FAA isnt going to go away but they could ground everyone
with a stroke of the pen.
Life is not a box of chocolates. It is more like a jar of jalapenos.
Something you eat today may come back and roast your bum tomorrow.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> I am all for pushing the limits a bit but if the law says `that is the
> limit` then that is it.
>
> Pat
Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58 MPH, and if due
to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be changed, then legislation should
be introduced, don't pretend it does not exist. Sound familiar ???
You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by speeding than by being
15 pounds overweight in with your ultralight. As for image, no one will
ever know if your ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier for
others to see you speeding.
When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply the same standard
to every day life, its just plain stupid and hypocritical to worry about
15 pounds overweight in an ultralight and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit
or more on a regular basis and think its OK.
You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more importantly,
you are unable to recognize which is more important and more likely to result
in damage to property and others, which is the basis for ALL these rules we live
by.
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=160887#160887
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 07:27 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 1/28/2008 3:34:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>orcabonita(at)hotmail.com writes:
>I say only an anal idiot would worry about 15 pounds
The thing is that after Jan 31, your fat ultralight will stand out a lot
more that it use to "without N-numbers". Use to be hardly anyone had them,
even the two seaters. Now - you will be a lot more conspicuous out there on the
tarmac.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Consistent? It appears to me that your talking points are mixing apples
with oranges with bananas.
I seriously doubt that any of us care whether any of the rest of us are
actually Part 103 legal or not, the issue is what happens if you get
ramp checked by FSDO and you are not Part 103 legal. The FSDO guy is not
going to be interested in your likelihood of doing greater damage to
life and property because you are 15 pounds overweight, his job is to
enforce the law as written, so IMO, your comparison to driving 15 over
the speed limit is irrelevant to the issue.
As far as being hypocritical to drive slightly over the speed limit as
opposed to being slightly overweight, I could care less if you drive the
speed limit or not. Because in the real world that I live in, the rules
are written not so much to keep us safe, but to quiet the squeaking
wheels. In Sullivan county where I live, the county commissioners
determine the speed limits, and any yahoo who lives on a county road and
gets a burr under his seat because somebody drives down "his road"
faster than he likes, can write his commissioner a letter and get the
speed limit lowered to 25 mph. Consequently I live in a county with lots
of 45 mph capable roads posted at 25. Do I think the people who drive 40
are hypocrites? No, only the idiot who wrote the letter to his
commissioner who drives 40. Do I think the speed limit rules are written
to keep us safe? Maybe in your world, around here they are written to
pacify Uncle Fester. (And no, I'm not ranting because I got busted )
Do I think folks ought to push the limits on Part 103 regs? Only if they
are willing to have a deep wallet if The Man catches them out. In which
case, fly it however fat, fast, or far you want, I could care less if
your "ultralight" is part 103 legal or not.
Which is the impression I got of what the other listers were saying: As
long as you're willing to pay the piper, you can dance any way you like.
If not, then get legal. And that's not hypocrisy, that's reality.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com wrote:
>
>> I am all for pushing the limits a bit but if the law says `that is the
>> limit` then that is it.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>
>
> Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58 MPH, and if
due to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be changed, then legislation should
be introduced, don't pretend it does not exist. Sound familiar ???
>
> You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by speeding than by
being 15 pounds overweight in with your ultralight. As for image, no one will
ever know if your ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier
for others to see you speeding.
>
> When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply the same standard
to every day life, its just plain stupid and hypocritical to worry about
15 pounds overweight in an ultralight and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit
or more on a regular basis and think its OK.
>
> You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more importantly,
you are unable to recognize which is more important and more likely to result
in damage to property and others, which is the basis for ALL these rules we
live by.
>
> 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=160887#160887
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
"Possums" at 07:27 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>
> The thing is that after Jan 31, your fat ultralight will stand out a lot more
that it use to "without N-numbers". Use to be hardly anyone had them, even the
two seaters. Now - you will be a lot more conspicuous out there on the tarmac.
They will stand out and it will be difficult to make friends with pilots who have
gone though the process as they know who is illegal and may not say anything
to cause trouble. When the ultralight pilot that flies that 400 lb machine starts
bragging about his pilot skills and how he avoided going through all that
"hoop-jumping" is when it will get "testy".
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160896#160896
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan Dever" <indyaviator(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
>They will stand out and it will be difficult to make friends with pilots
who have gone though the process as they know who is illegal and may not say
anything to cause trouble.
Where is all of this "Follow the rules exactly" attitude coming from all of
a sudden? It seems to me that the vast majority of folks flying on the 2
seat exemption were not following the rules for many years. Everyone knew
it, nobody cared. How many of the 2 place pilots were using them only for
training flights? When I wanted to find an instructor, I called more than
a dozen pilots on the exemption list before finding someone actually using
their plane to train. Now that the 2 place guys are legal, it seems that
many have adapted a different outlook. A 275lb Firestar is no more or less
legal after January 31st than it was before. I find it interesting that
pilots who decide not to transition are being "cast out" by the same
community that have been flying under the radar for years. I truly feel
that if the FAA does crack down on fat single place UL's, it will be because
of the complaints of pilots that did make the transition, not because the
FAA really wants more enforcement. Sad.
P.S. I'm sure someone is going to point out that there is no longer such a
thing as a fat UL. My answer is...... from a legal stand point, there never
was.
Bryan D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Big Island Volcano Flights |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
Here is a link to some photos I took on two recent cross country flights to Kilauea
Volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii in my HKS powered Firestar II.
The flights were from my grass strip at the 4,000 foot level of Mauna Kea on the
west side of the Island over the 6,000 foot saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna
Loa. It takes about an hour each way with 30 minutes time at the volcano.
The whole flight takes 2:30 minutes with 3.5 gallons of gas remaining out of
10 gallons at takeoff. The HKS engine has been running flawlessly - good thing
too, if you take a good look at the terrain!
The radiated heat from the lava lake feels like standing in front of a fireplace,
even at 200-500 feet above the lave pools.
Also, some good glider shots, if that interests anyone.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16867421@N07/sets/
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160901#160901
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="indyaviator(at)gmail.com"]
> They will stand out and it will be difficult to make friends with pilots who
have gone though the process as they know who is illegal and may not say anything
to cause trouble.
>
>
Where is all of this "Follow the rules exactly" attitude coming from all of a sudden?
It seems to me that the vast majority of folks flying on the 2 seat exemption
were not following the rules for many years. Everyone knew it, nobody cared.
How many of the 2 place pilots were using them only for training flights?
When I wanted to find an instructor, I called more than a dozen pilots on
the exemption list before finding someone actually using their plane to train.
Now that the 2 place guys are legal, it seems that many have adapted a different
outlook. A 275lb Firestar is no more or less legal after January 31st than
it was before. I find it interesting that pilots who decide not to transition
are being "cast out" by the same community that have been flying under the
radar for years. I truly feel that if the FAA does crack down on fat single
place UL's, it will be because of the complaints of pilots that did make the
transition, not because the FAA really wants more enforcement. Sad.
P.S. I'm sure someone is going to point out that there is no longer such a thing
as a fat UL. My answer is...... from a legal stand point, there never was.
Bryan D
> [b]
If you read the forward to the original SP NPRM, there were repeated references
to "fat-UL" and "fat ultralights" - the recognition being that, though illegal,
a "fat-UL" had a kind of status and there was a cottage industry in US light
aircraft supporting them.
This is really kind of how America works - bad or useless laws tend not to bring
on the maximum possible punishment for every concievable infraction and we should
be very glad that this is so. Instead, they are eventually amended to be
either more appropriate or enforceable (or both).
Now, it's interesting that the original writers of SP were actually sensitive to
this aspect of "fat-UL"; the original effort was a rule set that was appropriate
for this class of aircraft to get legal and have at least some minimal standards
of construction, etc., to insure at least some minimal standard of safety.
The rule that eventually resulted did NOT turn out that way for a variety of reasons,
but it could have if it'd stuck to its original intent.
SP was promulgated NOT because of abuse of the existing system or because of problems
with public safety, but a) because FnAA did not or could not enforce its
own rules and b) apparently because of special interest pressure.
History is our best teacher on this and hopefully we'll all learn from it the next
time something like this comes around...
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160907#160907
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
I decided to take the opportunity to legitimize my unregistered aircraft
and quit looking over my shoulder.
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
Roger H:
Exactly the way I felt flying my US and FS. Both were too fat, too fast, and
way too much fuel. Always had that nagging, uncomfortable feeling that all
was not right. What a tremendous feeling of relief and peace when I
registered my mkIII, got a private ticket, and started flying legally. No
more looking over my shoulder all the time, or for that matter, any time.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> looks great. Can almost hear you making brrrm-brrrrm noises.
> BB
Scott and Gang:
I echo Beanie Weanie's sentiments also. Looks good. Got to get a look at
some of their stuff last year at London.
BTW: What are those big things on the little wheels? ;-)
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Seems like you're suggesting everyone should be okay with individuals
deciding what acceptable risk is, such as driving 58 and/or flying 15
lbs over. Or is it 16, or in reality 25? That might be kinda fun, and
then maybe 10gallons and an occasional passenger should be fun too.
Perhaps the counter to this is that you are simply asking for common
sense. Well that's great too, but I think you gotta admit the UL thing
got way out of whack. So rules, with clear definitions, are necessary.
I have the impression that most of the aviation community is glad to
have the whole thing clarified. The only way to keep it clear is to
occasionally ramp check and fine someone "pushing the limits",
regardless of whatever their "good judgement" may be. Same
non-hypocritical reason I'm glad to see a cop pull over some free spirit
(aka fill-in-the-blank) on the road. I also agree with the other
comments that I'm tired of flying looking over my shoulder, which in one
real example meant my high-minded airport manager could have kicked me
out. With an N number he's gotta welcome me just like the King Air.
Now that I think is pretty fun.
-Ben
JetPilot wrote:
>
> Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58 MPH, and if
due to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be changed, then legislation should
be introduced, don't pretend it does not exist. Sound familiar ???
>
> You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by speeding than by
being 15 pounds overweight in with your ultralight. As for image, no one will
ever know if your ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier
for others to see you speeding.
>
> When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply the same standard
to every day life, its just plain stupid and hypocritical to worry about
15 pounds overweight in an ultralight and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit
or more on a regular basis and think its OK.
>
> You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more importantly,
you are unable to recognize which is more important and more likely to result
in damage to property and others, which is the basis for ALL these rules we
live by.
>
> Mike
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Big Island Volcano Flights |
> Here is a link to some photos I took on two recent cross country flights
to Kilauea Volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii in my HKS powered Firestar
II.
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
Hey Dave B:
You gonna have'ta tighten up a bit. Every shot through the windshield
indicated you were way out of trim. ;-)
Great shots. I am envious. Would like to fly my airplane over that area.
In fact, would be fun doing the Hawaiian Islands in a mkIII.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Garvelink" <link(at)cdc.net> |
| Subject: | Regular Unleaded |
You guys need to start looking very closely at your fuel suppliers a lot are
adding 10% ethanol to there fuel. Recently all of the pantry kangaroo
stores in Tennessee started adding 10% to there stores. I am not sure if
this is every where they are but they have 1600 stores nation wide.
Srglink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tony Oldman
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Regular Unleaded
In Newzealand I think we use the RON system. I have always either used 91
lead free or avgas or a mixture of both . 500 plus hrs on 503s no problems.
Only difference is that the 503 seems to run cooler on avgas and idle a
little smoother .No performance difference.
Tony
MK111 classic
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Ralph B wrote:
>
>
> . When the ultralight pilot that flies that 400 lb machine starts bragging about
his pilot skills and how he avoided going through all that "hoop-jumping"
is when it will get "testy".
>
>
I never talked about 400 pounds or two seats, I very clearly said 15 pounds which
is 6 %, which is the entire point of what I have been saying. If you cant
read a couple numbers and figure out a very simple point, then you are not the
brightest bulb in the bunch...
The statement that " 15 pounds overweight is going to Stand Out ". A 15 pound
ultralight wont stand out any more than the guy going 58 MPH instead of 55 MPH.
Can you tell if an ultralight is 15 pounds overweight just by looking at
it ? So how does that qualify as " Standing out " ??? So your statement that
a 15 pound overweight ultralight would stand out and make everyone look bad
is nothing short of ridiculous.
Bottom line here , is that only emotional, not so intelligent people get worked
up and anal about aviation, while ignoring the fact that they themselves do
the same thing on an everyday basis in their cars, where there are far greater
risks of hurting someone.
Richard Pike wrote:
>
>
> The FSDO guy is not
> going to be interested in your likelihood of doing greater damage to
> life and property because you are 15 pounds overweight, his job is to
> enforce the law as written, so IMO, your comparison to driving 15 over
> the speed limit is irrelevant to the issue.
>
>
The traffic laws are written for 55 MPH on some roads, so do you think the cop
is going to care if you were only 6 % over, which is 3 MPH, but according to you,
his job is to enforce the law as written according to your logic, and use
no good judgment. I guarantee you if you got a ticket for going only 3 MPH over
the limit, you would be bitching about it and saying how " stupid " the cop
was.
No difference for the person that has a problem with 6 % over weight ultralight,
worrying about an extra 15 pounds its just plain stupid...
So maybe some of you should go tell all your friends that drive cars that they
are illegal, irresponsible, and making everyone look bad if they go 3 MPH over
the posted limit. After all, the law is the law... See what kind of reception
you get.
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=160957#160957
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | A quick overview of how sport pilot came to be |
First. The call for a simple class of aircraft with a simple set of rules
was made by Paul Poberezny as early as 1954, just after the EAA was formed
and just after the experimental amateur built category was established. It's
nothing new.
This call was issued again in the late 90's. By now U.S. law said that where
jobs could be done by private industry they had to be. But how to cast it as
something political will could get behind? Nobody cared about using driver's
licenses as a medical, nobody cared about "fat ultralights", although the
term was around. Nobody cared about the escalating cost of flight
instruction. Let them fly cake, or whatever.
Then came 09-11-2001 and someone came up with the idea of letting Congress
(the opposite of Progress, as Mark Twain noted 100+ years before) in on the
"secret".
Hey guys and gals, step away from the money buffet for just a second. There
are upward of 30,000 aircraft, UNREGISTERED and UNACCOUNTED for, out there
SOMEWHERE!
Holy Cripes, somebody has to do something.
So into this nexus stepped the ASTM. They formed committee F37 and those who
stepped up to join were veterans of the hang gliding and ultralight
communities. Self regulation had worked reasonably well for those two, why
not here? Many of those who joined up also knew there were a bunch of cheap
European aircraft waiting just across the pond.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that's the reason, the Cessna 120, 140
and 150 were snubbed with the 600 Kg upper weight limit. If they had been
included, LSA would have died right there and a big opportunity to make a
little cash would have died with it.
These same people had also seen the gaggle of Quicksilver clones come and go
in the early eighties. They had seen the USHGA create a rating system and an
observer / examiner system in the late 70's and ultralight organizations
attempt the same with the same results. One guy got a card, rated all his
buddies, who rated all their buddies, ad infinitum.
So the plan became, first transition the instructors, then the pilots, then
the aircraft.
We are three days away form the end of that progression now. With the
exception of the recently announced extension of the time to get E-LSA
certification, provided you started the process by having your aircraft put
on the registry by the original date. According to my DAR the deadline for
certification is now 1-31-2010, again provided your aircraft is on the
registry by midnight Thursday.
Many of you have raised the issue of why not having E-LSA extended
indefinitely. It was those Quicksilver clones, pure and simple. No more
backyard engineers. Want to sell an E-LSA? Now there is an organized plan.
FAR 21.191(i)2.
First create an S-LSA. Why? Because the two pieces of documentation you have
to actually show someone are a flight manual and a maintenance manual. The
rest is by the delegation option, unless your aircraft starts hurting or
killing a lot of people. Then someone will come knocking to look over your
documentation.
Notice there is no 51% rule. Leave off the radio knob and let the new owner
put it on. You can even give him the screwdriver. It's an E-LSA. Solves a
lot of headaches the growth of builder's assistance companies have caused.
Why have the option to make an S-LSA an E-LSA, ala FAR 21.191(i)3? Because
there will be orphaned fleets. Originally the FAA just wanted to pull their
airworthiness certificates if the manufacturer or distributor bit the dust.
Talk about watching your dreams turn into a nightmare. Dear Sir, Your
airplane is no longer legal, please stop flying it. So that's the reason for
that.
Most of this has been covered by Earl Lawrence of the EAA, some has been
extemporized by me. But it's mostly accurate and you got it for free. What
the heck.
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
Mike, you really need to relax and take more deep breaths -
Irrespective of whether or not I think a cop is stupid for writing a ticket if
I am only 3 over, his job is to enforce the law, not be a judge. I don't want
a cop who acts as judge, because then he might judge to ignore his buddy doing
whatever, while he busts some guy (like me) whose look he doesn't like. He might
even decide that being judge is not enough, and decide to become the executioner
as well.
I don't want cops or FSDO guys to be judges, I want them to uphold the law. Years
ago, I read that the best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them 100%.
An enraged populace will then throw out the bums that made them. Which could
improve much of what's wrong with this country at present...
I really find it amusing that you assume I would tell my friends that drive cars
3 over that they are illegal and irresponsible. I guess you failed to process
what I said about local county commissioners, idiotically posted 25 mph roads
and Uncle Fester. Or my indifference to those who break idiotic rules as long
as they are willing to pay the piper. And that is not hypocrisy, or mere talk.
Check the pictures of my non-Kolb toys. Do you really think I worry about 3
over? I act like any rational 61 year old ought to act, and if the Cops find
me to be remiss in my actions, (so far so good...) then that's what traffic court
is for.
PS: Dude, you really need to lighten up. Or maybe fewer Gummy Worms and red Kool-Aid...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160970#160970
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/big_bike_large_782.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020698_large_146.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020693_large_109.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Jetpilot, please don't jump all over Ralph B when he makes an
innocent comment about a HYPOTHETICAL pilot in a 400lb 'ultralight'
Every reader must know he was kidding about the 400lbs -- we all know
what he meant,
and he wasn't expecting anyone to take him literally
On Jan 28, 2008, at 8:41 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> Ralph B wrote:
>>
>>
>> . When the ultralight pilot that flies that 400 lb machine starts
>> bragging about his pilot skills and how he avoided going through
>> all that "hoop-jumping" is when it will get "testy".
>>
>>
>
>
> I never talked about 400 pounds or two seats, I very clearly said
> 15 pounds which is 6 %, which is the entire point of what I have
> been saying. If you cant read a couple numbers and figure out a
> very simple point, then you are not the brightest bulb in the bunch...
>
> The statement that " 15 pounds overweight is going to Stand Out
> ". A 15 pound ultralight wont stand out any more than the guy
> going 58 MPH instead of 55 MPH. Can you tell if an ultralight is
> 15 pounds overweight just by looking at it ? So how does that
> qualify as " Standing out " ??? So your statement that a 15 pound
> overweight ultralight would stand out and make everyone look bad is
> nothing short of ridiculous.
>
> Bottom line here , is that only emotional, not so intelligent
> people get worked up and anal about aviation, while ignoring the
> fact that they themselves do the same thing on an everyday basis in
> their cars, where there are far greater risks of hurting someone.
>
>
> Richard Pike wrote:
>>
>>
>> The FSDO guy is not
>> going to be interested in your likelihood of doing greater damage to
>> life and property because you are 15 pounds overweight, his job is to
>> enforce the law as written, so IMO, your comparison to driving 15
>> over
>> the speed limit is irrelevant to the issue.
>>
>>
>
>
> The traffic laws are written for 55 MPH on some roads, so do you
> think the cop is going to care if you were only 6 % over, which is
> 3 MPH, but according to you, his job is to enforce the law as
> written according to your logic, and use no good judgment. I
> guarantee you if you got a ticket for going only 3 MPH over the
> limit, you would be bitching about it and saying how " stupid " the
> cop was.
>
> No difference for the person that has a problem with 6 % over
> weight ultralight, worrying about an extra 15 pounds its just plain
> stupid...
>
> So maybe some of you should go tell all your friends that drive
> cars that they are illegal, irresponsible, and making everyone look
> bad if they go 3 MPH over the posted limit. After all, the law is
> the law... See what kind of reception you get.
>
> 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=160957#160957
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Oh shit.
Leave it to Beaver.
Oops, there I go again. ;-)
john h
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Gang:
My reply was not intended to go back to the Kolb List, but it did.
As we would say in Vietnam: "20,000 xin loi" which means I am sorry 20
thousand times.
Now.........what were we talking about?
john h
mkIII
Oh shit.
Leave it to Beaver.
Oops, there I go again. ;-)
john h
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | artdog1512 <nazz57(at)yahoo.com> |
how do you get registered so i can "login" to the Kolb
website? .............. tim
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Big Island Volcano Flights |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
> You gonna have'ta tighten up a bit. Every shot through the windshield
> indicated you were way out of trim.
Looks like you caught me standing on rudder to get pointed right for the pictures,
John. I've got ground bendable trim tabs on all three controls, and she flies
hands off (feet off too) with yaw string centered at cruise power. Should
have known there would be "eagle eyes" on the list. [Wink]
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161020#161020
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
I guess I stirred the pot a little. Here is what I'm trying to do. After looking
very closely at the Firestar, I got the impression that the previous owner
was a little slack on his maintenance. Castle nuts with no cotter pins, safety
wire missing, a bunch of bent spare landing gear, the ASI static hose had fallen
off- he commented the speed reading was 20mph off, and so forth. I would
rather make my own mistakes, than wonder about what I haven't found. So, if I
have to thoroughly go over it, I may as well get as close to legal as common sense
dictates. If there is a conflict between law and common sense, go with the
common sense. I am going to be training on a grass field, so the soft turf tires
are going to stay. No reason to get hurt over a couple of pounds weight.
