Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-hy
January 15, 2009 - January 29, 2009
>> The 503 with a 3.47:1 C box is around 6 large. It'll run for about 450 to
>> 500 hours. Complete rebuild is in the 2 grand range and the C box will last
>> as-is for probably 3 engines. Fuel burn on the FSII will be higher, but will
>> still only be around 3gph.
>>
>> Dunno..... I personally still think the 503 is a strong contender for the
>> money........ And it's the proven motor for the FSII...........
>>
>> So again, I'm pretty disappointed in the cost of the HKS. 12 large
>> installed is a lot for a 60hp engine.......
>>
>> LS
>>
>> --------
>> LS
>> Titan II SS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224911#224911
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Addendum: I forgot to add the cost of radiator, and oil injection to the 582
so add another $1000 to its costs and the differential grows to $14,179. At
that point I can throw the HKS in the trash, buy a new one and I'm still
money ahead. :-}
Rick
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Mnflyer wrote:
>
> Cooling of the HKS is not a problem as posted the engine cyl are oil
> cooled, in 300+ hrs I've never had a cooling problem, in fact I can now fly
> in much hotter temps than I could with the Rotax 582.
> As for cost of the engine yes the HKS is now near $12000.00, the Rotax 912
> is now near $20000.00 and the cost of a new 503 is near $7100.00. The cost
> per hour to operate the HKS is less than 1/2 of what it costs to operate the
> 582 . Having flown both engine for 300 hrs each I know this from my records
> and by my records my HKS is now free after 300 hrs of operation VS the 582
> considering I would now be looking at another $3000.00 overhaul bill and the
> increased fuel costs (4.5 gph vs 3 gph), my HKS still has 700 hrs to go till
> overhaul, and when comparing operating cost one has to go by the
> manufactures TBO not what someone has gotten out of their engine and Rotax
> has a 300 hr TBO the HKS has 1000 hrs.
>
> --------
> GB
> MNFlyer
> Flying a HKS Kitfox III
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224934#224934
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Bill=2C
I'm not Jim=2C but I can answer your question regarding drilling into the
4130 hardened to R-48.
I just drilled into my gear legs a few weeks ago=2C to secure my axles. I
failed to drill them before I
sent them off to be Rockwell hardened. Big mistake!! Those suckers are ha
rd as a bleaping rock!!
They were so hard=2C I couldn't get a punch to make a centering hole dent
. Suffice to say=2C if you want
to do any machining on them=2C do it PRIOR to hardening. Drilling them aft
erwards is 20 times as difficult!
Mike Welch
MkIII
+1 degree this morning=2C too cold to work on my