Same thing for the full enclosure- no distractions. The ten gallon tank is eventually
going to be replaced, as I don't like the color of the plastic- looks
too old. Do these things get brittle? The gas cap
did, and I fixed it with some hot glue. It will be replaced with a five gallon,
when convenient.
One thing no one mentioned regarding weight- I am about 170 dressed, and my
wife is about 50 pounds heavier. I would think the powers that be would be more
interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded instead of a couple
of pounds over. Luckily, the Firestar is capable of the difference.
Next question- The Mark III pictures (nice) show the tail wheel being about
at the center of the rudder. A picture of Ellery's showed about the same. Mine
is much closer to the rear of the rudder. Since mine has to be re-worked (a
little twisted, and worn cable hole) should I shorten the strut, or does it matter?
The tail wheel is all worn on the left side.
By the way, when I was in the trucking business, we worried more about "Was
it safe",
more than "Is it a couple of pounds over".
Bill Sullivan (old Firestar)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
My wife reads this, so before I get in trouble- she is only 35 pounds heavier
than me. I had to say that so I can live to finish the Kolb.
Regarding the difference between English regulations and American regulations-
we have a slightly different attitude towards government here- check King
George III's notes on that. No offence, but we just think like that and it works.
Bill Sullivan, hoping to be still
here after the wife reads this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Bill,
The FAA set some max and stall speed limits for the ultra light vehicle as
well as fuel capacity and empty weight limits. The last two are easily
verified on the ground, where as, the speed limits are not. To get around
this problem the FAA came up with a set of design conditions, so that if
they were met, you can fly above both speed limits and remain legal. They
published these design conditions as AC 103-7 Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4.
I have filled out a copy of these documents and carry them with me to
fly-ins. If the FAA wants to ramp check my FireFly, they are considered
sufficient proof that it is legal. If you would like to review the
documents, they can be found at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
On the subject of illegal flying I am neutral. I have known pilots who have
let their medicals lapse or who have lost there medical and continue to fly.
They fly from pastures and non-controlled airports. Most everyone knows
who they are, and no one says a thing because everyone knows they are going
to get old too. The ultra light vehicle is a way out for these folks. The
pilots I worry about are high confidence low hour pilots, who like low and
slow. Some of their rank will be lost no matter what they fly or their
licence status.
Fly safe,
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Bill,
First of all, not your fault about what this has turned into, you asked a very
legitimate question and as much as we might bicker, no one is going to hold you
responsaible !
I'm glad you are going to do what is right for you, and keep your plane as strong
as you need it. The 10 gallons is a bit much, and a very obvious violation
in both the letter and spirit of the law, I would change that. Exceeding something
by 6 % is nothing, exceeding by 100 % is another matter :) Of course,
Richard Pike will probably want to take the gas out of your new tank, and
if it is a pint over 5 gallons, tell you to change it as you are still illegal
hahaha. Anyways, do what is safe, but keep your plane strong and durable,
trying to shave to much weight off leads to shortcuts that can be dangerous.
As far as the tailwheel, call Kolb and ask them what it is supposed to be. I
know some people cut the long tailwheel strut shorter on the MK III, but I would
never do that. That tailwheel rod is the shock absorber for the tial of the
plane, shortening it will subject the tail, and its support structure to much
more shock loads on the ground and could eventually make something more important
fail. I have an extra tail rod if mine ever bends....
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=161082#161082
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
> ... The ten gallon tank is eventually going to be replaced, as I don't like the
color of the plastic- looks too old. Do these things get brittle? The gas
cap did ... Bill Sullivan (old Firestar)
Yes, the gas tanks get brittle. When I cracked the cap on my tank I thought that
if the cap is brittle the tank must be too. I tested it by pushing my thumb
on the top corner and it went right through. So absolutely replace it.
Do you still have the fiberglass tailwheel rod? You probably do especially if your
tailwheel is wearing on one side. If you do I would suggest you get an aluminum
rod and replace it. You will need to heat the steel to soften the epoxy
to remove the old one.
I have the original blueprints and manual if you need some info I can photograph
some sections and send them to you.
--------
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=161090#161090
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Richard Pike wrote:
>
>
> I don't want cops or FSDO guys to be judges, I want them to uphold the law.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard,
Worrying about 15 pounds over in an ultralight is about as uptight as you can get.
As far as cops go, judgment is an essential part of their job, I'm glad
most are fair and reasonable. If cops charged people for every non consequential
way in which we broke the law, be it 3 MPH over, signaling for 4.8 seconds
instead of 5, this world would be a horrible place to live. Thank god most
cops don't think like you do.
I think anyone reading this thread can now see where you are coming from. So if
you believe the smallest inconsequential transgression should be prosecuted,
and if you believe that everyone driving 58 in a 55 zone should be cited and
prosecuted, then by all means make sure your ultralight is not even one pound
over weight, and also while you are at it, do a precise measurement of the capacity
of the gas tank, after all, the sides might have bulged, and the new capacity
might be one pint over 5 gallons, which would be about 6 % over, and after
all, the law says a capacity 5 gallons no more !
Richard, whenever you ride in a car with your friends, make sure you start telling
them that they are breaking the law and should slow down if you see them going
3 MPH over the speed limit, you might learn something by their reactions
:). Learn some judgment and common sense, its important in life, and even more
important in flying ....
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=161092#161092
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
> As far as the tailwheel, call Kolb and ask them what it is supposed to
be. I know some people cut the long tailwheel strut shorter on the MK III,
but I would never do that. That tailwheel rod is the shock absorber for
the tial of the plane, shortening it will subject the tail, and its support
structure to much more shock loads on the ground and could eventually make
something more important fail. I have an extra tail rod if mine ever
bends....
>
> Mike
Mike B:
I like a short tail wheel strut. Much more positive control on the ground.
To top that off, I don't use the 7075 aluminum rod, but .120" 4130 heat
treated to RC48. Probably more gentle on the tail section than the standard
Kolb buggy whip aluminum rod.
Yes, I have torn up the tail section more times than I would like to admit,
because it is a major job to remove and repair. I don't believe the short
stiff tail wheel strut is responsible for the failures, but the 100+ lbs of
weight on the tailwheel caused by shifting my main gear 8" forward.
Plus..........a lot of hours in more than ideal "putting green" conditions.
We've got the tail section problem corrected and have not had any problems
back there in many, many hours.
As far as recommending some one break the law and encourage new guys to fly
illegally, I do not agree with that. I feel the Kolb List is not the
correct place to coach folks on how to successfully fly illegal airplanes.
Might be a good idea to take this kind of correspondence back copy. If you
all disagree with me, fine, but that is the way I feel about the situation.
In nearly 40 years flying professionally and flying Kolbs, I don't recall
approval of exceeding limits or busting regs by Army or civilian
authorities. Do I always fly around like Miss Goody, Goody Two Shoes? Not
hardly, but I ain't gonna encourage anyone else to do it. Have fun, fly
safe.
Take care,
john h
My mkIII - Flying legal for the past 16 years, 2,734.0 hrs. Plan on putting
a lot more hours on her.
My US and FS - 1,520.0 hours flown illegally.
Other's legal and illegal Kolbs - Have to dig out the log books for
that......................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
you might learn something by their reactions :). Learn some judgment and
common sense, its important in life, and even more important in flying ....
>
> Mike
Thanks, Mike B:
I am going to take your advice to heart.
john h
mkIII - The new, mellow guy on the block. ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Even if the ultralight is 15 lbs overweight and you seem happy flying on 5 gallons
of fuel, more power to you. As for me, I like the idea of being able to carry
the extra 6 gallons so I can be go places. Can't do that in a legal ultralight
or one that's already 15 lbs overweight, unless you've got your fuel stops
very carefully planned. Therein lies the difference between a legal machine
and an illegal one.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161124#161124
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
If you don't like the subject, then don't join in on the discussion. It is very
obvious that you are unable to defend your position with any kind of logic
or reason, so now you are resorting to posting a pure personal attack in hopes
of distracting everyone from what we are discussing, and turning this into nothing
but bashing and ugliness.
What you are trying to do here is very obvious... And very distasteful.
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=161125#161125
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Range has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. If you read my
first post on this subject, I said that having an N number would be the best way
to do it, but this is NOT a discussion on if William should N Number his plane
or not. This is TWICE in a row that you have obviously not read, and been
unable to follow the very simple idea of this whole thread. Why would anyone
listen to a guy that cant grasp a simple concept, and posts answers that do
not apply to the subject at hand ?
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=161128#161128
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
All,
I am impressed that this particular Firestar is so close (15lbs) to the
UL limit of 254. I say go for it, put in a five gallon tank and take
out everything you can and see if you can get it legal, maybe lighter
wheels, brakes? and tires are in order. Other than fuel and weight, all
Firestars should be Part 103 legal so give it a good effort and see if
you can get it legal.
Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3, N616DR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Denny:
I think the problem is the FS is way too fast and will not fit the
matrix to make it a legal UL even if it only weighs 254 or less, and has
5 gal fuel capacity.
The FF barely makes it, and only because of the matrix. Main reason the
FF has two lift struts per wing panel, to increase the drag component.
john h
mkIII
I say go for it, put in a five gallon tank and take out everything
you can and see if you can get it legal,
Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3, N616DR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
> Range has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. If you
> read my first post on this subject, I said that having an N number would
> be the best way to do it, but this is NOT a discussion on if William
> should N Number his plane or not. This is TWICE in a row that you have
> obviously not read, and been unable to follow the very simple idea of this
> whole thread. Why would anyone listen to a guy that cant grasp a simple
> concept, and posts answers that do not apply to the subject at hand ?
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Mike,
It makes me very nervous that someone of your disposition is flying jets.
Range has everything to do with the legal, illegal debate and this Firestar
project.
Now lets see if you can grasp a simple concept.
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
John H,
If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a
light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit. Surely
that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they
add to make the Fly compliant?
Someone want to do the math for this one?
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to
Firefly dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord,
to think what his might bring to the discussion :-) ) to get the 24 knot CAS
requirement, but you would sure be losing weight.
Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.
Rick
On Jan 29, 2008 1:47 PM, Denny Rowe wrote:
>
> John H,
> If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a
> light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit.
> Surely
> that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut
> they
> add to make the Fly compliant?
> Someone want to do the math for this one?
>
> Denny
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
-----Other than fuel and weight, all Firestars should be Part 103
legal so give it a good effort and see if you can get it legal.
Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3, N616DR
Whoops,I should have wrote all 377 and 447 powerd Firestars in the
above, obviously a 503 powered Firestar would not make compliance.Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
>
>John H,
>If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a
>light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit. Surely
>that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they
>add to make the Fly compliant?
>Someone want to do the math for this one?
>
Denny,
If Bill is serious about this, he can change to a 28 hp engine and save at least
40 pounds. With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly,
so it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements. If Bill's
Firestar has a 447 mounted and he changes engines, he will be giving up enough
hp so that he can fly with reduced drag and not exceed the max speed requirement.
To run the numbers, all one has to do it to follow:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
Taken from that page:
40 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 12.4
38 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 11.8
28 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 8.7
To get Bill's Firestar to comply with upper speed limit one would have to knock
off 3.7 drag units from my FireFly.
Drag Unit Reduction from FireFly
Single strut per wing => 0.8
Go to full enclosure => 2.0
Larger wing drag =>-0.25
Fair landing gear legs => 0.4
------
Total Reduction 2.95
This would give total drag factor of 8.6 which is very close to 8.7. Bill may
have to leave fairings off the landing gear legs. According to this his Firestar
should top out at 55 knots. I have found this graph to be conservative, so
I expect it would do better than this.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]
What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly
dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think
what his might bring to the discussion :-) ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement,
but you would sure be losing weight.
Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.
Rick
> [b]
Rick
That is the worst idea I have heard to date, why would you shorten the wings,
and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed
? Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow
down as much as before in a forced landing. So you are suggesting that Bill
go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten
it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like that.
I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the worse
suggestions I have seen to date.
I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. " Sir, your plastic
fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit,
so I am going to have to violate you.. " Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH in
a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...
To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more
dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be. This
is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment
and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by a
couple percent. We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment in
the world as it is.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161173#161173
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
I have a very good friend who has the amazing ability to misunderstand
and misconstrue anything said to him. Are you a relative of his?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
JetPilot wrote:
> Of course, Richard Pike will probably want to take the gas out of your
new tank, and if it is a pint over 5 gallons, tell you to change it as you are
still illegal hahaha.
>
> Mike
>
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne wrote:
>
>
> Denny,
>
> If Bill is serious about this, he can change to a 28 hp engine and save at least
40 pounds. With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly,
so it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements. If Bill's
Firestar has a 447 mounted and he changes engines, he will be giving up enough
hp so that he can fly with reduced drag and not exceed the max speed requirement.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see what
the max speed of the ultralights are ? Your suggestion is nothing short of irresponsible.
Most people must be reading this and laughing at you, they just
aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public suggestion as I am.
Having more power = more options available when things go bad, which means
more safety. Steeper climb = More altitude and more options if the engine quits
at the end of the runway.
Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest putting
to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points in numbers.
This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in climb, and more
dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a little.
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=161178#161178
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeremy Casey <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
>
> That is the worst idea I have heard to date, why would you shorten the wings,
and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed
? Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow
down as much as before in a forced landing. So you are suggesting that Bill
go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten
it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like
that. I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the
worse suggestions I have seen to date.
>
> I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. " Sir, your plastic
fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit,
so I am going to have to violate you.. " Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH
in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...
>
> To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more
dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be. This
is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment
and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by
a couple percent. We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment
in the world as it is.
>
> Mike
With fear of stepping into someone else's fight...so all these Firefly's
with the shorter wings are BAD? Seems that a little higher wing loading
is a good, shall I say GREAT thing sometimes...like when there is a
little turbulence and/or thermal activity...by your reasoning we should
all be flying gliders...so they would have good engine out
characteristics ;-) That is a great characteristic, just not the only
one to consider in these great big balls of compromise that we call
airplanes...(or "vehicles" for you Part 103 folks...;-)
Jeremy "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" Casey
http://www.kilocharlie.us/superfly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Ok, I give up. I tried my best to explain the difference between dealing
with the law and the consequences of breaking it and my indifference to
what any of you choose to do about it, and that has been (deliberately?)
misconstrued.
I tried to point out (tongue in cheek) that I deal with idiot 25 mph
speed limits on 45 mph roads as I think best, am willing to take the
responsibility of getting busted for doing so, and even posted a picture
of my crotch rocket, and that has been (deliberately?) misconstrued.
Proverbs 26: 4 tells us "Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
lest you also be like him. " The next verse, Proverbs 26:5 says "Answer
a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Guys, I am done with trying to fulfill verse 5, and I leave it to you to
figure out how best to deal with verse 4.
The MKIII is coming into the garage tomorrow, some more mods to the
fuselage area, try to improve the airflow around the fuselage upper
rear, just ahead of the radiator, add a taper at the back end of the
fuselage, see if cleaning up that little flat area about 10" ahead of
the prop arc will do anything. Fix a glitch in the radio, different
intercom, etc.
Also bought myself a Hall wind meter, will be pulling off the VG's,
attaching the Hall to a lift strut, getting it pointed straight into the
relative wind at stall, and shooting some videos through stall to see
what this MKIII actually stalls at, power on and off, with and without
flaps, and satisfy myself as to just what she does. Then put the vg's
back on and do it all again. If I come up with anything worth sharing, I
might check back in this summer.
It's been a great ride, fair skies and tailwinds to you all,
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
JetPilot wrote:
>
> [quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]
> What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly
dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think
what his might bring to the discussion :-) ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement,
but you would sure be losing weight.
> Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>> [b]
>>
>
>
> Rick
>
> That is the worst idea I have heard to date, why would you shorten the wings,
and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed
? Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow
down as much as before in a forced landing. So you are suggesting that Bill
go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten
it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like
that. I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the
worse suggestions I have seen to date.
>
> I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. " Sir, your plastic
fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit,
so I am going to have to violate you.. " Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH
in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...
>
> To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more
dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be. This
is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment
and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by
a couple percent. We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment
in the world as it is.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161173#161173
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
>
> Denny,
>
. With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly, so
it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements. >
Jack H
Jack,
I would think that a Firestar that is this close to 254 pounds would already
have a slower stall speed and lighter wing loading than a Firefly with its
much smaller wing area.
I doubt the engine size would need to be reduced to achieve legal UL speed
limits on paper as long as the few pounds could be removed elswhere.
Sincerely,
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
>
>Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see what
the max speed of the ultralights are ? Your suggestion is nothing short of
irresponsible. Most people must be reading this and laughing at you, they just
aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public suggestion as I
am. Having more power = more options available when things go bad, which means
more safety. Steeper climb = More altitude and more options if the engine
quits at the end of the runway.
>
>Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest putting
to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points in numbers.
This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in climb, and
more dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a little.
>
>Mike
>
Mike,
This has been a discussion about what can be done to make a Firestar a legal
ultralight vehicle. As my right, I have posted my opinion and you have
posted your opinion of my opinion, which is your right. I believe Bill is
capable of deciding for him self as to what he wants to do with my post.
You do not understand. I don't care if people laugh at me or not. I have
more faith in numbers than suppositions. The numbers, based on existing
wing and power loading, say that a Firestar can fly very safely with only 28
hp.
Your incessant claim of a requirement for power tends to lead me to believe
you use it as a crutch for your lack of adequate piloting skills or your
discomfort in flying in very very light aircraft. I find your heaviness, to
use one of your terms, "anal". Please lighten up, drink a beer with a
friend, find some companionship, or find medical help.
Just for your info, I have a 27hp MZ34 sitting on the table in my shop.
Today I finished the computations to see how the cg change in mounting it.
Even with a bulk head mount off the back, the cg moved forward and just one
inch. I believe it will cut close to 50 pounds off the FireFly. I will add
some weight back with a full enclosure so I can do more winter flying. If
and when it gets done, the FireFly will remain a true ultralight vehicle. It
will continue to be as safe as the person who flys it.
In answer to your question, during a ramp check a pilot of an ultralight
vehicle has to prove that the unregistered aircraft he is flying is an
ultralight vehicle. The FAA has deemed that a properly filled out AC 103-7
Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4 is sufficient proof.
Once again, Mike have a nice day and fly safe.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 03:20 PM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>At 07:27 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 1/28/2008 3:34:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>orcabonita(at)hotmail.com writes:
>>I say only an anal idiot would worry about 15 pounds
>
>The thing is that after Jan 31, your fat ultralight will stand out a lot
>more that it use to "without N-numbers". Use to be hardly anyone had them,
>even the two seaters. Now - you will be a lot more conspicuous out
>there on the
>tarmac.
Let me reply to my own post - That is, if you are 15 pounds
overweight and don't have
N-numbers, you are going to "stand out" in the crowd now - more that
before, and if
you don't have N-numbers you are more likely to be ramped checked
after Jan 31st.
Not that the 15lbs is any worse than we've all been doing for the
past 20 years, but
when we all were doing it and nobody had N-numbers - you were a lot
less likely
to be questioned.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
In a message dated 1/29/2008 4:43:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us writes:
"clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe"
Thanks for posting the pictures Jeremy,
How short are you going on the wings
What kind of struts
what kind of engine
What is that frame hanging from the ceiling?
Steve B
Firefly 007/Floats with small unsafe wings (-:
do not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
Oh, changed the Tagline in case anyone was interested in your project.
steve
In a message dated 1/29/2008 4:43:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us writes:
"clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe"
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
In a message dated 1/29/2008 8:08:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
williamtsullivan(at)att.net writes:
One thing no one mentioned regarding weight- I am about 170 dressed, and my
wife is about 50 pounds heavier. I would think the powers that be would be
more interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded instead of a
couple of pounds over. Luckily, the Firestar is capable of the difference.
HI BILL SULLIVAN,
Does the above comment indicate that you might take your wife along as a
passenger??? Or were you just talking about the difference in weight if she
were to pilot it?
I had previously answered your original thread directly to you, but I'll
post this one for all to read.
Just for every one's information:
On June 30, 1989 I purchased a FireStar kit from old Kolb. The
specification list that came with the advertising brochure states the following:
Wing Span 27' 8"
Wing Area 149 sq ft
Length 20' 3"
Length folded 21' 3"
Height 5' 8" (same folded)
Width (folded) 66"
Load factor 4+, 2-
Reduction unit Rotax integral gearbox with vibration damper
Propeller 66 X 28
Fuel Capacity 5 gal
Rate of climb 1,000 FPM
Weight 264 lbs *
Engine Rotax 377
Take off distance 100 ft (grass)
Top speed 63 MPH (Partial enclosure)
*Needs parachute to be legal ultralight.
My kit came with the main landing gear legs only 1" in dia., where they went
into the airframe. The axle holder was a light weight welded piece using
small plastic wheels with no brakes. The windshield was a short one, about 1/3
coverage, and the center section cover was fabric, with a zipper to secure
the two halves.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Kit price on 6/30/89 $5695 included engine!!!
Audubon NJ
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: | FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The facts,
ma'am, just the facts."
(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to
determine the applicability of this part.
(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the
Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject
only to the provisions of this part.
Here's where you can find them:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
I would think the powers that be would be more interested in whether
the gross weight is being exceeded instead of a couple of pounds over.
>>
They are in the UK, which is why the limiting weight for an ultralight
here is the MTOW. For calculation purposes there is a standard weight
for the pilot and passenger.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 11:59 PM 1/29/2008, Ron wrote:
>First how will they tell if your craft is obese?
>They can't unless you tell them or let them. You need to understand that
>your craft is your private property and they have no right to weigh it
>without your permission...
I wish it were so:
=A7 103.3 Inspection requirements.
(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle
to determine the applicability of this part.
(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of
the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is
subject only to the provisions of this part.
-Dana
--
A rolling stone .... kills worms
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
The FAA set some max and stall speed limits >>
Really? You have max speed limits?. Here we have many ultralight types with
top speeds over a 100mph. One making 130 I believe. Stall speed is the main
performance regulator, 35.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 07:06 AM 1/30/2008, pj.ladd wrote:
>The FAA set some max and stall speed limits >>
>Really? You have max speed limits?. Here we have many ultralight types
>with top speeds over a 100mph. One making 130 I believe. Stall speed is
>the main performance regulator, 35.
Pat, for "true" ultralights the maxes are 24 knots stall and 55 knots level
flight at WOT... but the Part 103 regulations are so loose (including no
license or registration) that there are many advantages to this category,
IF you can meet the 254 lb empty weight limit. For "Light-Sport Aircraft"
(comparable to your microlight category) it's 1320 lbs empty, 45 knot stall
and 120 knot max.
-Dana
--
For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
check King George III's notes on that. >>
Hi Bill,
I liked that.
We do have a different attitude here than in the US. Long may it
continue, for both of us. To some extent I think it is a function of
the size of the US. There are lots of places in the States where I am
sure you could get away with minor infrigments of regulaions all your
life. We are just too small for that to work. Unfortunately the more
people that exist in a confined space the more regulation it takes to co
exist.
We have just introduced a virtual regulation free category for a/c
weighing less than 115Kg which is rather like your ultralight rules and
it will be interesting to see what that produces. Our `microlight`
category rules are stringently drawn where it matters, MTOW and stall
speed being paramount. The MTOW weight has been raised steadily as
things have progressed and we have moved closer to parity with the rest
of Europe. It is rather like yacht racing .If you want development in a
certain directio then you change the rules .By defining waterline
length, the sail area, etc. This approach has seen many microlights here
with top speeds around and above 100 mph with 2 up with a 11 litre per
hour fuel burn,when crjuising.They still retain the slow speed handling
and stall characteristics which keep the planes within the flying
capabilities of the average low hours pilot.The new Dynamic has been
clocked at 120kt at 5500rpm and on properly calibrated runs at 131kt .
Pretty nifty.Mind you it is priced at =A367,650 for the 912 version
plus =A33000 for the 912S ready to fly which is a bit salty for my
taste.
Bucking the system of course takes place with minor things but it is not
too difficult in the event of a crunch (Which WILL be investigated) to
calculate if you were overweight on take off. If you were. Your
insurance will be invalid on the plane, yourself, any 3rd party
involved. So if you go down in a field and kill somebodies Aberdeen
Angus Prize Bull you, or your widow, will have a lot o money to find.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Everybody keep talking- I'm learning! Thanks for all the information.
My wife would be flying alone. It is only a single seat. This is an old Firestar,
and I still haven't found a serial number. I suspect it is an early one.
The landing gear legs measure 1" where they go into the socket. It has a two
blade 66" Warp Drive prop, no brakes, full enclosure, minimal instrumentation,
a BRS, full size wings, and 15-6.00x6 tires with tubes on tubeless aluminum
rims. No flaps or flaperons. Fiberglass tailwheel strut with about a 4" plastic
wheel. Ten gallon tank. The tank is going to be switched out to 5 gallon, and
that should save a pound or so. Someone said the original had Azusa nylon wheels
with 4" tires. Does anyone know the weight savings by switching?
Keep in mind that this is my first aircraft project, and I find it an intellectual
challenge to trim weight, as well as a lot of fun. I need all the advice
you can give me. I do not have the current knowledge or experience to work
the numbers.
I didn't mention a couple of things. It came through with 2 sets of struts-
one set of round aluminum that I believe are original; and a second set that
are streamlined steel(?) that are twice as heavy, but I didn't stick a magnet
to yet. I'm using the round ones for the weight.
Extra speed does not matter. Range does not matter- only local flying is anticipated,
an hour or so at a time. Safety in handling is a priority- our first
ultralight.
Another question- The wings have three holes at the front attachment point
for changing the angle, and the former owner recommended the middle hole. Any
opinions?
Another thing to keep in mind is that I am not an engineer. My background is
more of welding and fabricating with heavy steel. That is why I'm having fun
with all this, and my back hasn't hurt doing it. Love the Kolb, even without
getting it off the ground!
Bill Sullivan
antique Firestar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Bill S:
What is your aviation background, i.e., flying experience?
I know you said you planned only to fly locally for an hour at a time.
I said the same thing before I flew my first Kolb 24 years ago. That
lasted two weeks and I had begun my cross country career.
Another thing to remember. Take a look around and see how many folks
are flying with Azusa nylon wheels. Probably not more than a couple out
of the thousands that have been sent out with kits over the many years
Kolb has been producing kits. There is a reason for that. They are
built light and weak. Brakes, I flew without them for several years.
Even did a flight from Alabama to New York State and back without them.
However, it was a pain in the ass and brakes, later on, made my aircraft
much, much safer.
Guess it all depends on what you want. If you are like most of us, you
will want to improve your airplane and not degrade it attempting to
reduce weight.
As far as meeting the FAR 103 requirement of 254 lbs, that one is going
to be extremely tough to make with a Firestar. You can go to a smaller,
lighter engine. The FS was designed to fly on 35 hp. It will probably
fly on half that. I think you will be degrading performance and the
fun of flying a sporty airplane.
Good luck,
john h
mkIII
Another thing to keep in mind is that I am not an engineer. My
background is more of welding and fabricating with heavy steel. That is
why I'm having fun with all this, and my back hasn't hurt doing it. Love
the Kolb, even without getting it off the ground!
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Thanks for the quote.
Heck I don't remember seeing that before, Not surprising as I have yet to operate
under FAR 103 however still even though its worded vaguely (shall, upon
Request, allow the Administrator, or his designee ) and of course on purpose that
way. None of us have given away any of out constitutional rights. I rather
contest that later in court if they want to than to have them bust me right there
and then on a real violation.
What happens if I deny their request, what can they do? Has anyone ever got busted?
It also does not give a time frame as to when one must comply with the request,
what happens if I say "come back next week I don't have time for it right now"
and then fly off? Where do I even have to tell them who I am or any other information?
I agree its better to be within the rules than to have to put up with
the Gestapo but we do have the choice of not having to. Remember its a rule
not a Law!
Ron (Arizona)
===========
---- Richard Girard wrote:
============
Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The facts,
ma'am, just the facts."
(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to
determine the applicability of this part.
(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the
Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject
only to the provisions of this part.
Here's where you can find them:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14
Rick
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Ron
I appreciate your position. We live in the Land of the Free -- we're
free to tangle with the Feds in court, go up against their M OST
talented lawyers, have them jerk us around for several years until
we've spent all our money and a whomping big bunch of time (during
which we can't fly at all) and then lose the case. Count on it.
A disgusting situation but there it is. In my very amateur opinion
On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:58 AM,Ron wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quote.
> Heck I don't remember seeing that before, Not surprising as I have
> yet to operate under FAR 103 however still even though its worded
> vaguely (shall, upon
> Request, allow the Administrator, or his designee ) and of course
> on purpose that way. None of us have given away any of out
> constitutional rights. I rather contest that later in court if they
> want to than to have them bust me right there and then on a real
> violation.
> What happens if I deny their request, what can they do? Has anyone
> ever got busted?
> It also does not give a time frame as to when one must comply with
> the request, what happens if I say "come back next week I don't
> have time for it right now" and then fly off? Where do I even have
> to tell them who I am or any other information? I agree its better
> to be within the rules than to have to put up with the Gestapo but
> we do have the choice of not having to. Remember its a rule not a Law!
>
> Ron (Arizona)
>
> ===========
> ---- Richard Girard wrote:
>
> ============
> Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The
> facts,
> ma'am, just the facts."
>
> (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part
> shall, upon
> request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the
> vehicle to
> determine the applicability of this part.
>
> (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon
> request of the
> Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is
> subject
> only to the provisions of this part.
> Here's where you can find them:
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
> c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14
> :2.0.1.3.16&idno=14
>
> Rick
>
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb-List Fat Firestar ROTAX GURU |
Hi all ... Kinda getting a little terse around here ....
Hopefully we all can step back and take a deep breath ...
My Firestar IS now legal ... now I have to go to school to keep it so :-( and
now "the man" knows way more about me and my little plane than I ever
Intended ! Kinda like when we have to surrender our cash and guns ... God dont
let
Hillary win ...
I have asked and gotten some good information but need spicifics on
firestar strutts need actual info on making streamlined adjustable strutts ...
also need info on a provision 8 377 case can I mate it to a provision 4
gearbox somehow can I still use the points ignition can I use a provision 4
crankshaft ...
Also can I use a 447 top end on the cases ...?
Thanks! Dave
**************
Start the year off
right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
In a message dated 1/30/2008 1:44:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us writes:
Have a 503 to put on it but am
trying to talk myself into the HKS.
Sounds good, did you make provisions for the added weight of the HKS?
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: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
> A disgusting situation but there it is.
Russ K:
What is disgusting about breaking the law, trying to beat the rap, spending
all your money doing it, and have the Feds eat you for lunch?
Seriously, if you break the law, Part 103, which in my opinion is spelled
out so that even I can understand it, you gonna pay the consequences. I
don't see anything vague about the FAA asking to inspect my unregistered
airplane and me complying.
I flew heavy ULs for a while, was not comfortable doing it, and experienced
a great sense of relief when I started flying my experiemental homebuilt
that was legal with inflight hull and liability insurance. Previously, I
was flying with no insurance because I was illegal and none was available
for an unregistered airplane.
Cost much more to fly now, but probably a lot cheaper in the long run.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
| From: | "Jim ODay" <jimoday(at)hotmail.com> |
I agree with what John H said. I flew my fat UL in 2005 and was always worried
about having a forced landing in a bean field and some good Samaritan calling
911 and the sheriff showing up with the next call to the FAA.
I know the rules, I would get penalized with a suspension and having to answer
the violation question forever on insurance applications.
I parked it till I was able to get legal and what a relief. I fly now with the
hope someone does call 911 if I have a forced landing. They can help haul me
or my plane out of the field, depending on what gets damaged.
Fly safe.
Jim
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161425#161425
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cleaning up a Mark-III |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Richard Pike wrote: << The MKIII is coming into the garage tomorrow,
some more mods to the fuselage area, try to improve the airflow around
the fuselage upper rear, ... see if cleaning up that little flat area
about 10" ahead of the prop arc will do anything. >>
Kolb Friends -
I was thinking of trying to make improvements in this area as well.
I, too, built my Mark-III with the upper half of the rear fuselage pod
open. I believe this contributes to a large chunk of the overall drag
on my plane.
Earlier Mark-IIIs (like Hauck's) had fabric all the way up to the bottom
of the wing, like the Firestar. This configuration seems like it would
be less draggy, as the airflow coming around the fuselage sides would
follow a more streamlined and uniform path toward the prop. On my
Mark-III, the airflow spills around the aft edge of my doors, separates,
and (I'm sure) crates turbulent eddy currents (which equals gobs of
drag) in that whole area aft of the cabin. This was one of the design
improvement goals that New Kolb set out to achieve with the Xtra, I've
been told.
Would it help reduce drag by simply adding a flat panel to each upper
side of the fuselage cage, to keep the airflow moving? I'm thinking of
using 1/16" Lexan, attached using Adel clamps to the cage tubes in that
area.
Somebody on this List once said that the biggest ways to increase our
Kolbs' performance is to concentrate efforts on ways of reducing drag.
This fuselage panel thing seems to fall in that category. Opinions?
Thanks -
Dennis Kirby
912ul, Powerfin-72, in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan Dever" <indyaviator(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Over the years, there have been a few incidents and accidents involving fat
ultralights near my old field. If the sheriff is called out, he always
calls the faa. He says it is their call whether it is an airplane or an UL.
The FAA usually shows up and looks at the pile of tubes and fabric and says
"ultralight, no investigation" They never weigh them. If it has one seat,
5 galon tank and looks like an ultralight...case closed. They don't want to
do the paperwork.
That said, if the plane crashed somewhere it shouldn't be, like downtown or
a schoolyard, I am sure they would nail you to a cross.
If you crash an N numbered plane, isn't there always an investigation?
Bryan D
> I parked it till I was able to get legal and what a relief. I fly now
> with the hope someone does call 911 if I have a forced landing. They can
> help haul me or my plane out of the field, depending on what gets damaged.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Jim
>
> --------
> Jim O'Day
> Fargo, ND
> Firestar II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161425#161425
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Firestar project main spar attachment |
William, I pulled out my Firestar's assembly manual and checked the Final
wing rigging and lift struts section (pages 32 and 33 on my manual, dated
1985, yours could be different).
There is no mention of three holes, just a single 5/16" hole. There is an
admonition to "maintain a healthy edge distance" when drilling this hole.
Perhaps this was a homegrown modification that gained traction later on, I
don't know.
In general empty holes are considered a place for cracks to start in
aircraft structures. Do you have any precision measuring capability? It
would be good to know just how much distance there is between the edges of
holes and the distance from each hole to the edge of the fitting. This area
is in compression during normal flight, but in a negative G situation there
is a possibility of a shear tear out when this area is loaded in tension.
This would be subject to just how much material is there.
I do not have 5 rib wing drawings, just the 7 rib. It shows the pin center
to edge as 5/16" or a .156" (5/32") edge margin.
By contrast Boeing specifies a default .35 edge margin unless otherwise
shown on the drawing.
This is one you might want to give the factory a call on and get their
blessing.
Rick
P.S. The pic is of the right wing attachment on mine. - Show quoted text -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III |
> Earlier Mark-IIIs (like Hauck's) had fabric all the way up to the bottom
> of the wing, like the Firestar.
>
> Dennis Kirby
Dennis:
Sorry, but mkIII's have always be designed and kitted with the lower half of
the rear fuselage covered.
Seemed to me to be an ideal place to put a big fuel tank and get some use
out of that big empty space. We ended up with a nice 25 gal useable
aluminum tank.
Nope, that is an original Hauck design change, not Kolb.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Progress- I took off the tailwheel bracket in order to change the wheel and straighten
the clevis glued to the fiberglass strut. The clevis had been glued
on twisted, and the tail wheel was badly worn on one side. I heated the clevis
to soften the glue, and it went bang and gave a small jet of flame. Luckily,
I was wearing glasses and was off to one side. I twisted it gently and let it
cool down. Worked great. The tailwheel axle was held in by two aluminum rivets.
It was also rusted in place. I turned down and cut a 7/16" clevis pin into a
bushing driver, heated the axle brackets, and it slid out. Cleaned it up with
a Dremel. Travis at Kolb has it in stock. I have to repair the tubing where the
steering cables attach. They were almost worn through. Lots of detail work
on something this old. I also have to cut off the aluminum sleeve that holds one
wheel on, with a cotter pin through it. Siezed up on the steel axle. Travis
is sending some tube stock. Tip on jacking: This
plane has tubular axles. Stick a lon 5/8" bolt in the back of the axle, and use
an old Chevy truck jack. This is the jack with an internal screw, and has a
drop-down hook plate. Works great. Only problem was that the ice was slowly melting.
and the jack was sinking. I am jealous of all you indoor plane fixers.
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Nope!
john h
mk III
If you crash an N numbered plane, isn't there always an
investigation?
Bryan D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Gang:
My idea of why the mag was dropping was correct.
After oiling the throttle clevis's, changing spark plugs, with no
improvement, I played with the enricher at 4000 rpm while performing the mag
check. Indication was lean condition at 4000 rpm.
Today, despite the wind and cold, I got the needles raised a notch, which
puts the clip in the bottom groove of the fuel needles. It worked. Now I
am a happy camper once again.
Proves not all 912 engines are created equal. I never encountered this
problem with my last 912ULS.
Didn't get to test fly because it was getting late by the time I finished
up.
These new generation Bing carbs are much easier to get to the top innards of
the carb to get at the fuel needles. The older ones were a little more work
intensive.
Always feels good to get those little problems solved.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III |
Dennis,
My MKIII is also open behind cabin on the upper part. I discussed closing
it in with Mr. Kolb at TNK and what he thought the difference would be. He
thought the advantage would be very little for aerodynamics. If I ever do
any work in that area I will probably still close it in for the cargo space.
John H. and I flew within sight of each other for about 13 hours last May.
Both planes are Kolb Mark 3s with 912Ss and a lot of differences otherwise .
I used 0.25 - 0.5 gph less than he did. I realize this is apples and
oranges but I tend to agree with Mr. Kolb that enclosing the back is not
going to make a big difference in aerodynamics.
John H. We should have done a side by side full throttle run and compared
top speeds. Maybe next time!
Steven
Planning to fly this Sunday evening
> Earlier Mark-IIIs (like Hauck's) had fabric all the way up to the bottom
> of the wing, like the Firestar. This configuration seems like it would
> be less draggy, as the airflow coming around the fuselage sides would
> follow a more streamlined and uniform path toward the prop. On my
> Mark-III, the airflow spills around the aft edge of my doors, separates,
> and (I'm sure) crates turbulent eddy currents (which equals gobs of
> drag) in that whole area aft of the cabin. This was one of the design
> improvement goals that New Kolb set out to achieve with the Xtra, I've
> been told.
>
> Would it help reduce drag by simply adding a flat panel to each upper
> side of the fuselage cage, to keep the airflow moving? I'm thinking of
> using 1/16" Lexan, attached using Adel clamps to the cage tubes in that
> area.
>
> Somebody on this List once said that the biggest ways to increase our
> Kolbs' performance is to concentrate efforts on ways of reducing drag.
> This fuselage panel thing seems to fall in that category. Opinions?
> Thanks -
>
> Dennis Kirby
> 912ul, Powerfin-72, in
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
In a message dated 1/30/2008 7:05:46 A.M. Central Standard Time,
williamtsullivan(at)att.net writes:
Someone said the original had Azusa nylon wheels with 4" tires. Does anyone
know the weight savings by switching? Bill,
You should save a minimum of 2 lbs going to 4" Azusa from 6 "
Azusa. Very likely More especially if your 6" wheels are of the aluminum
variety. Personally ,even though I have the 4 " wheels, the 6'' wheels are my
preference as far as handling goes.
Ed FF62
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
At 05:51 PM 1/30/2008, you wrote:
>Over the years, there have been a few incidents and accidents
>involving fat ultralights near my old field. If the sheriff is
>called out, he always calls the faa. He says it is their call
>whether it is an airplane or an UL. The FAA usually shows up and
>looks at the pile of tubes and fabric and says "ultralight, no
>investigation" They never weigh them. If it has one seat, 5 galon
>tank and looks like an ultralight...case closed. They don't want to
>do the paperwork.
>
>That said, if the plane crashed somewhere it shouldn't be, like
>downtown or a schoolyard, I am sure they would nail you to a cross.
Here's my experience:
Have an incident where the sheriff is called out. He calls the FAA
and tells them that the pilot says it is
an ultralight. Look's like it's made of tubes & fabric. They tell the
sheriff to tell the pilot that they "won't
be coming out", no investigation.
However:
The next day the FAA calls me and the conversation goes something like this:
Mr. Sullivan, I am Mr. ___ with the FAA and am calling about your
incident in the lake
yesterday.
Yes Sir
Mr. Sullivan, where is your plane right now?
Sir, it's in my dad's barn in Powder Springs (about 20 west of
Atlanta). Directions follow.
Mr. Sullivan, where are you right now?
About 15 miles north of there in Kennesaw.
Mr. Sullivan I would like you to meet me there in 45 minutes.
Yes Sir.
-----------------
Since I've seen this all before, I managed to strip all the fabric
off the entire plane "before he
ever called". Also removed & moved the fuel tank/tanks. Removed and
disassembled the engine,
chute, seat etc. The wings were twisted anyway, as was the cage. The
engine (600 hrs) was full of
water along with the bearings etc. So it wasn't that big a deal.
He came - he looked - he said "yeah, I guess it was an ultralight".
Took some pictures and
went back to Atlanta.
No matter what they say - you crash it & they will come, at least
here. I've seen this happen twice.
They are very professional though.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Sorry to hear about the wetter than planned end to the flight, but I am
assuming everyone was OK. I found the post very interesting. We've all
heard stories about investigation/enforcement, but I have not heard many
first hand accounts of how the process works.
This brings up a question that has been in my mind thru this and the
previous (un-named here) thread - How many of us have seen "ramp checks"
first hand? Is this common in some parts of the country? Do they ever
weigh planes? I'm not saying it is OK to break the rules if they are
not enforced - I'm just curious about how the system works.
Dan G.
Tucson
503 F2
(yes, it is a legal ELSA as of September last year)
possums wrote:
> Here's my experience:
> Have an incident where the sheriff is called out. He calls the FAA and
> tells them that the pilot says it is
> an ultralight. Look's like it's made of tubes & fabric. They tell the
> sheriff to tell the pilot that they "won't
> be coming out", no investigation.
>
> However:
> The next day the FAA calls me and the conversation goes something like
> this:
>
> Mr. Sullivan, I am Mr. ___ with the FAA and am calling about your
> incident in the lake
> yesterday.
>
> Yes Sir
>
> Mr. Sullivan, where is your plane right now?
>
> Sir, it's in my dad's barn in Powder Springs (about 20 west of
> Atlanta). Directions follow.
>
> Mr. Sullivan, where are you right now?
>
> About 15 miles north of there in Kennesaw.
>
> Mr. Sullivan I would like you to meet me there in 45 minutes.
>
> Yes Sir.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III |
Seemed to me to be an ideal place to put a big fuel tank and get some use
out of that big empty space. We ended up with a nice 25 gal useable
aluminum tank.>>
Sounds a great idea John. Wish I could get away with that over here.
What did it do to your weight and C of G?
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
For "Light-Sport Aircraft" (comparable to your microlight category) it's
1320 lbs empty>>
Hi Dana,
I think our new sub 115Kg category will closely approximate your ultralight.
Not completely uncontrolled but much more so than our usual
`microlight`spec.
Our `microlights` are still well below the Sports category weight. My Xtra
has to be below 950lbs MTOW.
Fascinating how different countries have dealt with this problem. Some have
specified empty weight some MTOW some countries do not allow flight above a
certain height some do not allow it below a certain height. Switzerland
allowed no microlights at all until last year. Spain had no legal
microlights a few years ago but there were plenty flying. The legal spec was
so tight that no one could possible fly. Apparently all applications to fly
microlights finished up on the desk of a guy in the Spanish equivalant of
the FAA and he was a microlight pilot himself. He just `lost` them.
Apparently in Australia until a short time ago there were many pilots with
no pilots licence because they lived on large homesteads and and learned to
fly in the same way that they learned to drive a car. Their Dad taught them.
They were never `official` beacause they flew on and over their own land and
never landed at a `proper` airfield. However when they began to fly from
their own homesteads to the neighbours, and then on to the next one, and the
next, in increasing numbers the authorities lowered the boom on them. Good
while it lasted though.
No more posts from me for a couple of weeks as I am off to supposedly
`sunny` Tenerife in the morning. In fact Tenerife has rain and high winds
forecast for at least the next few days. Warm though, in the 70`s so that
will be OK
Cheers everybody
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Pat, thanks for the information on the latest developments over there. I am new
to this, so the term "ultralight" means something different to all of us. Keep
the info coming.
As far as the three mounting hole at the front of the wings, they appear to
have a lot of stock around them. They are tarped in the back yard, and when the
weather is good I will get some measurements. Too windy yesterday. They appear
to be well made and cared for, and I don't know why they were for sale- no
damage except for 4 small (under 2") holes in the ailerons from shipping damage.
They are 5 rib. Some stray weight can be taken off them, like an antenna mount,
and something that I think is a fancy tie-down attachment. Paint and fabric
is very nice. The Millers are sending a patch kit.
By the way- I weighed it with wood strips on the rudder and elevator, and an
unknown weight of gas in it, maybe 4-5 gallons. Also, the wind was blowing.
And the scale read differently every time I bounced it. I just wanted a rough
idea how much to trim. Now I'm waiting for weather or parts.
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> Gang:
>
> My idea of why the mag was dropping was correct.
>
> After oiling the throttle clevis's, changing spark plugs, with no
> improvement, I played with the enricher at 4000 rpm while performing the mag
> check. Indication was lean condition at 4000 rpm.
>
> Today, despite the wind and cold, I got the needles raised a notch, which
> puts the clip in the bottom groove of the fuel needles. It worked. Now I
> am a happy camper once again.
>
> Proves not all 912 engines are created equal. I never encountered this
> problem with my last 912ULS.
>
> Didn't get to test fly because it was getting late by the time I finished
> up.
>
> These new generation Bing carbs are much easier to get to the top innards of
> the carb to get at the fuel needles. The older ones were a little more work
> intensive.
>
> Always feels good to get those little problems solved.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Sounds to me more like just some variation in the carbs rather than an engine difference?
I've encountered the same thing with the bings on my 2-strokes. Same jetting and
atmospheric conditions, but still slightly different resulting mixtures from
motor to motor. I just adjusted them as needed....
The bings on the 912 seem to work really well. The plane originally lived at 1500'
MSL and now lives at 7000' MSL; all I had to do was put the vent lines into
the air filters and lean out the idle mix about 1/2 turn to get a proper looking
plug....
BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I used it to diagnose
a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line change. Saves a lot of time
and head-scratching ;)
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161543#161543
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
My .02...
My personal preference nowadays is to be legal and that's always what I suggest
to others. OTOH, I try not to be anal retentive about the R&R's especially if
they keep me completely grounded with a perfectly good flying machine.
I like many of us flew illegally for a long time - I don't regret it because I
feel that I used my best judgment and flew only good equipment. But these days
I simply prefer to be legal for both safety and "Da Man" reasons.
Much as I hate to say it, it's really quite true: many of the R&R' we fly under
nowadays came about because someone flew an airplane into the ground. This especially
applies to airworthiness; I hate to think of how much of AC 43.13 came
about because of crashes and etc.
Good designs like the kolb, titan quicksilver, RV, etc are safe designs because
someone got in the things and found the bugs.
A lot of what has been discovered over the years then comes down to us partially
in the regs and partially in AC's like 43.13.
Even weight limits have a little sanity to them, the idea behind them being the
greater the "commanded kinetic energy" the more qualified the pilot should be.
Finally, while I think R&R's can be a good thing, I don't want to live in a police
state either. I'd hate to think that the max punishment for the most minimal
infraction will always come about and I'll probably always resist that.
I'll still bend regs as necessary to insure the safety of the flight or even to
enhance the quality of my flying experience within what I consider to be reasonable
bounds. But that's just me.
As for part 103, that's still being hashed out all these years later and I can
see both sides of it.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161555#161555
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project main spar attachment |
FWIW, standard design practice is to have a MINIMUM edge distance,
measured from the center of the hole to the nearest edge, greater than
or equal to 1.5 x hole diameter. For a 5/16 diameter hole the closest
edge distance from the center of the hole, according to standard
practice, would be 15/32" (.47"). Also important is that there be no
sharp edge, nicks etc, where stresses concentrate. Will it fail if
slightly less than .47"? Probably not due to design safety factors
built into "standard practice".
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Being legal is good, and most of us make every effort to follow the spirit of the
law. But good judgment and safety must always your primary concern.
I have never been ramp checked, these guys talk about Ramp checks, and maybe if
you are flying into Oshkosh or Sun and Fun, or some other event you might get
ramp checked, but chances are very low that it will you will ever get checked
at the small airports that most ultralights fly out of.
The other thing you need to take into account is they are probably not going to
be weighing planes without cause while doing ramp checks, has anyone ever been
weighted in a routine ramp check ??? ( not event related, but standard run
of the mill ramp check ) I seriously doubt it... If you have 10 gallons of
gas (double the limit), or 2 seats (double the limit), that will stand out like
a sore thumb, and is likely to get your a violation on a ramp check, just like
driving 110 MPH in a 55 MPH zone will draw attention on the highway (double
the limit).... In the case of your single seat statistic, with a 5 gallon tank
and a single seat, will not likely generate any any unwanted attention. No
one is going to be able to look at you plane and say "its 15 pounds overweight"...
So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue amount
of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance due to being
6 % overweight. I'm sure since this thread started, every one of these guys
has driven 3 MPH over the speed limit. The problem here is, these guys have
taken a position publicly on this list, and they are not about to let a new guy
like me or anyone else point out that what they are suggesting is nothing short
of stupid.
We are very fortunate that Richard and a couple others here are not in positions
of authority. I can see it now, " sir, you were doing 58 in a 55 zone, I am
going to give you a ticket " or " Sir, your plastic fuel tank has bulged and
now holds 5.25 gallons of gas, which is 6 % over the limit, I am going to have
to violate you ".
It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how many "reasons"
they give, worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even worrying about
15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and anal.
How many of these guys do think actually tell their friends to slow down and start
self righteously preaching " the law " when they drive 3 MPH over the speed
limit using all the same arguments they have been using here in this thread.
I'm sure the response they would get would be something to the effect of "stick
it where the sun don't shine" or " get out of my car "...
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=161566#161566
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better performance.
By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
Reduce Climb Rate
Reduce the Glide Ratio
Poor performance at high altitude density
Very probably reduce cruise speed
Increase Takeoff and landing distances
Increase stall speed
You reduce a lot of safety margins by reducing the wingspan of the plane. There
will be some advantages like higher roll rate and a couple others, it might
not be worth all the bad effects shorter wings will have. You should research
what you are dong and the effects before you do 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=161575#161575
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Lucien,
How did you run the vent lines into the Air Filters. Can you post some pictures
of that ? I have one vent that is spitting out some fuel, and I would rather
not have it going all over the engine.
Anyone seen what causes a vent line on the 912-s to spit some fuel, its not much,
I cant see it, but its enough to discolor and leave a gooey discoloration where
it hits the cylinder.
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=161579#161579
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
*RADAR'S REPLACEMENT? MAGNETIC FIELDS TRACK
AIRCRAFT<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1043-full.html#197048>
*
New technology now being studied in Europe can track aircraft by detecting
tiny changes in the Earth's magnetic field, according to a recent report in
ICTWeb<http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm/section/news/tpl/article/BrowsingType/Features/ID/89466>.
Structures that cause "shadows" for today's radar systems -- a problem for
ground surveillance at large, sprawling airports -- do not impair the
magnetic field detectors. Recent tests of the
system<http://www.ismael-project.net/>in Greece and Germany showed
that it could detect 100 percent of the passing
aircraft, and pinpointed their location to within 7.5 meters [25 feet], a
level of accuracy comparable to most existing air traffic management
systems, says researcher Haibin Gao. The system uses an array of small,
cheap sensor units, which could be as small as a coin in the future. They
can be installed at the entry and exit points of each runway, and would be
affordable even for small airports.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
| From: | "Mnflyer" <gbsb2002(at)yahoo.com> |
The weight of the HKS is about 25 to 30 lb more than a 503 depending on accessories
like starter, oil injection gearbox type etc. The HKS is a 60 hp engine thus
8 more than a dual carb dual ignition 503 burns 3 gph running it at 5700 rpms
and has electric start a very quiet ignition and alternator (minimal noise
in the radio) and starts almost instantly, has a 800 TBO.
GB
--------
GB
MNFlyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161581#161581
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
> Lucien,
>
> How did you run the vent lines into the Air Filters. Can you post some pictures
of that ? I have one vent that is spitting out some fuel, and I would rather
not have it going all over the engine.
>
> Anyone seen what causes a vent line on the 912-s to spit some fuel, its not much,
I cant see it, but its enough to discolor and leave a gooey discoloration
where it hits the cylinder.
>
> Mike
I'll try to get some pics of what I did ASAP. I used some brass barbs from Lowes
to make the fittings, the type used to splice tubing. Barbs on each end with
a small ridge in the center. I then drilled holes in the back of the air cleaners,
cleaned out the debris and pushed the fitting in up to the ridge. I also
smeared a little silicone adhesive to help hold it and seal up any possible leaks.
Then pushed the vent lines onto the exposed barb.
This leaned out the top end to where it was supposed to be even as high as 10,000'
MSL, it was running a little rich at full throttle before that.
If you're getting fuel spitting out of the vents, you probably have something plugged
up in the carburettor somewhere or it's possible the carb is running over.
My 2-stroke Bings would sometimes spit fuel out of the vents if they were running
over or needed cleaning.
The outside of the carburettor should be totally dry as should the vents......
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161583#161583
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your plane
off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check. I'm
sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp
check ( non event or air show related ).
Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight
into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and likely
to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not plausible
as an ultralight, get an N Number...
But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
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=161588#161588
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ramp Checks, was Re: Firestar project |
At 12:14 PM 1/31/2008, JetPilot wrote:
>I have never been ramp checked, these guys talk about Ramp checks, and
>maybe if you are flying into Oshkosh or Sun and Fun, or some other event
>you might get ramp checked, but chances are very low that it will you will
>ever get checked at the small airports that most ultralights fly out of.
Seems I've heard of ultralights being weighed at ramp checks at major
fly-ins, but I don't know if it was random or only if an airplane "looked"
heavy.
For most pilots, any thorough ramp check would likely only be if you piss
somebody off, usually by what I call "impolite flying". Or, if you're
flying to or from an airport that tolerates but doesn't quite "welcome"
ultralights, a complaint about some offense (whether real or imaginary)
might precipitate a check. An example is the airport I'm on a waiting list
for hangar space at. It's 1/3 the distance from my house compared to the
ultralight friendly airport I'm currently flying from... the airport owner
allows ultralights (though only if the pilot has a license), but the FBO
owner hates ultralights and wants no part of them on "his" airport. So far
the airport owner's policy goes, but on one occasion the FBO told the pilot
of a [registered] Quicksilver GT-400 "the first time I have to go around
because you're too slow on final, you're out of here!" Wouldn't be too
hard to picture a guy like that calling the FAA and reporting an
"overweight" ultralight.
-Dana
--
Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
> There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your
plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
>
> I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check. I'm
sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp
check ( non event or air show related ).
>
> Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight
into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and
likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not
plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
>
> But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
>
> Mike
Mike,
You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an ultralight
to you? How much do you think it weighs?
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/at_lydia__162.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
In a message dated 1/31/2008 12:35:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
orcabonita(at)hotmail.com writes:
It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better
performance. By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
Yes Mike, but, What if the wing you are starting with is too long? You
are assuming that the original Firestar wing is "The Right Length". As I
understand it the original Firestar has almost as much wing area as Your MKIIIX.
By your logic you would have to increase your wingspan to almost 60 feet.
As far as a longer wing being better, It depends what the mission is. By
virtue of the fact that I fly my Firefly with 60 # of float all the time, I Am
60# over weight of a standard Fly. Performance is tremendous.
At one point Bryan and I thought about increasing the wingspan a tad but
after flying the stock configuration for two years I see no reason to do so.
As far as:
Reduce Climb Rate ----------- Climbs at over 800 fpm with
Floats
Reduce the Glide Ratio ----------- Doubt it
Poor performance at high altitude density ---------- flies nice at 8000
ft
Very probably reduce cruise speed ----------doubt it
Increase Takeoff and landing distances ------------Takeoff on Glassy
water 150 ft/ Lands on less
Increase stall speed ---------------- You might be right here, but the
current stall is fine
I am not trying to give you a hard time here Mike but it is pretty hard to
beat the package that Dennis S and the crew put together.
I suggest that you try the stew before you add Salt, The Chef may have
gotten it right.
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
> If you're getting fuel spitting out of the vents, you probably have
something plugged up in the carburettor somewhere or it's possible the carb
is running over.
>
> My 2-stroke Bings would sometimes spit fuel out of the vents if they were
> running over or needed cleaning.
>
> The outside of the carburettor should be totally dry as should the
> vents......
>
> LS
Lucien:
Probably that carb plugging up the works and causing the carbs to spit fuel.
;-)
john h
mklIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
> I have one vent that is spitting out some fuel, and I would rather not
> have it going all over the engine.
>
> Anyone seen what causes a vent line on the 912-s to spit some fuel, its
> not much, I cant see it, but its enough to discolor and leave a gooey
> discoloration where it hits the cylinder.
>
> Mike
Mike B:
You probably have a fuel vapor stand off problem, rather than a float
chamber static port blowing fuel on your engine.
All engines, two and four stroke, have a little cloud of fuel vapor that
stands off the intake of the carb. I don't know why gasoline engines do
this, but they do, from a 2 hp B&S to my old 85 hp Ford Flat Head V8. These
I can vouch for because, as a kid, I experimented with them.
Rotax two strokes are set up to blow the fuel vapor stand off out the air
filter because they are oriented perpendicular to the air stream.
If you are running conical air filters, they are more supceptible to blowing
the fuel vapor off the mouth of the carb and onto your engine since it is a
pusher and the aircleaner is sitting right out there in the front of the
engine. Sometimes the flat cake pan K&N air filters will cure the problem,
but in my case, a pair of air filter covers did the job nicely. I also
route the float chamber static tube into the cover between it and the air
filter so it will read the same satic pressure as the static port on the lip
of the carb.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
Rich
In time this could means we just plug in the airport identifier ( CIA) and l
et the magnet drag us onto final ? hahahaha
Just make damn sure the window =C2-reads to and not from or you could be f
aced with one Heathy Head Field hahahahahaha
Mark
Interesting Technology Rich 8-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 9:07 am
Subject: Kolb-List: Hmmmmm
RADAR'S
REPLACEMENT? MAGNETIC FIELDS TRACK AIRCRAFT
New technology
now being studied in Europe can track aircraft by detecting tiny changes
in the Earth's magnetic field, according to a recent report in ICTWeb. Struc
tures that cause "shadows" for today's
radar systems -- a problem for ground surveillance at large, sprawling
airports -- do not impair the magnetic field detectors. Recent tests of
the system
in Greece and Germany showed that it could detect 100 percent of the
passing aircraft, and pinpointed their location to within 7.5 meters [25
feet], a level of accuracy comparable to most existing air traffic
management systems, says researcher Haibin Gao. The system uses an array
of small, cheap sensor units, which could be as small as a coin in the
future. They can be installed at the entry and exit points of each
runway, and would be affordable even for small airports.
________________________________________________________________________
aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Please just drop it. As the lists DH, "Designated Hitman", :-) you just
refuse to quit.
You make it sound like others are suggesting we turn our wing struts down in
a lathe in order to make our planes lighter.
Dennis Rowe
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:14 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project
> So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue
> amount of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance
> due to being 6 % overweight. I'm sure since this thread started, every
> one of these guys has driven 3 MPH over the speed limit. The problem here
> is, these guys have taken a position publicly on this list, and they are
> not about to let a new guy like me or anyone else point out that what they
> are suggesting is nothing short of stupid.
>
> We are very fortunate that Richard and a couple others here are not in
> positions of authority. I can see it now, " sir, you were doing 58 in a
> 55 zone, I am going to give you a ticket " or " Sir, your plastic fuel
> tank has bulged and now holds 5.25 gallons of gas, which is 6 % over the
> limit, I am going to have to violate you ".
>
> It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how
> many "reasons" they give, worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even
> worrying about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and
> anal.
>
> How many of these guys do think actually tell their friends to slow down
> and start self righteously preaching " the law " when they drive 3 MPH
> over the speed limit using all the same arguments they have been using
> here in this thread. I'm sure the response they would get would be
> something to the effect of "stick it where the sun don't shine" or " get
> out of my car "...
>
> 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=161566#161566
>
>
> --
> 1/30/2008 8:51 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
>> BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I
>> used it to diagnose a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line
>> change. Saves a lot of time and head-scratching ;)
>>
>> LS
BB/Gang:
Yea, how did the carp get in there? If he won't plug up a carb, nothing
will.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeremy Casey <1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
JetPilot wrote:
>
> It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better performance.
By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
>
> Reduce Climb Rate
> Reduce the Glide Ratio
> Poor performance at high altitude density
> Very probably reduce cruise speed
> Increase Takeoff and landing distances
> Increase stall speed
>
> You reduce a lot of safety margins by reducing the wingspan of the plane. There
will be some advantages like higher roll rate and a couple others, it might
not be worth all the bad effects shorter wings will have. You should research
what you are dong and the effects before you do this.
>
> Mike
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
> Probably that carb plugging up the works and causing the carbs to spit
fuel.
> ;-)
Gang:
Blew that one, didn't I. Misspelled "carp". Drat'it.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
| From: | "Jim ODay" <jimoday(at)hotmail.com> |
Wow Ralph, that looks like a skinny FS! ...... I guess 254#
My builders manual advised that my FS would not make the 103 weight unless built
with a free air cooled Rotax motor, light fabric, minimal paint, no brakes,
plastic wheels ...... bottom line it was not happening.
I don't know of any ramp checking going on at fly-ins, but I know the FAA investigates
anytime a plane has a un-planned off the airport or bad airport landing.
If you have flying credentials (ie: Pilots license) be prepared to be grounded
if you ruled to be in violation of the FAR's.
By the way, I have been "ramp checked" twice. They checked the AC documents and
mine. The 1st time was awful, the second was no problem with lessons learned
from the first time. Neither were done at my home field but when I was traveling.
(both were in factory made planes) If you want the details, send me a
note.
Mike, I get your point that it is OK to be kinda fat as long as you carry the weight
well. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck; it is a duck.
I guess we have a different opinion here. The reality is if my plane looks to
fit the 103 rule, and I want it to "pass" as a UL, I must be willing to produce
false documentation and tell lies. I have an aversion to both.
You can build a legal UL, but a 255# airplane without a registration is called
an unregistered A/C. You can call it whatever you want, but it does not change
anything.
I am glad I had the opportunity to get my fat little FS set up as an E-LSA. It
was not UL 103 legal, never would be, and after the SP rules were a reality,
there was no more gray area to hide in.
Fly safe,
Jim
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161629#161629
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolb_72007_medium_131.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Ralph, it depends on how technical you want to be and how much you know
about that tank. If it holds more than 5 gallons, not much more, but more,
is enough to kick on the "Not an Ultralight" Light.
Per AC 103-7,
19. *Maximum Fuel Capacity of a Powered Ultralight Vehicle*. The maximum
fuel capacity for a powered ultralight vehicle is 5 U.S. gallons. Any
powered ultralight with fuel tank(s) exceeding this capacity is ineligible
for operation as an ultralight vehicle.
a. *Determination of Fuel Capacity*. The total volume, including all
available space for usable and unusable fuel in the fuel tank is the total
fuel capacity. The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carburetor is not
considered in a calculation of total volume.
b. *Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity*.
(1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to
control capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the
capacity if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.
(2) A temporary, detachable, or voluntarily- observed method for
restricting fuel capacity, such as a "fill-to" line is not acceptable.
That tiny area above the 5 gallon line on the tank could be a tip off to a
"by the book" inspector. He or she has only to look at the tank and ask you
to demonstrate the capacity. I'm not an inspector, I have no vested interest
in the ultralight argument.
At the "Air Festival" in Wellington, KS last September two "volunteers" from
the Wichita FSDO showed up, in addition to the fellow who was assigned to
the show (and really hacked off the guy who was assigned, I might add), and
started ramp checking. The president of my EAA chapter was one of those
given a "stern warning" by these two. His offense? The gas tanks on his RV-6
weren't properly labeled.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:24 PM, Ralph B wrote:
>
>
> JetPilot wrote:
> > There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass
> your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
> >
> > I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp
> check. I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of
> the mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).
> >
> > Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly
> your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp
> checks, and likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is
> obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
> >
> > But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that
> there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> Mike,
>
> You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an
> ultralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> N91493 E-AB
> 21 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/at_lydia__162.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how many
"reasons" they give, worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even worrying
about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and anal. >>
Oh Yeah! And how does `Well officer, I only shot him a little bit` sound as
a defence.
Cheers
Pat (away for the next two weeks)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Your minimum hp take off and climb? |
What is the minimum hp for take off and climb in a Kolb?
http://picasaweb.google.com/imhisson2/MinimumHp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Much as I hate to say it, it's really quite true: many of the R&R' we fly
under nowadays came about because someone flew an airplane into the ground.
>>
Thats what happened in the UK. We had a good thing going which the
authorities treated merely as an extension of hang gliding. Then there were
a series of fatalities and Authority swooped. Luckily we had Anne Welch, a
long time gliding enthusiast who had helped fight the CAA to keep the
gliding movements training, safety, licensing etc in its own hands. She
realised that the microlight movement was in a similar position to gliding
in the 30`s and became the Chairman of the fledgeling organisation. She did
to a great extent what she and her husband had done for the Gliding
fraternity and kept us `comparitively` rule free..
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Hey=C2-
If =C2-they can make rules WE the people didnt vote for why can WE the peo
ple make them
earn their Pay checks? ahahahaha
Hmmm Now =C2-I wonder how many feet of Tubing i'll need to make 5 Gallons
hahahahaha 8-)
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements
Ralph, it depends on how technical you want to be and how much you know abou
t that tank. If it holds more than 5 gallons, not much more, but more, is en
ough to kick on the "Not an Ultralight" Light.
Per AC 103-7,
19. Maximum Fuel Capacity of a Powered Ultralight Vehicle.=C2- The maximum
fuel capacity for a powered ultralight vehicle is 5 U.S. gallons. Any power
ed ultralight with fuel tank(s) exceeding this capacity is ineligible for op
eration as an ultralight vehicle.
=C2-=C2-=C2- a. Determination of Fuel Capacity. The total volume, incl
uding all available space for usable and unusable fuel in the fuel tank is t
he total fuel capacity. The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carbureto
r is not considered in a calculation of total volume.
=C2-=C2-=C2- b. Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity.
=C2-=C2-=C2- =C2-=C2-=C2- (1) Tanks which have a permanent stand
pipe or venting arrangement to control capacity are permitted, but may be su
bject to demonstration of the capacity if there is any reason to doubt that
the arrangement is effective.
=C2-=C2-=C2- =C2-=C2-=C2- (2) A temporary, detachable, or volunt
arily- observed method for restricting fuel capacity, such as a "fill-to" li
ne is not acceptable.
That tiny area above the 5 gallon line on the tank could be a tip off to a "
by the book" inspector. He or she has only to look at the tank and ask you t
o demonstrate the capacity. I'm not an inspector, I have no vested interest
in the ultralight argument.
At the "Air Festival" in Wellington, KS last September two "volunteers" from
the Wichita FSDO showed up, in addition to the fellow who was assigned to t
he show (and really hacked off the guy who was assigned, I might add), and s
tarted ramp checking. The president of my EAA chapter was one of those given
a "stern warning" by these two. His offense? The gas tanks on his RV-6 were
n't properly labeled.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:24 PM, Ralph B wrote:
JetPilot wrote:
> There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass yo
ur plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
>
> I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.
=C2-I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of th
e mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).
>
> Its all about good judgment, if you are =C2-a bit overweight, don't fly
your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp ch
ecks, and likely to be weighed. =C2- If you are so far overweight that it
is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
>
> But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. =C2-Seems t
hat there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
>
> Mike
Mike,
You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an u
ltralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598
________________________________________________________________________
aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Good luck Bill,
its nice to be appreciated. .
i have no opinions about holes in spars. There are plenty on the list
who are really very expert indeed. You will have to sort out which ones
they are. Whatever you do, don`t believe them all. Some are , shall we
say, not so clewed up as others.
cheers#
Pat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
>
> Being legal is good, and most of us make every effort to follow the spirit of
the law. But good judgment and safety must always your primary concern.
>
> So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue amount
of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance due to being
6 % overweight.
> Mike
I should add that Mike touches on a good point here, and an area where I'd willingly
bend the regs (though I still wouldn't openly suggest this to others).
There are cases where rules aren't appropriate and can actually impair safety.
the deal with part 103 weight is, arguably, one of them. I.e. removing good metal
wheels or a safety belt in order to get at or below 254lbs.
In a case like this I'm with Mike - being a "little bit pregnant" is the prudent
thing to do because it's a safety issue for the plane.
But that's just me and how I work.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161674#161674
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> >> BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I
>
> > > used it to diagnose a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line
> > > change. Saves a lot of time and head-scratching ;)
> > >
> > > LS
> >
> >
>
>
> BB/Gang:
>
> Yea, how did the carp get in there? If he won't plug up a carb, nothing
> will.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Oops, sorry about the carp.... no fish involved but "crap" for sure......
That's where I learned to finally sand down the sharp edges on any barbed fittings
during a fuel line change... and to thoroughly flush the new assemblies before
installation and otherwise be operating-room clean when messing with fuel
lines......
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161675#161675
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
Richard Girard wrote:
> Ed, I use my Felco F-9 cable cutters to trim the ears. I cut from the
> inside of the thimble out and there is no burr left to dress where the
> cable touches.
> If you haven't made cables before, go to AC 43.13-1B "Aircraft
> Inspection, Repair and Alteration Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and
> Practices" pages 7-32 and 7-33 for instruction on how to use Nicopress
> ovals. Use the proper tool and inspect each swage with the proper gauge.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 7:51 AM, Richard Pike > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the
> cable
> passes over the cut.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Edward Bonsell wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> > cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or
> grind
> > them off?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
Guy's,
Why are you cutting off the ears on your thimbles when making cables?
Am I missing something here? I didn't have any problem making up my
cables with the ears of the thimbles intact. Is there some mechanical
advantage to removing them and if so, why do they make them with the
ears in the first place? I found that they keep the nicopress sleeve at
the proper distance from the loop to prevent pinching. Willing to learn!!
Terry - Firefly #95 785 hr.'s
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
>
> Why are you cutting off the ears on your thimbles when making cables? Am I
missing something here? I didn't have any problem making up my cables with the
ears of the thimbles intact. Is there some mechanical advantage to removing
them and if so, why do they make them with the ears in the first place? I found
that they keep the nicopress sleeve at the proper distance from the loop to
prevent pinching. Willing to learn!!
>
> Terry - Firefly #95 785 hr.'s
>
AC 43.13 says you can trim the ears if needed and I always do - I've found the
thimble can be held in place more firmly this way and the cable is in firmer contact
with the thimble ends where they go into the swage.
I made some fairly ok loops with untrimmed ends, but they always were a little
loosey-goosey compared to trimmed ones...... and I'm ultra-paranoid about thimbles
popping out of cable ends especially on control cables... had it happen,
so.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161692#161692
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your minimum hp take off and climb? |
Bob,
Perhaps he is just doing a "go around", rather than a take off.
It would probably take a 40 Horse Rotax to get that kind of altitude
in that short a distance with a Firefly, Whada ya
think? ; ^)
On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
> What is the minimum hp for take off and climb in a Kolb?
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/imhisson2/MinimumHp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five tuck
splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop about the
thimble loose. Cutting off the ears pulls the thimble ends together when the
Nico sleeve is swaged. Try both methods and use the one that you like.
Either is acceptable.
Rick
On Jan 31, 2008 6:02 PM, TK wrote:
> Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Ed, I use my Felco F-9 cable cutters to trim the ears. I cut from the
> inside of the thimble out and there is no burr left to dress where the cable
> touches.
> If you haven't made cables before, go to AC 43.13-1B "Aircraft Inspection,
> Repair and Alteration Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices" pages
> 7-32 and 7-33 for instruction on how to use Nicopress ovals. Use the proper
> tool and inspect each swage with the proper gauge.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 7:51 AM, Richard Pike wrote:
>
> >
> > Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the cable
> > passes over the cut.
> >
> > Richard Pike
> > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> >
> > Edward Bonsell wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> > > cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind
> > > them off?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> Guy's,
>
> Why are you cutting off the ears on your thimbles when making cables? Am
> I missing something here? I didn't have any problem making up my cables
> with the ears of the thimbles intact. Is there some mechanical advantage to
> removing them and if so, why do they make them with the ears in the first
> place? I found that they keep the nicopress sleeve at the proper distance
> from the loop to prevent pinching. Willing to learn!!
>
> Terry - Firefly #95 785 hr.'s
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
At 07:58 PM 1/31/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
>The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five tuck
>splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop about the
>thimble loose...
Or you could just do five tuck splices instead of nico's on all your
cables... :)
-Dana
--
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
Ray,
You mentioned Bernoulli...is that the same gent that furnishes only
maybe 10% of the wing's lift? I'm a firm Newton guy!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not rchive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Minimum horsepower take off? |
Eugene,
Or maybe the glider was just taking the horse out fer a run, like a
dawg ona leash?
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do note archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:06 PM, russ kinne wrote:
> No time for this foolishness!
Sorry Russ,
Ya could have fooled me.
You took the possum's bait.
What moves your plane forward, the wheels or the prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
That would be the blood donor method, thanks, but no. ;-)
Rick
On Jan 31, 2008 7:19 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 07:58 PM 1/31/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
> >The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five tuck
> >splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop about the
> >thimble loose...
>
> Or you could just do five tuck splices instead of nico's on all your
> cables... :)
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Mike,
Ramp checks are like car accidents: they happen when you least
expect.
I admire the restraint of 99% of the Kolb list. Your pomposity in
answering some of the recent posts is tiring at best. Reminds me of what my
Dad used to say, "An empty wagon makes the most noise". Please quit the
insults and the patronizing tone. Your constant derision ("Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some...") is insulting and
immature. Try and listen to some of the responses, and take them to heart.
100 other pilots can't all be wrong....
At any rate, I've had ramp checks at small, uncontrolled airfields
as well as large airports, and know of other airman who have been imposed
upon likewise. Have had the boys show up unannounced in a corporate flight
department, and in a local small-town FBO. But then, that's been over the
course of 30+ years of flying. And the feds ARE concerned about W&B, as
well as all other required aircraft documentation. I even had one Fed ask
to be taken up, until I asked how he'd be paying for the trip around the
pattern.
The big thing about being at proper weight is as much about
insurance and liability as legality. Try having even a tiny scrape with an
aircraft, the insurer will try and prove you violated some reg, forget about
the Feds. Had a bird strike a couple years ago, the insuring agent asked 10
times the questions as the FAA guys.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements
>
> There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass
> your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
>
> I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.
> I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the
> mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).
>
> Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your
> ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp
> checks, and likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it
> is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
>
> But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that
> there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
>
> 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=161588#161588
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
Hey Bob,
Yeah, soggy Newtons (fig?...) aren't much fun.
Ed in JXN
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Noyer
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Not really kolb related
Ray,
You mentioned Bernoulli...is that the same gent that furnishes only
maybe 10% of the wing's lift? I'm a firm Newton guy!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not rchive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Good timing on trimming the cable ears. I was just fixing the tailwheel assembly.
and one of the steering cables had the thimble all crumpled and twisted.
The bare cable had worn a groove in the tube almost all the way to the edge. I
brazed a couple of washers on the tube, and would have put the thimbles back
the way they were. Nice save, guys.
John- your carb problem is actually a malfunctioning bilge pump. Check it,
and the carp won't get up to the air filter.
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
Rick
Dip the strand ends on solder before you start to splice. Less
colorful but more comfortable.
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> That would be the blood donor method, thanks, but no. ;-)
>
> Rick
>
> On Jan 31, 2008 7:19 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 07:58 PM 1/31/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
> >The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five
> tuck
> >splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop
> about the
> >thimble loose...
>
> Or you could just do five tuck splices instead of nico's on all your
> cables... :)
>
> -Dana
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary aman <gaman(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS Mag Drop |
I imagine any kind of fish in your carburetor could be a problem!
----- Original Message ----
From: lucien <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:17:36 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 912ULS Mag Drop
John Hauck wrote:
> >> BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I
>
> > > used it to diagnose a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel
line
> > > change. Saves a lot of time and head-scratching ;)
> > >
> > > LS
> >
> >
>
>
> BB/Gang:
>
> Yea, how did the carp get in there? If he won't plug up a carb,
nothing
> will.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Oops, sorry about the carp.... no fish involved but "crap" for
sure......
That's where I learned to finally sand down the sharp edges on any
barbed fittings during a fuel line change... and to thoroughly flush the
new assemblies before installation and otherwise be operating-room clean
when messing with fuel lines......
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161675#161675
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Ralph B wrote:
>
> JetPilot wrote:
> > There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your
plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
> >
> > I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.
I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp
check ( non event or air show related ).
> >
> > Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight
into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and
likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not
plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
> >
> > But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> Mike
>
> You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an ultralight
to you? How much do you think it weighs?
>
> Ralph
Well this is a fat ultralight that looks skinny because I left the covering off
the rear part of the cage. This is one of the earliest Firestars (S/N #49), and
was designed to be an ultralight. Even with a parachute that would give it
another 24 lbs, it still would not have made the 276 lb weight limit. I have
since added a bigger engine (447), streamlined struts, bigger wheels, nice seat
cushion, strobe lights, and still has the 5-gallon main tank. It doesn't have
brakes and weighs in at 319 lbs. Looks can be deceiving. It's an aircraft with
a tail number.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161815#161815
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Mike,
Most of what you say are the effects of shortening the wingspan are
true, except for the slower cruise speed. This argument raged on for
quite a while on the Titan Yahoo Group. Most of the Tornados come with
the 23.5' length wing. The one I had was the 20' wing. I had told the
group that my Titan with 20' wing and 80 hp 912UL was as fast or
faster than the more common ones with 23.5' wing and 100 hp 912ULS.
This created all kinds of arguments with explanations why a shorter
wing could not possibly be as fast as the longer wing. The basis for
the arguments was that due to the shorter wingspan, the angle of
attack would have to be greater to support the same weight at a given
speed, and thus be more draggy than the longer wing. There is a
smidgeon of truth in that but the effect of the tiny bit higher AOA is
much smaller than the REDUCED drag due to the shorter span.
I finally go the opportunity to do a side-by-side comparison with a
23.5' wing Tornado w/ 912ULS engine vs. my 80 hp short wing Tornado.
Flying weight were within 30 lbs of the same. It turns out that my Vh
was identical to the other's Vh. We both had in-flight adjustable
props and set them for 5500 rpm at full throttle. My 80 hp short wing
was the same speed as the 100 hp long wing. Also, mine did not have
wheel pants and the other did.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KOLB AIRCRAFT" <customersupport(at)tnkolbaircraft.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolbra price list |
LUCIEN, SORRY TO BE SO LATE WITH MY REPLY, BUT SEND ME YOUR ADRESS AND I
WILL SEND YOU A PRICE SHEET ON THE KOLBRA THANKS DONNIE
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolbra price list
>
> Hi all,
>
> Er forgive my ignorance, but does anyone have a current price sheet for
the Kolbra handy? I can't seem to find one on the kolb factory site, though
there appears to be one for the MK III and the others.
>
> Doing some thinkin, pencil pushin and calkeelatin and need a detailed
price list before my 6th grade education runs out of steam.
>
> Just show me where to click on the site (or just email Travis)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155164#155164
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
How many of us have seen "ramp checks" first hand? Is this common in some
parts of the country?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was visiting with an old sage,,, he had been flying since he was a pup,
His dad used to run the airport which he took over....
Anyway,,, he said that the only time he was ever ramp checked was at
monument valley, a faa sort was on vacation, and wanted to be able to write
off the vacation expenses, so did a bit of work while he was away from the
office.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Gang:
Turned out to be a beautiful day after all. Sun is shining, a little windy,
and the temp is 49F.
I got the mag drop problem solved couple days ago. Prior to that, had been
experiencing a little abnormal vibration, i.e., a vibration that had not
been there before. Suspect the lean in mid-range condition was probably
contributing to that also.
Murphy is a slick character. All this started after I returned from out
West after an absence of two months. The mkIII had stood silently waiting
to fly since the first of October, three months prior. Before I flew I
pulled the gear box, resealed it, which meant pulling the prop. Changed the
oil and filter, and away we went. About the same time the weather had
gradually gotten colder. Each time I flew it, I was detecting a slight mag
drop on one side, while also feeling a little vibration in the airplane that
had not been there before. Really got the old imagination working, but in
the wrong direction, until I started experimenting with the enricher.
I ran out of day light when I raised the needles to the last notch, but did
get to do a couple mag checks. The 912ULS got crisp and light, just like
she always has. Hopefully, I got rid of the vibration, but if not it may be
a blade out of pitch a tad. That will also do it and is most likely the
gremlin. Hope not cause I don't want to repitch in the cold. However,
wouldn't hurt to lighten the pitch just a little to get a little more rpm
out of it on takeoff and back up to hitting the red line at 5,500 rpm during
WOT, straight and level flight. That'll have me zipping along at 95 mph
WOT, cruising at 85 mph. That's fast enough to get me anywhere I want to go
in the North American Continent.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
I've been ramp checked only once. I was delivering our Cherokee 140 we sold to
its new owner in French Valley, California. After an IFR night flight landing
at Hays, KS (home of Rans Aircraft) the FAA rep greeted me after shutting down
in the tie-down area. His only interest was paperwork for the airplane. He was
not interested in my paperwork, medical and pilot certificates, only the airplane,
which were all in order. Quick and painless and the FAA rep was very courteous
and cordial.
Thom in Buffalo
--------
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=161923#161923
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
The February 2008 issue of EAA Sport Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft, has an
article about the Savage, which is shown on the front cover. The article is
written by Dan Johnson and in it there is a favorable reference to using VG's.
Might be of some interest to those that are putting them on Kolbs.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
At 07:18 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote:
>It's not the prop blast. The plane is pulling itself through the
>air. The only thing different than a normal takeoff is the
>rotational speed of the wheels. The rest of the plane doesn't know
>it is on a belt.
>
>Bryan D
If your plane was on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind pushing
it 100 mph down the runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course you
could. Same difference.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Key <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
if a 100 mph wind is pushing you 100 mph your airspeed is 0 I don't think y
ou'd go very far.> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:41:32 -0500> To: kolb-list@matr
onics.com> From: possums(at)bellsouth.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Not rea
outh.net>> > At 07:18 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote:> >It's not the prop blast. T
he plane is pulling itself through the > >air. The only thing different tha
n a normal takeoff is the > >rotational speed of the wheels. The rest of th
e plane doesn't know > >it is on a belt.> >> >Bryan D> > If your plane was
on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind pushing> it 100 mph down t
he runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course you> could. Same differe
==> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:41 PM, possums wrote:
> If your plane was on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind
> pushing
> it 100 mph down the runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course
> you
> could. Same difference.
Nope
Not me!
I'd die of a heart attack long before I reached flying speed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
At 07:02 PM 2/1/2008, you wrote:
>if a 100 mph wind is pushing you 100 mph your airspeed is 0 I don't
>think you'd go very far.
>
I guess I should have said that - "could you take off if you used
your throttle"?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
If your plane was on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind
pushing
it 100 mph down the runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course you
could. Same difference.
That would mean your speed THROUGH THE AIR would be zero? How could a
takeoff be possible?
Are you saying the plane would accelerate to 140 or so? Then it might
take off, if the wheels stayed together --
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:41 PM, possums wrote:
> If your plane was on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind
> pushing
> it 100 mph down the runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course
> you
> could. Same difference.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
I don't care if you could take off, it's the taxiing into position I'd like
to see.
Rick G.
On Feb 1, 2008 6:06 PM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:41 PM, possums wrote:
>
> > If your plane was on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind
> > pushing
> > it 100 mph down the runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course
> > you
> > could. Same difference.
>
> Nope
> Not me!
>
> I'd die of a heart attack long before I reached flying speed.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
A friend of mine was ramp checked just last weekend. Here is his story:
****************************
Dennis (I didnt catch his name) of the FAA was there to oversee the waiver received
to fly the MIA balloon they tether each year. After I landed he immediately
approached to check me out. After showing his Federal ID, he asked to see my
pilots license, aircraft registration and the airworthiness paper. There was
no problem at all with our meeting. He did what was expected and I had all my
ducks lined up. He was friendly , so was I and we chatted a bit. End of story
- Karey.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161988#161988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
I only covered my FSII up to the top of the fuel tanks. If you only have
the short windshield, covering up to the wings will cause a lot of drag, I
would think. With a full enclosure, it wouldn`t be as big of a deal.
Covering up to the wings will make it harder to add fuel and may cause a
problem with fumes in the cockpit. To each his own, however, I like the way
I covered mine. My 2 cents worth. Lanny FSII N598LF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
I know I picked up about 6mph just by streamlining the struts.
That is a lot of drag - a round tube that long as opposed to
a teardrop shaped strut. There is almost nothing better you can
do to a stock plane to lose drag that streamlining the lift struts.
Plus - I lost the weird vibration and worry of watching the
lift struts go thru their little "shake rattle & roll" routine out there.
I'm sure it didn't hurt anything, but I just didn't like it.
Jeremy could do the math for you. I just know that it works.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar Project |
Open question for everyone. I have to repair about five small holes in the ailerons.
I brought the wing into the living room. I ran Ellery's test of using
MEK to double check the finish. Mek would not dissolve the paint, but did dissolve
the vinyl glove I was wearing. The paint is Aerothane. I have the book and
kit from the Millers, but I would appreciate any and all tips on repairs. I
have to use a brush for all stages, as I have nowhere safe to spray isocyanates.
The neighborhood is too close to risk airbornes. I am now going down to the
drug store for latex gloves. The guy at the hardware store thought his were latex,
but they weren't marked. Luckily I only got a couple of pairs.
I hope I got the right color- Madrid Red. I don't care what kind of light I
used before ordering, there were four really close reds.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
It's all relative. If you're flying cross country & your 80mph airplane
gets a 20 mph tailwind, you're going 100 over the ground, right? Just
translate that to flying really close to the ground, as in your takeoff
roll. As you bring the power up, the prop will make you accelerate in
the relative wind. You'll still take of at the same *airspeed*, but
you'll have a really high groundspeed. That's why we are taught to take
off into the wind instead of downwind.
Charlie
David Key wrote:
> if a 100 mph wind is pushing you 100 mph your airspeed is 0 I don't
> think you'd go very far.
>
> > Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:41:32 -0500
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > From: possums(at)bellsouth.net
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Not really kolb related
> >
> >
> > At 07:18 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote:
> > >It's not the prop blast. The plane is pulling itself through the
> > >air. The only thing different than a normal takeoff is the
> > >rotational speed of the wheels. The rest of the plane doesn't know
> > >it is on a belt.
> > >
> > >Bryan D
> >
> > If your plane was on an 8,000 ft runway and had a 100 mph tailwind
> pushing
> > it 100 mph down the runway, Could you take off down wind. Of course you
> > could. Same =======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar Project |
To answer Richard Girard's question about the hole margins on my forward wing
attachment point- the front attachment point appears to be a fabricated piece
of junior "I" beam, just under 3" high. The 3 holes are no closer than 1/4" to
the edge, and spaced about 1/2" apart. The web is about 5/32" thick, as are
the upper and lower flanges. The flanges are about
1 1/8" wide. This appears to be plenty of stock for the purpose. I don't know
why- maybe the builder had trouble setting the wing angle, or simply wanted them
adjustable. I can't tell by looking at or in the holes which one was commonly
used. I don't think that it would make a lot of difference, as long as both
sides are set the same.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
It's good to hear that I'm not the only one with that vibration. How
did streamlining the struts get rid of the vibration - did you use the
extruded aluminum struts? If so, where is the best place to buy those
for a Firestar II? I am also considering using the PVC covers that
Craig mentioned - would they help with the vibration? Where is a good
place to get those?
Thanks much
Dan G.
503 F2
Tucson
possums wrote:
> I know I picked up about 6mph just by streamlining the struts.
> That is a lot of drag - a round tube that long as opposed to
> a teardrop shaped strut. There is almost nothing better you can
> do to a stock plane to lose drag that streamlining the lift struts.
> Plus - I lost the weird vibration and worry of watching the
> lift struts go thru their little "shake rattle & roll" routine out there.
> I'm sure it didn't hurt anything, but I just didn't like it.
> Jeremy could do the math for you. I just know that it works.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Six months ago I called the Distributor for Exxon/Mobil in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
and the owner confirmed they do not add ethanol locally for Exxon/Mobil stations.
He did say thay added 10% to the regular for a local independent gas station
and sold it as mid-grade at the same price as their regular. Adding a minimum
of 10% gets them tax breaks and they are able to sell the oxygenated regular
as mid-grade for the same price as their regular unleaded.
He said fuel with 10% ethanol or more is required to be labeled at the pump in
Idaho. He also said nobody in his area (N Idaho) adds
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162143#162143
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Project |
Bill, for refinishing, if you're in a relatively warm area, so the paint
will flow before it sets, use a foam roller to apply enough coats to satisfy
your eye that it has completely covered the primer. Let it dry and use wet
or dry sandpaper to remove any stippling and polish with compound to match
the local area.
Rick
On Feb 2, 2008 9:56 PM, william sullivan wrote:
> To answer Richard Girard's question about the hole margins on my forward
> wing attachment point- the front attachment point appears to be a fabricated
> piece of junior "I" beam, just under 3" high. The 3 holes are no closer than
> 1/4" to the edge, and spaced about 1/2" apart. The web is about 5/32" thick,
> as are the upper and lower flanges. The flanges are about
> 1 1/8" wide. This appears to be plenty of stock for the purpose. I don't
> know why- maybe the builder had trouble setting the wing angle, or simply
> wanted them adjustable. I can't tell by looking at or in the holes which one
> was commonly used. I don't think that it would make a lot of difference, as
> long as both sides are set the same.
> Bill
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Project |
Bill, should have added it's the little 3" foam roller you want. They can be
found at any box store and have a nice radius on the edge so the paint
feathers out.
Also a warning, if you use Smooth Prime be sure to use adequate protection
for skin and respiratory contact unless you are absolutely sure you aren't
sensitive to the cross linker. My friend Wayne has gotten so sensitive to it
he had to farm out the priming of his LongEZ and even then broke out in
blisters whenever he came in contact with any that wasn't completely cured.
It could be dry to the touch yet still outgassing and he would get a
reaction.
Rick
On Feb 3, 2008 8:57 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Bill, for refinishing, if you're in a relatively warm area, so the paint
> will flow before it sets, use a foam roller to apply enough coats to satisfy
> your eye that it has completely covered the primer. Let it dry and use wet
> or dry sandpaper to remove any stippling and polish with compound to match
> the local area.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2008 9:56 PM, william sullivan wrote:
>
> > To answer Richard Girard's question about the hole margins on my
> > forward wing attachment point- the front attachment point appears to be a
> > fabricated piece of junior "I" beam, just under 3" high. The 3 holes are no
> > closer than 1/4" to the edge, and spaced about 1/2" apart. The web is about
> > 5/32" thick, as are the upper and lower flanges. The flanges are about
> > 1 1/8" wide. This appears to be plenty of stock for the purpose. I don't
> > know why- maybe the builder had trouble setting the wing angle, or simply
> > wanted them adjustable. I can't tell by looking at or in the holes which one
> > was commonly used. I don't think that it would make a lot of difference, as
> > long as both sides are set the same.
> > Bill
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar Project |
I cleaned up the first hole. Only trouble was I didn't use a sharp enough scribe-
I was afraid to damage the fabric. Now that I know, it will go easier. Foam
roller is a good tip- I think I have one.
I just started getting the live version of the List. Got tired of waiting.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
At 12:45 AM 2/3/2008, you wrote:
How did streamlining the struts get rid of the vibration - did you
use the extruded aluminum struts?
No - I just had some metal (T6061 I think) bent for me at a shop with
an 8 foot brake.
Had them cut it to shape, then roll both edges a little to partially
go around the strut. After that - bend it in the break. I riveted it on
the struts and with the rolled edges, it fits pretty tight. Been on
there for 10 years.
It stopped all the vibration and hardly weighs anything. But there
are all kinds of
ways to do it. Many are more aerodynamic than mine, but most weigh a lot more.
I would think that they all would stop the vibration.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb-List Rotax E Box |
What motors will an E Box fit provision 8 only or will it fit a provision 4
.... Thanks ! Dave
**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on
AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New use for ladders. You got to see this! |
| From: | "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> |
http://www.pouduciel.com/
http://pouchel.aliceblogs.fr/blog/constructeurspouchel
(http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608061)
(http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608054)
(http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608062)
(http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608058)
(http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608057)
Wish I could read it! I think it french.
This is just amazing!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162261#162261
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New use for ladders. You got to see this! |
| From: | "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> |
and a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsFKowEzSiw
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162263#162263
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Now I know what I want for Christmas. |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
All of that modern tech and look what they still use. A glass tube bank indicator.
Gotta love it.
--------
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop
Schenectady, NY
http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162265#162265
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/glass_cockpit_309.bmp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | artdog1512 <nazz57(at)YAHOO.COM> |
at the Kolb website on the homepage there's a spot
where you can login and i "assume" chat with whoever
is online. i also assume you need to be registered to
be able to login. my question is - how do i get
registered? how do i get a password? ........... tim
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Tim
This is not really a chat room but a forum for posting ideas and questions about
Kolbs.
To join you just go to the login feature at the top of the Matronics page and sign
up. You enter your own password.
Once you log in you can post messages onto the Forums. When you first log in you
will see all the forums for the different Aircraft, and Cars too.
Then you just select the one you want to enter and go...
Hope This Helps
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162276#162276
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar Project |
I started patching the small holes in the wings. I did as Ellery recommended,
and my only comment is to make sure the scribe is sharp, and drag at an angle.
I was worried about the strength of the Dacron, so I was cautious at first.
Also, I had never used the MEK for anything and did not know the evaporative rate.
Turns out it is not a worry. I trimmed torn material from the hole with a
small pair of scissors, and used a pad of paper towel about 2" square and 4 layers
thick for the MEK. It takes a couple of minutes to soften the glue, so be
patient. I used a pocket knife with a rounded blade to pick the paint off. First
hole went slow, and the other two went right along. I put the glue on the
wing and let it set up, held the patch in place and moistened with MEK on one
end. Let it harden, stretch, and keep going. I love this stuff. Another tip-
let somebody else take the candy thermometer out of the packaging. Then you can
blame them when it drops on the floor.
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
For those who may have missed this:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/sport.cfm?ContentBlockID=e712b936-
da94-4396-966c-1d4757aa58b6&Dynamic=1
BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co wrote:
> Bart,
>
> I just recently covered my fuselage, and only covered up to the top of the
tanks. I am going to finish the rest of the way up to the bottom of the wings
with thin Lexan. FYI, I have a full enclosure MkIII.
>
>
How did you enclose the back area of your MK III, the flat area in the back that
faces the prop. Can you post some pictures ?
I have enclosed mine, but am still planning on fairing the back end with aluminum
like John H did on his. That big flat area has to be creating some drage
and maybe even disturbing the airflow for the tips of the prop in that area.
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=162312#162312
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New use for ladders. You got to see this! |
Not Kolb related but this is a takeoff on the French "Flying Flea"
or 'pou de ciel' design from way back, 30's?
Website is spelled pouduciel and pouchel; dunno where 'putfile' comes in
Ladders is a joke, if it ever flew the wind-noise would be fearsome!
On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:38 PM, grantr wrote:
>
>
> http://www.pouduciel.com/
> http://pouchel.aliceblogs.fr/blog/constructeurspouchel
>
> (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608061)
> (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608054)
> (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608062)
> (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608058)
> (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=7608057)
>
> Wish I could read it! I think it french.
>
> This is just amazing!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162261#162261
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Mike,
For the moment I just wrapped the end of the fuselage with fabric. Since
my engine/prop is removed, I don't know the clearance for building a fairi
ng, yet.
My intention is to build either an aluminum or fiberglass fairing, once t
he prop is replaced. To be honest, I'm not real sure how much clearance th
ere should be, between the fairing trailing edge and the prop blades. Any
recommendations, you'ze guys??
Here's an "expertise" question for the really smart guys. I know the con
ventional wisdom for building a fairing at the rear of the fuselage (the 6"
wide flat area) would be to make it simetrical...in other words, just make
a "vee", centered on the flat area. BUT!! Has anyone given any thought
to off-setting the trailing edge of the fairing significantly to one edge?
Like this artist's rendition (ha ha):
I I
I I
Fairing --> I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
___<_____ How did you enclose the back area of your MK III, the flat area i
n the back that faces the prop. Can you post some pictures ?
>
> I have enclosed mine, but am still planning on fairing the back end with
aluminum like John H did on his. That big flat area has to be creating some
drage and maybe even disturbing the airflow for the tips of the prop in th
at area.
>
> Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Well, so much for my "artist's rendition!! This "rich text" email style evidently
doesn't allow me to type figures in a clear area of the page. (It just
slides everything over to the left.
What I was trying to portray was a "vee" fairing that had the trailing edge even
with one side...not in the center. My thinking is, as a propeller swings
close to the fairing it may slam air against one edge of the fairing. But if
one edge was canted to one side, creating a "more" sloped edge slightly ahead
of the blades, it would seem to me this would be a more logical design.
Let me try to show this idea once more. I'll use dots, to keep from having averything
slide against the left.
This would be an overhead view, looking down on the propeller swinging past the
fairing.
......I.......I
......I......I
......I.....I
......I....I
......I...I
......I..I
......I.I
......I
.
.
-------<--<--<--<--<--
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail-get your "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
My thinking is, as a propeller swings close to the fairing it may slam air
against one edge of the fairing.
Mike W
Mike W:
Seems like some 4130 tabs welded to the rear verical fuselage tubes would
have been ideal for attaching a sheet metal or fiberglass fairing. Already
got the fabric on though. ;-(
I had mine covered, flown 100 hours, when the fabric fairing I had
originally designed and fabricated got beat to death by the prop. I didn't
have any choice but drill the vertical tubes to rivet the aluminum fairing
in place. Don't forget the tube seal. Mine has performed well.
I think I would design and build the tail fairing straight. Over the years
I have done a lot of experimentation with stuff, attempting to overcome
adverse yaw in the mkIII. Of all the experiments I have done, an oversized
rudder trim tab works best. All the other stuff was a waste of good time
and effort.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Interesting idea, makes sense that there will be rotating air just in front of
the prop at that point, offsetting to one side would compensate for that. How
much, it could be a lot, or barely measurable, I have no idea. I don't know
if I would want to answer all the questions about why I built the back of my
airplane is " Crooked " [Wink]
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=162348#162348
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clydemacquarrie(at)eastlink.ca |
| Subject: | Trailer suited for transporting a Mark lll Classic. |
I have purchased a Kolb Mark lll in Florida and have to haul it to the Eastern
part of Canada. Interested in buying a trailer to transport this craft. Know
of anyone who might have a suitable trailer (preferable a box style) located on
the east coast of the U.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trailer suited for transporting a Mark lll Classic. |
| From: | "John H Murphy" <mailjohnmurphy(at)gmail.com> |
I believe the Haulmark 24' trailer will do what you want. You should be able to
get one on the East Coast for under $7K. My Firestar fits great in mine with
6 or more feet to spare.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162362#162362
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trailer suited for transporting a Mark lll Classic. |
I need to get a pair of MK3 wings and a tail section from North Carolina to
Michigan. If anybody is traveling that way, let me know. Maybe we can
benefit each other somehow.
Aaron Gustafson Iron Mountain MI
> I have purchased a Kolb Mark lll in Florida and have to haul it to the
> Eastern part of Canada. Interested in buying a trailer to transport this
> craft. Know of anyone who might have a suitable trailer (preferable a box
> style) located on the east coast of the U.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kip Laurie Around??? |
| From: | "Gherkins Tim" <rp3420(at)freescale.com> |
Hey Kolbers,
Is Kip Laurie from Atlanta area still on the list. Tried his website
and got nothing. Wanted to download some of his beautiful in-flight
pictures.
If anyone has any info, let me know,
Tim Gherkins
FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
At 05:31 PM 2/4/2008, jb92563 wrote:
>Ran it at full throttle for a few minutes and observed about 1425 EGT and
>420 CHT. Not sure what normal would be....any ideas?
Max CHT should be 400F
Max EGT should be 1275F
Best power EGT is 1200F
The EGT probe is supposed to be 1" from the manifold flange gasket. You
really only need gauges in the #1 (rear) cylinder (unless you're running
dual carbs) as that one runs hotter. Mine is located farther away, where
the two pipes join, and reads higher... but the CHT is lower, the engine
runs OK and the plugs look fine so I tend to distrust the gauge.
-Dana
--
To Be Old And Wise You Must First Be Young And Stupid
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
I'm looking for some parts to put together a MK3. Here are a few questions
if anyone can guide me.
1. Is there any place other (cheaper) than Kolb to get a fuselage tube?
2.Has anyone done a major repair on a cage and have any info or sugestions.
Or should I build one from scratch? Anyone have any info on tubing diameters
and thicknesses
3. I believe there have been some gear leg options other than the 7075 stock
ones. Tell me if you can.
4.Are there some places better than others for obtaining Polyfiber products
ie. fabric, paint etc.
I built a FS2 in 95 and put 440 hours on it. Last June I flew my scratch
built Zenith 601 but I miss being able to look straight down so gotta build!
I appreciate any help you can give me 'on list' or private
agustafson(at)chartermi.net
Aaron Gustafson Iron Mountain Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Aaron, I've looked for the 6" diameter tube used on the Mk.3 without
success. I had to buy a 5" tube for another pod and boom airplane in 2006.
Got it from Wick's, it was $400(!!!), and I stopped and picked it up as I
was coming back from a trip so there was no packing or shipping. 5" was also
the biggest size Wick's carried. Just checked their 2008 catalog and 5" is
still $32.84 a foot and it's still the largest they carry.
Rick
On Feb 4, 2008 7:40 PM, Aaron Gustafson wrote:
> agustafson(at)chartermi.net>
>
> I'm looking for some parts to put together a MK3. Here are a few questions
> if anyone can guide me.
>
> 1. Is there any place other (cheaper) than Kolb to get a fuselage tube?
> 2.Has anyone done a major repair on a cage and have any info or
> sugestions.
> Or should I build one from scratch? Anyone have any info on tubing
> diameters
> and thicknesses
> 3. I believe there have been some gear leg options other than the 7075
> stock
> ones. Tell me if you can.
> 4.Are there some places better than others for obtaining Polyfiber
> products
> ie. fabric, paint etc.
>
> I built a FS2 in 95 and put 440 hours on it. Last June I flew my scratch
> built Zenith 601 but I miss being able to look straight down so gotta
> build!
>
> I appreciate any help you can give me 'on list' or private
> agustafson(at)chartermi.net
>
> Aaron Gustafson Iron Mountain Michigan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hey Guys:
Check with Travis at Kolb.
5 and 6 inch tubes in prime condition are very difficult to obtain by
TNK. Most of it get dinged during rough handling and shipping. Once
they were close to shutting down because the quality of the tubing was
not good enough for building airplanes. The tubing is used primarily
for irrigation pipe. It is tough and last a long time for the farmer.
Some of their 5 and 6 inch tubing is not of cosmetic and commercial
quality for kitting, but satisfactory quality for Kolb aircraft. My
mkIII has three 6" blem tubes for tail boom and main spars. Seem to be
working well, despite some minor dings and dimples here and there.
Maybe you can get Travis to give you a reduced price on some of this
tubing. Worth a phone call.
john h
mkIII
Aaron, I've looked for the 6" diameter tube used on the Mk.3 without
success.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
Thanks for the idea and especially the photos. That's a very ingenious
solution- light and simple, and looks like you get 90 percent of the
benefit of a full airfoil. That would be perfect for my purposes.
Seems like that would also be a slick way to streamline the aft end of
the aileron torque tubes (like Jack Hart did on his Firefly), provided
there is enough prop clearance.
Dan G
503 F2
Tucson
possums wrote:
> No - I just had some metal (T6061 I think) bent for me at a shop with
> an 8 foot brake.
> Had them cut it to shape, then roll both edges a little to partially
> go around the strut. After that - bend it in the break. I riveted it on
> the struts and with the rolled edges, it fits pretty tight. Been on
> there for 10 years.
> It stopped all the vibration and hardly weighs anything. But there are
> all kinds of
> ways to do it. Many are more aerodynamic than mine, but most weigh a
> lot more.
> I would think that they all would stop the vibration.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan G." <azfirestar(at)cox.net> |
Mike,
For aerodynamic purposes, it's best to minimize the transition angles
that the air has to follow - if the angle is too great, the air flow
will separate (as in wing stall) and you will loose the benefit of the
fairing. In the case below, the angle on the right side might be a bit
steep, depending on how long your fairing is. For a given length, the
shallowest angle would be achieved by a symmetrical fairing. When I
worked on pneumatic aircraft systems, we tried to keep angles of sharp
transitions (i.e. the angle from one surface to the next along a
streamline) to less than 7 degrees, but that was probably conservative.
The prop clearance you need highly depends on the prop. The IVO prop
needs a lot of clearance because it flexes so much. (I think they
recommend at least 5"). Also, as you pointed out, the airflow near the
prop is somewhat complicated, so I think you would want some separation
in order to minimize vibration due to interaction of the prop and airframe.
Dan G
503 F2
Tucson
Mike Welch wrote:
> What I was trying to portray was a "vee" fairing that had the trailing edge
even with one side...not in the center. My thinking is, as a propeller swings
close to the fairing it may slam air against one edge of the fairing. But if
one edge was canted to one side, creating a "more" sloped edge slightly ahead
of the blades, it would seem to me this would be a more logical design.
>
>Let me try to show this idea once more. I'll use dots, to keep from having averything
slide against the left.
>This would be an overhead view, looking down on the propeller swinging past the
fairing.
>
>......I.......I
>......I......I
>......I.....I
>......I....I
>......I...I
>......I..I
>......I.I
>......I
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
Another item for beginners: I heat shrank 3 patches today, each about 6" square.
My first time on this. Even without coatings, they are nice and tight- they
feel just as good as anywhere else on the aileron. I used a Black and Decker
iron, and calibrated with a candy thermometer. I didn't have heat sink compound,
so I used a pad made of a folded bath towel covered by 4 layers of paper towels.
I angled it so that the tip of the thermometer was against the iron, and
almost no air got in. Worked great, but I was cautious and kept the heat a couple
of degrees low. I found out the number scale on the iron has nothing to
do with the temperature. Ironed with the tip only, and took my time. First shrink
smoothed out the glue and edge real nice, and tightened up quite a bit. Second
time got it nice and firm. Nothing to be afraid of, but take your time. Took
a little over an hour, working casually. Can't work on it Tuesday, life is
getting in the way. Keep the advice coming guys- I
do appreciate it very much.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
At 07:25 PM 2/4/2008, jb92563 wrote:
>Are those numbers the Max from Cuyuna manual, or from your own engine?
>
>I guess looking at the plugs should give an idea to what is happening as well.
>
>I wonder if a couple minutes running is enough to get an indication on the
>plugs?
Ray, the numbers I gave are from the Cuyuna manual. I don't know how much
running time is necessary to read the plugs, but it can't hurt to have a
look. Also check what main jet is in your carb, and where the needle is;
you might need to go bigger and/or move the needle clip down.
-Dana
--
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
Ray:
Are you running the correct prop pitch?
Two stroke tuning in an airplane is based on correct prop loading as the
number one item. If it is incorrect, everything on down the line, jets,
needles, and plugs, with also be incorrect.
I find the best way to get an unknown engine back in line is put everything
in the carb back where it belongs, and insure jetting and needles are
correct size.
Also insure the spark plug is the correct heat range.
Insure the correct prop and pitch is installed. For a Cuyuna ULII02, I
believe that would have been a Jim Culver 50X30. That was a perfect prop
for the US with ULII02.
Hope you all are operating those engines with air filters.
john h
mkIII
> Sounds like I am running to lean if those numbers are right.
> Are you using a filter on your carb?
>
> --------
> Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I wish Craig would sell the wing strut fairings, and even more so, the big engine
cowl he made !!! I would be first in line for 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=162539#162539
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
> I seem to recall that the Ul202 engine was succeptible to case
> leaks..Needed re torqueing once in a while.. A very old engine model at
> any rate..15 years old or older? Herb
Herb:
The ULII02 was a good engine. Had CDI ign, which was much easier to
maintain than the point ign Rotax's.
If one did not retorque the cylinders every 100 hours or more, they were
prone to leak at the cylinder base gasket. This was probably caused by the
small amount of metal that remained after the engine cases were lightened
from the 430 to the ULII02. In an US the engine had to be dropped from the
engine mount to get at the bolts to torque them. Because of the extra work
involved, most of us would fly them until they started leaking, then end up
replacing cyl base gaskets and head gaskets.
Never had any big problems with the ULII02, but was plagued with little ones
that were annoying and would occasionally put one on the ground. It was all
a big learning curve, getting out of turbine powered helicopters that had
lots of folks and lots of money available for parts and repairs, into a
little two stroke that had to be maintained by a guy anxious to fly more
than anxious to spend all time on the ground fixing stuff.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
John
Yeah! I am old and good also...:-)
I had a UL202 on the US that I had... Very surprised at the ease
of starting.. Nearly fell backward, expecting to have to pull and
pull and pull .. Started just about the time I pulled the rope a foot
or so.. Ran strong. Herb
At 04:50 PM 2/5/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> > I seem to recall that the Ul202 engine was succeptible to case
>>leaks..Needed re torqueing once in a while.. A very old engine
>>model at any rate..15 years old or older? Herb
>
>
>Herb:
>
>The ULII02 was a good engine. Had CDI ign, which was much easier to
>maintain than the point ign Rotax's.
>
>If one did not retorque the cylinders every 100 hours or more, they
>were prone to leak at the cylinder base gasket. This was probably
>caused by the small amount of metal that remained after the engine
>cases were lightened from the 430 to the ULII02. In an US the
>engine had to be dropped from the engine mount to get at the bolts
>to torque them. Because of the extra work involved, most of us
>would fly them until they started leaking, then end up replacing cyl
>base gaskets and head gaskets.
>
>Never had any big problems with the ULII02, but was plagued with
>little ones that were annoying and would occasionally put one on the
>ground. It was all a big learning curve, getting out of turbine
>powered helicopters that had lots of folks and lots of money
>available for parts and repairs, into a little two stroke that had
>to be maintained by a guy anxious to fly more than anxious to spend
>all time on the ground fixing stuff.
>
>john h
>mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
At 10:37 AM 2/5/2008, jb92563 wrote:
>Sounds like I am running to lean if those numbers are right.
>Not sure how to tune it for richer, would the needle clip go in the next
>lower notch to make it more rich?
>Or do I change needles to make it richer.....lower needle number is richer?
>I'll take a look and see what needle number I am running tonight.
>Dana, what needle number are you running?
>Are you using a filter on your carb?
Ray, yes, it sounds like it's lean. Moving the needle clip down makes the
needle go up, which makes it richer... but only in the midrange. I don't
know what needle number I have; I don't think many people change
them. Full throttle mixture is controlled by the main jet, which _does_
need to be changed according to the seasons or altitude:
ULII-02, Cuyuna exhaust, Mikuni VM32 carburetor
Altitude
8000 250 240 230 220 210
6000 270 260 250 240 230
4000 290 280 270 260 250
2000 310 300 290 280 270
Sea Level 330 320 310 300 290
Temp. =B0F 0-20=B0 20-40=B0 40-60=B0 60-80=B0 80-100=B0
Mine had a 300 main jet, which I changed to a 310 for winter flying (below
40=B0 and it's too cold to fly!). On a couple of hot days last summer, I
stuck with the 300 jet (all I had at the time) but I had the needle clip in
the top notch.
-Dana
--
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government. - Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
try this site.
http://www.metalsdepot.com/products/alum2.phtml?page=rndtube&LimAcc=%20&aident
Now I am not sure that its any cheaper than Kolb or that it is the right wall thinkness,
it may be thicker. If you are going to weld your own H brace then it
doesn't matter and you will get a stronger and a bit heavier Tube.
Ron (Arizona)
===========================================
---- Richard Girard wrote:
============
Aaron, I've looked for the 6" diameter tube used on the Mk.3 without
success. I had to buy a 5" tube for another pod and boom airplane in 2006.
Got it from Wick's, it was $400(!!!), and I stopped and picked it up as I
was coming back from a trip so there was no packing or shipping. 5" was also
the biggest size Wick's carried. Just checked their 2008 catalog and 5" is
still $32.84 a foot and it's still the largest they carry.
Rick
On Feb 4, 2008 7:40 PM, Aaron Gustafson wrote:
> agustafson(at)chartermi.net>
>
> I'm looking for some parts to put together a MK3. Here are a few questions
> if anyone can guide me.
>
> 1. Is there any place other (cheaper) than Kolb to get a fuselage tube?
> 2.Has anyone done a major repair on a cage and have any info or
> sugestions.
> Or should I build one from scratch? Anyone have any info on tubing
> diameters
> and thicknesses
> 3. I believe there have been some gear leg options other than the 7075
> stock
> ones. Tell me if you can.
> 4.Are there some places better than others for obtaining Polyfiber
> products
> ie. fabric, paint etc.
>
> I built a FS2 in 95 and put 440 hours on it. Last June I flew my scratch
> built Zenith 601 but I miss being able to look straight down so gotta
> build!
>
> I appreciate any help you can give me 'on list' or private
> agustafson(at)chartermi.net
>
> Aaron Gustafson Iron Mountain Michigan
>
>
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 5 in. Tubing - Reposting a old Post - Might be useful |
>Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 00:53:52 -0500
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 5 in. Tubing
>Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>If I recall right the source they used for the larger dia. tubing was an
>aluminum company in AZ. Yes it was irrigation pipe. I used to have the
>name of it and the source of the rivets they used. As for strength why
>change what has withstood the test of time and proven its self to
>work. Kolb are good airplanes, why mess with what isn't broke.
>
> >
> >Just wanted to make a couple comments about the 5 in. boom / spar tube that
> >comes up every so often, I believe the tube referred to as Irrigation pipe
> >is 6063-T8 and not T6 , I have a couple 10 ft. lengths and took a sample to
> >work for a simple tensile break test, sample was 5 in. O.D. X .050 in. wall
> >and it broke at between 37,000 and 41,000 PSI, not too bad for water pipe .
> > The cost of this pipe or tube is approx. $5.00 per ft. and it is sold in
> >20 ft. lengths , Wick's was mentioned as a source , they sell 5 in. X .065
> >wall for approx. $20.00 per ft. and weight is 30% more also,comes in 12ft.
> >length.
> > Am not an engineer but have always wondered why the Kolb
> attach point for
> >wing / strut was at the mid point of wing panel and not at 66% as most AC
> >are located, would appear that H section would allow spar to elongate under
> >heavy load , have also thought that H section could be extended to a length
> >of 36 or 40 in. and made into a truss to spread load over larger area.
> > Guess one can"t argue with success but after smashing some of this tube
> >to pieces , it still looks fragile .
> > Thanks for listening
> > Phil Lohiser
> > EAA 12873
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
Ron wrote:
> try this site.
>
> http://www.metalsdepot.com/products/alum2.phtml?page=rndtube&LimAcc=%20&aident
>
> Now I am not sure that its any cheaper than Kolb or that it is the right
> wall thinkness, it may be thicker. If you are going to weld your own H
> brace then it doesn't matter and you will get a stronger and a bit heavier
> Tube.
>
> Ron (Arizona)
Ron others,
The 6 inch tubing on that web sight has a wall thickness twice as thick as
the tubing on my Mk-3, (1/8 ") not only would the H sections not fit inside,
but the weight differance would be pretty substantial.
I have to think using that as a tail tube would move your CG pretty far aft.
I would stick with what Homer came up with.
Denny Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
I got a new tail wheel from Kolb, and put it in the tail wheel carrier. When
I tried to put the carrier in the suspension yoke, the wheel hits the lower flange
of the yoke. I will have to grind the flange to fit, and install the pivot
bolt from the bottom up. There is enough stock, so strength is not a problem.
Then I will have to re-install the wheel and axle shaft. The new wheel appears
to be the same as the old- casting marks, etc. Maybe the builder turned the
wheel down to fit? Does the builder have to make the carrier from scratch, out
of tubing? Mine appears to be well made, maybe factory. Were the original wheels
five inch, or smaller? Anyone know?
Bill Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
I just looked at the picture that was posted of the Ultrastar, photo taken from
the rear. I noticed that it has the same tail wheel brackets I have on the
Firestar, but has a different wheel. It has a red wheel, and more room. Mine is
black, and fresh from Kolb- a five inch. Is the red one stock, and what diameter
is it?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Now I am not sure that its any cheaper than Kolb or that it is the right
wall thinkness, it may be thicker.
>
> Ron (Arizona)
Ron:
Can do much better with Travis, plus receive the correct size.
Looks like the thinnest wall is .125 which is twice the that of the Kolb
tail boom.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
Thanks to all who replied. I found that indeed the best deal and the proper
stuff is directly from Travis at Kolb. I will go there.
Thanks again!
Still looking for a cage , Damaged etc. Or a complete aircraft, wrecked or
what ever and cheap. Maybe one that's in someone's way!
Aaron G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Update |
>
>
>In the meantime, here are some pics.
>
Ray,
Looks like your Ultrastar has negative dihedral.
Should make it a fun aircraft to fly.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Bill, Looks like a scooter wheel. Here's a pic of the stock one from my Mk.3
.
Rick
On Feb 6, 2008 7:05 AM, william sullivan wrote:
> I just looked at the picture that was posted of the Ultrastar, photo
> taken from the rear. I noticed that it has the same tail wheel brackets I
> have on the Firestar, but has a different wheel. It has a red wheel, and
> more room. Mine is black, and fresh from Kolb- a five inch. Is the red one
> stock, and what diameter is it?
> Bill
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Sent too soon. It's 5" in diameter, fine print says it's made in Sherbrooke,
Quebec, Canada. You can see the clearance to the swivel bolt. I measured the
TW on the FS and it's the same as this.
Rick
On Feb 6, 2008 9:10 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Bill, Looks like a scooter wheel. Here's a pic of the stock one from my
> Mk.3.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On Feb 6, 2008 7:05 AM, william sullivan wrote:
>
> > I just looked at the picture that was posted of the Ultrastar, photo
> > taken from the rear. I noticed that it has the same tail wheel brackets I
> > have on the Firestar, but has a different wheel. It has a red wheel, and
> > more room. Mine is black, and fresh from Kolb- a five inch. Is the red one
> > stock, and what diameter is it?
> > Bill
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Dan G wrote: << It's good to hear that I'm not the only one with that
vibration. How did streamlining the struts get rid of the vibration >>
Dan, and other interested Kolbers -
Airflow downstream of any strut with circular cross section creates an
eddy current called a "Von Karmann street." This flow phenomenon is an
eddy that curls back and forth in alternating directions, similar to
what you see in the stream of smoke rising from a cigarette. You can
also see the Von Karmann street effect in rivers that meander along a
flat countryside - the water course appears to curl alternately from one
direction to the other.
In airflow, these rapidly-oscillating eddy currents translate into a
vibration, and this is what we encounter with un-streamlined struts.
Dennis Kirby
Amazed to even remember this stuff since my Aero-101 courses 25 years
ago, in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
Hey Dennis,
How's the rebuild going?? Taken any photos lately? What's the timeframe
to getting your plane back in the air?
Mike Welch
MkIII> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts > Date: We
MDA/AL" > > > > > Dan G wrote: << It's good t
o hear that I'm not the only one with that> vibration. How did streamlining
the struts get rid of the vibration >>> > Dan, and other interested Kolber
s -> > Airflow downstream of any strut with circular cross section creates
an> eddy current called a "Von Karmann street." This flow phenomenon is an>
eddy that curls back and forth in alternating directions, similar to> what
you see in the stream of smoke rising from a cigarette. You can> also see
the Von Karmann street effect in rivers that meander along a> flat countrys
ide - the water course appears to curl alternately from one> direction to t
he other. > > In airflow, these rapidly-oscillating eddy currents translate
into a> vibration, and this is what we encounter with un-streamlined strut
s.> > Dennis Kirby> Amazed to even remember this stuff since my Aero-101 co
=================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging.-You IM, we g
ive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter flight/ streamlined struts |
Before MV.
john h
mkIII
How's the rebuild going?? Taken any photos lately? What's the
timeframe to getting your plane back in the air?
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar project |
I got the tailwheel assembly all together. Had to grind the lower strut pivot,
and install the pivot bolt up from the bottom. I had to grind the head of a
grade 8 bolt to round it off for wheel clearance, and cut a screwdriver slot in
it. The steering cables were no problem, and I put some tension on the wheel
shimmy springs.
First coat of Poly Brush on the aileron patches. Wish I had cut the fabric
a little straighter. The new wings appear to be a newer design than the old ones,
or a little different. The previous owner had never tried to fold the wings.
The new wings came in with a shorter distance between the attachment points.
He took a blank extended "u-joint" and drilled the holes to fit. Mounts fine,
but did not fold. Turns out the old ones had front and rear holes on the same
plane, and the new ones were mounted with the rear lug mounted with a vertical
bolt. The new wings also seem to be sturdier at the rear attachment- fatter
hardware. I will fit and change the wing attachments when I have better weather.
Does anyone know when they switched dimensions and hardware? It might help
me date this thing.
Bill sullivan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
After 21 years of flying, I'm going to finally have to replace the single jointed
muffler on the engine. It's been welded twice before and now it's cracked again.
I have a new double-jointed muffler and never put it on for two reasons.
One, it has two EGT sender ports and I don't want to add another EGT gauge on
my panel. Second, the muffler end goes straight out instead of the exhaust pointing
up like this one does. I'm afraid the exhaust gases going out could weaken
the fiberglass Ivo prop, over time, as the prop is only a few inches from
the end of the muffler exhaust (I don't have a prop extension). What I can do,
is get the curved part cut out of the old muffler and welded on to the new one.
That takes care of that problem (or I could get a prop extension).
I thought about tying the EGT senders together. Has anyone else done this? I don't
see any problem with this. If one sends out more voltage than the other, it
would respond on the single EGT instrument I have, thereby indicting a high
EGT if either of the cylinders are too hot.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162832#162832
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
Hi Ralph,
I had the same issue on EGT -- originally one probe at the Y and one
gauge. Later determined I much preferred knowing EGT separately, so put
in a second probe. My solution to leaving it one gauge was to add a
small switch. I mounted it just under the throttle. Fwd is the fwd EGT
probe, middle is a neither, Rear is the rear EGT probe. I made myself
the habit of leaving that switch in the rear position, other than when
checking front EGT, to avoid inadvertently switching my ignition switch
from fwd to rear (OFF) instead. My ignition sw is bigger and mounted a
foot in front, but brain farts happen. Overall the solution has worked
well, although that is also with the recognition that a digital EIS with
alarm thresholds woulda been best.
-Ben
Ralph B wrote:
>
> After 21 years of flying, I'm going to finally have to replace the single jointed
muffler on the engine. It's been welded twice before and now it's cracked
again. I have a new double-jointed muffler and never put it on for two reasons.
One, it has two EGT sender ports and I don't want to add another EGT gauge
on my panel. Second, the muffler end goes straight out instead of the exhaust
pointing up like this one does. I'm afraid the exhaust gases going out could weaken
the fiberglass Ivo prop, over time, as the prop is only a few inches from
the end of the muffler exhaust (I don't have a prop extension). What I can do,
is get the curved part cut out of the old muffler and welded on to the new
one. That takes care of that problem (or I could get a prop extension).
>
> I thought about tying the EGT senders together. Has anyone else done this? I
don't see any problem with this. If one sends out more voltage than the other,
it would respond on the single EGT instrument I have, thereby indicting a high
EGT if either of the cylinders are too hot.
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> N91493 E-AB
> 21 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162832#162832
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I thought about a switch too, but if the engine gets hot, it will do it when the
switch isn't switched. I'm going to try and "Y" the two senders together and
use a cig lighter to see what happens. This seems the easiest way to do this
without adding another gauge.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162840#162840
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pook (Infosat)" <jimpook(at)ncns.infosathse.com> |
| Subject: | Float & fuel tank info. |
I am seeking any information you folks may have for MKIII's on floats,
particularly mono floats.
Several years ago there was an outdoor (nature show) which included a
white Kolb MKIII with a mono float arrangement. I think it may have
been about Kodiak Bears in USSR??
I have an original MKIII Sn#035 and live in Yellowknife NT Canada. I
purchased it in the spring of 1991 from Holmer. All the metal work is
done and covering completed on the small parts but I have yet to cover
the wings or cage. It was inspected by our MOT in 1994 and the next
inspection due is pre-flight (my intensions are to register it as a
Canadian "Homebuilt"). I bought it as a single guy, have since got
married, had kids, ect. I'm back "into it" again and hope to make all
the parts become one soon!
Lately I have purchased an (unused) original 912 UL and plan to use it.
I am aware of the issues of the particular engine, however, I would like
to know what is done to increase the fuel capacity? I am toying with
the idea of a wing tank. Between drag strut and main spar of the
innermost 2 ribs would provide 20 gallons or so. Wing folding will
seldom if ever be required. Has anyone ever done this?
Regards, Jim Pook
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
I thought about a switch too, but if the engine gets hot, it will do it when
the switch isn't switched. I'm going to try and "Y" the two senders together
and use a cig lighter to see what happens. This seems the easiest way to do
this without adding another gauge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Put in a small timer with a double pole, double throw relay,,, and have it
go from one to the other every 10 sec or so. You could have it light a led
to indicate front or back reading.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
ElleryWeld(at)aol.com wrote:
> You could buy a double in one gauge for you EGT that way you wont have to cut
another hole in your panel Just a thought
I thought about that too, but I have a dual tach and EGT. If I get a dual EGT,
I will have to make a hole for another tach.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162858#162858
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Sunday, in VA or NC |
I'm going to be in the Richmond/Virginia Beach, Virginia area on
business this weekend, and I have Sunday free... are there any Kolb
drivers out there that would let me ride right-seat/rear-seat on local
flight? If no takers, then I'll do the tourist thing and head down to
Kitty Hawk and the Wright Museum.
-- Robert, Texas Kolb driver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
| From: | "olendorf" <olendorf(at)gmail.com> |
Wouldn't connecting the two wires together show the average of the temps, not the
maximum of either?
I don't think that will work. Just use the one egt hole and plug the other one.
--------
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=162936#162936
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tim hrib <tim_hrib(at)hotmail.com> |
i want to be able to login to the Kolb website. obviously it require
s a login id and a password. my question is - how do you get a password? ..
..... tim
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!-Play the word scramble challenge with sta
r power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_ja
n
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
If they are in parallel they should show an average.
BB
On 7, Feb 2008, at 11:33 PM, olendorf wrote:
>
> Wouldn't connecting the two wires together show the average of the
> temps, not the maximum of either?
>
> I don't think that will work. Just use the one egt hole and plug
> the other one.
>
> --------
> 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=162936#162936
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
Tim
I was told by Kolb that that was for some "administrative use only". Not
for customers. ???
Aaron
----- Original Message -----
From: tim hrib
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: login ...
i want to be able to login to the Kolb website. obviously it
requires a login id and a password. my question is - how do you get a
password? ....... tim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with
star power. Play now!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/7/2008 11:17 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KOLB AIRCRAFT" <customersupport(at)tnkolbaircraft.com> |
TIM, IZEK WILL SEND YOU THE INFO. YOU NEED THANKS DONNIE
----- Original Message -----
From: tim hrib
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:39 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: login ...
i want to be able to login to the Kolb website. obviously it
requires a login id and a password. my question is - how do you get a
password? ....... tim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with
star power. Play now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: my old muffler |
| From: | "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
On 7, Feb 2008, at 11:33 PM, olendorf wrote:
> If they are in parallel they should show an average. Wouldn't connecting the
two wires together show the average of the temps, not the maximum of either?
I don't think that will work. Just use the one egt hole and plug the other one.
>
> Scott Olendorf
> Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop
> Schenectady, NY
> http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com
>
Thanks Scott and others. You are right, it will show an average. I will drill a
single hole and plug the two other EGT ports. This worked for 21 years on the
other muffler and will work here too.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=162986#162986
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | E-Box on firestar |
Any one Running An E-Box on a firestar
How far would the Engine have to be moved forward to make up for the added 15
pounds ?
Are "Ultra Props" any good ?
Dave pilot of
the "sofa king"
**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Box on firestar |
Dave, Compare an Ultraprop to any other prop you've ever seen. That should
answer your question.
Rick
On Feb 8, 2008 8:16 AM, wrote:
> *Any one Running An E-Box on a firestar
>
> How far would the Engine have to be moved forward to make up for the added
> 15 pounds ?
>
> Are "Ultra Props" any good ?
>
> Dave pilot of
> the "sofa king"*
>
>
> **************
> Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
> (
> http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548)
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Box on firestar |
Rick:
Isn't an Ultraprop a plastic straight blade prop? No twist in the
blade? Gets to a certain point in airspeed and hits a brick wall? No
more speed?
My comparison is the Ultraprop is a "dog" compared to other props.
Sorry, can not remember the correct terminology for built in blade
twist. Somebody help me out.
john h
mkIII
Dave, Compare an Ultraprop to any other prop you've ever seen. That
should answer your question.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
Tim,
Look at URL near bottom of Kolb site, "The Kolb-List Email Forum.
Clk on http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List. Down to
Subscribe. Wasn't too hard?
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Box on firestar |
other props.
Sorry, can not remember the correct terminology for built in blade
twist. Somebody help me out.
john h
mkIII
John,
The word is Helex, I think. Without the helex or twist built in, the
prop has a narrower sweet spot where it performs well.
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Box on firestar |
Yep, that would be the one.
Rick
On Feb 8, 2008 11:19 AM, John Hauck wrote:
> Rick:
>
> Isn't an Ultraprop a plastic straight blade prop? No twist in the blade?
> Gets to a certain point in airspeed and hits a brick wall? No more speed?
>
> My comparison is the Ultraprop is a "dog" compared to other props.
>
> Sorry, can not remember the correct terminology for built in blade twist.
> Somebody help me out.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
> Dave, Compare an Ultraprop to any other prop you've ever seen. That should
> answer your question.
>
> Rick
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
Anyone with 1st hand experience. What are the pros or cons of a Rotax 503 on
a MK-3. Should I consider it or is it too small? I want to know what to shop
for. Plane will only be used for local site seeing and fun , mostly with a
passenger(325# pilot & co-pilot total).
Aaron Gustafson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
At 02:40 PM 2/8/2008, jb92563 wrote:
>
>This looks like a good engine alternative for Kolbs.
>
>-4 Stroke
>-Weight 100 lbs
>-55-65 Hp...
And the engine is???
-Dana
--
Artificial intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
Yep, 1st hand experience here. I had a 65 MPH cruise ( indicated), single
pilot, I weigh 200 lbs, took a 250 lb passenger up once. it did it, but I
wouldn`t do it regularly. for local flights solo, it it fine. There was a
post not long ago about this same topic, & I`m sure there are VERY
different opinions. mine was fine, but if you want to go longer distances, &
or regularly flying dual, you may want at least a 582. Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 503 on MK-3
>
>
> Anyone with 1st hand experience. What are the pros or cons of a Rotax 503
> on a MK-3. Should I consider it or is it too small? I want to know what to
> shop for. Plane will only be used for local site seeing and fun , mostly
> with a passenger(325# pilot & co-pilot total).
>
> Aaron Gustafson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
Two friends of mine...Rans S12's ..one with a 503 and the other
582... The 582 delivered better fuel mileage...Herb
At 07:48 PM 2/8/2008, you wrote:
>
>Yep, 1st hand experience here. I had a 65 MPH cruise ( indicated),
>single pilot, I weigh 200 lbs, took a 250 lb passenger up once. it
>did it, but I wouldn`t do it regularly. for local flights solo, it
>it fine. There was a post not long ago about this same topic, & I`m
>sure there are VERY different opinions. mine was fine, but if you
>want to go longer distances, & or regularly flying dual, you may
>want at least a 582. Jim
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Gustafson"
>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:06 PM
>Subject: Kolb-List: 503 on MK-3
>
>
>>
>>Anyone with 1st hand experience. What are the pros or cons of a
>>Rotax 503 on a MK-3. Should I consider it or is it too small? I
>>want to know what to shop for. Plane will only be used for local
>>site seeing and fun , mostly with a passenger(325# pilot & co-pilot total).
>>
>>Aaron Gustafson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Project Tailwheel |
In a message dated 2/6/2008 8:11:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
williamtsullivan(at)att.net writes:
Mine is black, and fresh from Kolb- a five inch.
Hi Bill,
I believe those 5 inch wheels were originally used on snowmobiles. They're
called bogey wheels and are used to support the snowmobile track as it
rotates. Makes for a nice light tail wheel, but it does cut a groove into soft
turf. I was thinking about installing two wheels side by side for more support.
Kinda like a Dually (Dualie?) pick-up truck!
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
Aaron
No question for the cost of a 503 or less put a redrive VW on it. You get
912 performance, 4 stroke reliability and low cost.
I flew in a 503 powered MKIIIC with another guy the total human weight was
375-400. It did surprisingly good but not what you would want if your going
to fly in and out of UP strips like Scott T. strip.
Also, you have the opportunity to make a Kolbra or a MKIIIX. Depending on
you mission either one would be a better choice. The down side of a Kolbra
is that it is two narrow for the VW mount. New Kolb will weld up a MKIIIX
cage with a VW mount. Food for thought.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 503 on MK-3
>
>
> Anyone with 1st hand experience. What are the pros or cons of a Rotax 503
> on a MK-3. Should I consider it or is it too small? I want to know what to
> shop for. Plane will only be used for local site seeing and fun , mostly
> with a passenger(325# pilot & co-pilot total).
>
> Aaron Gustafson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | E-Box on firestar |
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:17 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: E-Box on firestar
Any one Running An E-Box on a firestar
How far would the Engine have to be moved forward to make up for the added
15 pounds ?
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KolbFlyerJim(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Project Tailwheel |
HI Bill.
Jim VanGarsse here.
I'm using a plastic lawnmower wheel on my Ultra Star. Its as light as the
bogie wheel and is 4 times wider it works great.
Jim VanGarsse
Ultra Star 503 DCSI
N 2613M
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Project Tailwheel |
I have a wheel from ACS only used about a month (put on a Matco swivel)
that I will sell for 1/2 price($15). It even comes with the fork for $5
more. This was not on a Kolb but is a good wheel w/ bearings. ACS p/n
06-03600. It looks like the picture in the lower right in the catalog.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php Says 6x1.5 on wheel. 6"
O.D. Contact me off list for picture
Aaron G.
----- Original Message -----
From: KolbFlyerJim(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar Project Tailwheel
HI Bill.
Jim VanGarsse here.
I'm using a plastic lawnmower wheel on my Ultra Star. Its as light as
the bogie wheel and is 4 times wider it works great.
Jim VanGarsse
Ultra Star 503 DCSI
N 2613M
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
Music.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/8/2008 10:06 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Anyone in Southern Texas |
Any Kolbs in Southern Texas?
I may be out here for some time, and wondering if there are any Kolbs down by Mcallen,
Brownsville Texas area. This is a nice place to fly around in. Much nicer
than southern Arizona, a great variety of visuals from Gulf water to desert
to Farmland to rivers. It passes by too fast from the front office of a twin,
but would be perfect for a UL, or any Kolb.
Ron (Texas)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gmyers(at)grandecom.net |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone in Southern Texas |
Hello Ron
I have a restored Twinstar with a 582 that I'll be glad to show you around San
Marcos in. (Between Austin & San Antonio on IH 35.) Weather permitting of
course. And if you just wanna stop in & swap lies I'm at:
George E. Myers Jr.
1500 IH 35 South
San Marcos, TX 78666
512-353-4860
Quoting Ron :
>
> Any Kolbs in Southern Texas?
> I may be out here for some time, and wondering if there are any Kolbs down by
> Mcallen, Brownsville Texas area. This is a nice place to fly around in. Much
> nicer than southern Arizona, a great variety of visuals from Gulf water to
> desert to Farmland to rivers. It passes by too fast from the front office of
> a twin, but would be perfect for a UL, or any Kolb.
>
> Ron (Texas)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
The HKS 4 stroke engine looks like much better design, more refined, and advanced
engine for basically the same price... HKS has been around for a while now,
and looks like a stable, growing company...
Without parts, your engine is a pile of metal, why would anyone risk an off brand
engine, with less development and reliability, when a proven engine like the
HKS is available at the same price ???
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=163186#163186
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
The question you need to be asking yourself is not IF the plane will fly with a
503, you need to ask yourself if it will be any fun to fly with a 503. Flying
an underpowered plane and running the engine full out most of the time is definitely
not as fun or rewarding, or as safe as flying a plane with a proper amount
of power. Just because it you can do it does not mean you would want to.
It all comes down to money, if you are able, get the 912-S, it is by far the best
engine to put on a Kolb MK III. Work overtime, do whatever it takes to put
the best engine you can afford on that plane, it will make the difference between
having a plane that is fun and enjoyable to fly, and building a plane you
never really like.
If you cannot afford the 912-S, I would look for a used one. If not that, I would
look at the VW Rick talks about, if not that, I would look at the 582. If
you cant afford at least the 582, I would not build the MK III. If I was stuck
with nothing but a 503, I would build a firestar-II which is smaller, lighter,
and will give acceptable flight performance with a Rotax 503.
--------
"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=163189#163189
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi All,
Is there anyone in our group that can stop by Henderson NV and take a look at this
engine up close and get pictures to post here? It would be good if there was
bit more info regarding this engine besides what the manufacturer's web page.
As far as engines go it would be nice to have some more four stroke alternatives
out there. Yes HKS has been around for awhile but even they were new at one
time. I imagine the same things being said about them regarding if they are going
to be around or if they are just another flash in the pan.
If BRP /Rotax would get off their duff and offer the ETEC fuel injection system
on their a/c engine line I think it would greatly improve its reliability. I
just doubt that this will ever happen.
Best Regards
Carlos G
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=163190#163190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a
200lb pilot steep enough, & at plenty of "feet per minute" to get out of a
SHORT strip. I would not call that underpowered.
: ) Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:57 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 503 on MK-3
>
> The question you need to be asking yourself is not IF the plane will fly
> with a 503, you need to ask yourself if it will be any fun to fly with a
> 503. Flying an underpowered plane and running the engine full out most of
> the time is definitely not as fun or rewarding, or as safe as flying a
> plane with a proper amount of power. Just because it you can do it does
> not mean you would want to.
>
> It all comes down to money, if you are able, get the 912-S, it is by far
> the best engine to put on a Kolb MK III. Work overtime, do whatever it
> takes to put the best engine you can afford on that plane, it will make
> the difference between having a plane that is fun and enjoyable to fly,
> and building a plane you never really like.
>
> If you cannot afford the 912-S, I would look for a used one. If not that,
> I would look at the VW Rick talks about, if not that, I would look at the
> 582. If you cant afford at least the 582, I would not build the MK III.
> If I was stuck with nothing but a 503, I would build a firestar-II which
> is smaller, lighter, and will give acceptable flight performance with a
> Rotax 503.
>
> --------
> "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=163189#163189
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
Ray
I never did hear what engine you were talking about. Do you have a web site,
name or anything?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 3:44 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs
>
> The HKS 4 stroke engine looks like much better design, more refined, and
> advanced engine for basically the same price... HKS has been around for
> a while now, and looks like a stable, growing company...
>
> Without parts, your engine is a pile of metal, why would anyone risk an
> off brand engine, with less development and reliability, when a proven
> engine like the HKS is available at the same price ???
>
> 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=163186#163186
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
>
> A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a
> 200lb pilot steep enough, & at plenty of "feet per minute" to get out of
> a SHORT strip. I would not call that underpowered.
> : ) Jim
I really hate to have to reply to this thread, but keep in mind that this
guy is asking a pretty serious question that will affect him for a long
time, good choice or bad one. There was quite a lengthy thread on this same
subject that should be in the archives, so he might go there.
I live at 4000 feet, so that probably colors my opinion on the matter. Sea
level might possibly be enough difference to make a 503 acceptable to a Mark
III. If it is built light enough a 503 would push it around, but it wouldn't
be as exciting a performer as a Mark III with 100 horsepower. I had a Mark
III that had a 582 on it and sold it because to my thinking it was a dog and
not as much fun to fly as my Firestar II. I guess that I have finally gotten
old enough that I am not interested in OK, I want it to be the best that it
can be, the first time. With a 582 the Mark III, will give you about the
same performance as a Firestar with a 503. You are going to burn about 1 to
2 gallons more per hour to go the same speed. A 582 is going to cost you
somewhere around $6000 and up. A 912 is somewhere around $14000 now I think.
Rebuild time for a 582 is listed as 300 hours, compared to a rebuild time
for a 912 is three to four times as long. Fuel burn is less than the 582 as
well. The Mark III with a 912 is a "serious" airplane, any of the other
engine choices leaves you with a "patch" type of airplane that you have
problems going any distance due to the speed and fuel consumption. Not
saying that it isn't possible, I am merely saying that for my self, I
wouldn't do it on the cheap. I think if you pencil it out, over the long run
a 912 would cost less than going with a two cycle engine.
It is not my intention to belittle any ones choice of engine. If it suits
you then that is all that is necessary. Just trying to fuel thought and give
the guy the information to make a choice.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
Thanks to all who have written. All comments are taken well. I don't want a
dog but neither do I need a cruiser. I have a Zenith 601 for going places
regionally. What I want now is a more around the patch fun flier. So I can
keep an eye on the neighborhood and make sure no one else has more junk than
me. It'll probably hardly ever get more than 50 miles from home. I have
about ruled out the 503 though from the comments I have received thus far.
This was what I wanted to hear. So I thank you for your perspectives and I'd
still like to hear from others.
Aaron
>>
>> A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb>
>>
> It is not my intention to belittle any ones choice of engine. If it suits
> you then that is all that is necessary.>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Project Tailwheel |
| From: | "Wade Lawicki" <wlawicki(at)yahoo.com> |
I use a grocery cart wheel and change out the plastic bearings, about $8 and the
same hub width but the bearing surface is around 1 inch. usually found cheap
in a ditch near a grocery store or damaged behind the store. : )
Fly Safe,
Wade
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=163215#163215
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
Too much plumbing would be necessary for the average guy.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 2/9/2008 4:26:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
grageda(at)innw.net writes:
If BRP /Rotax would get off their duff and offer the ETEC fuel injection
system on their a/c engine line I think it would greatly improve its
reliability. I just doubt that this will ever happen.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
My FS II w/ 503 DCDI cruises at 65 mph; how in heck is a heavier, less-
streamlined plane going to cruise at the same speed without running at 6000 rpm
all the time?
At least get the 582; 912 better.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 2/9/2008 6:38:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com writes:
A MK-3C with a 503 will cruise at 65MPH, single pilot, & will climb with a
> 200lb pilot steep enough, & at plenty of "feet per minute" to get out of
> a SHORT strip. I would not call that underpowered.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds like a FSII would suit you better. A fantastic flyer with a 503.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 2/9/2008 7:04:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
agustafson(at)chartermi.net writes:
don't want a
dog but neither do I need a cruiser. I have a Zenith 601 for going places
regionally. What I want now is a more around the patch fun flier. So I can
keep an eye on the neighborhood and make sure no one else has more junk than
me. It'll probably hardly ever get more than 50 miles from home. I have
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
I just sold my FS2 11 months ago. 440 hours on it all mine. It flies
great with a 447. Better than a 503 IMHO.
----- Original Message -----
From: HShack(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: 503 on MK-3
Sounds like a FSII would suit you better. A fantastic flyer with a
503.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 2/9/2008 7:04:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
agustafson(at)chartermi.net writes:
don't want a
dog but neither do I need a cruiser. I have a Zenith 601 for going
places
regionally. What I want now is a more around the patch fun flier. So
I can
keep an eye on the neighborhood and make sure no one else has more
junk than
me. It'll probably hardly ever get more than 50 miles from home. I
have
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
Music.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/9/2008 11:54 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone in Southern Texas |
Thanks George
I printed the message out and I''ll check out San Marcos see how far off it is.
I got my Beech Sierra out here with me so I may give you a call once I find my
bearings out here, basically I need a sectional for San Marcos area. Sure would
like to move out here, after 20 years out in AZ I am ready for a change in
scenery at the very least.
Having my Kolb M3X out here in flying status is going to be great.
Ron (Arizona)
=======================================
---- gmyers(at)grandecom.net wrote:
============
Hello Ron
I have a restored Twinstar with a 582 that I'll be glad to show you around San
Marcos in. (Between Austin & San Antonio on IH 35.) Weather permitting of
course. And if you just wanna stop in & swap lies I'm at:
George E. Myers Jr.
1500 IH 35 South
San Marcos, TX 78666
512-353-4860
Quoting Ron :
>
> Any Kolbs in Southern Texas?
> I may be out here for some time, and wondering if there are any Kolbs down by
> Mcallen, Brownsville Texas area. This is a nice place to fly around in. Much
> nicer than southern Arizona, a great variety of visuals from Gulf water to
> desert to Farmland to rivers. It passes by too fast from the front office of
> a twin, but would be perfect for a UL, or any Kolb.
>
> Ron (Texas)
>
>
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
Rick- When my 5" wheel is installed, I had about 1/8" clearance, after grinding
some off the lower strut flange, installing the pivot bolt from the bottom
up, and grinding the bolt head into a round head screw with a slot. I wonder if
mine is really old, and they used a 4" or 4 1/2" wheel originally.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
This is not the Hexadyne P-60, but the Aero-twin.
On paper, the P-60 looks good, but it is a radial mounted engine instead of
bed mounted.
The Aero-twin looks REALLY good, but that $10k price [w/ all the necessary
goodies] for an un-tried engine [at least on a Kolb] is a bit much.
If I's rich I'd get an HKS. Looks like I'll just de-carb the old trusty
503................................
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
This looks like a good engine alternative for Kolbs.
-4 Stroke
-Weight 100 lbs
-55-65 Hp at 4200-4900 rpm
-Turbo Charged option(65hp)
-Fuel Injection
-CDI Ignition
-Dual Spark plugs per cylinder
-Cheap $6,900
-Availability & Parts in USA, Henderson NV.
-Dry Sump design
**************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: Good light 4 stroke Alternative for Kolbs |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
The BaronVonEvil wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> Yes HKS has been around for awhile but even they were new at one time. I imagine
the same things being said about them regarding if they are going to be around
or if they are just another flash in the pan.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Carlos G
Not true, it is not at all the same situation. When the HKS came out, there was
no good, reliable, light aircraft designed 2 cylinder engine available on the
market, then trying something new made sense. Also the HKS design is very good
for reliability and aircraft use, NOT so with the Aero Twin.
Now, the HKS is available, proven reliable, and in use on many types of aircraft
for the same price as the new engine... So why be the test case with an inferior
engine, when the reliable, proven HKS is available at the same price ?
If you took the time to look at the manufacturers website, there are plenty
of pictures of the engine from many angles. Given what I see of the pictures,
the design of the Aero Twin is inferior to the HKS, I would not want one, to
many mistakes and compromises in their basic design to make it a good airplane
motor.
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=163312#163312
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
I found out the other day, from Travis at Kolb, the latest price for a Rotax 912
is $21,000. So much for a reasonable price engine from them. There engines
are good but NOT that good. [Rolling Eyes]
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=163385#163385
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
It looks like they anticipated our genius politicians "rebate"
BB
On 10, Feb 2008, at 8:05 PM, Rick Lewis wrote:
>
> I found out the other day, from Travis at Kolb, the latest price
> for a Rotax 912 is $21,000. So much for a reasonable price engine
> from them. There engines are good but NOT that good. [Rolling Eyes]
>
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=163385#163385
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | the elusive 4 stroke alternative |
Wheat futures have been bumping on $15 too. We have to face an
across the board shrinkage in the dollar.
(hmmm, wonder why they call it INflation?)
I have maybe $3500 in this Rube Goldberg propulsion. -Plus about
$15,000 worth of my cheap labor.
Runs fine but the problem is finding the perfect prop.
I'm still looking.
BB
DSCN0916.JPG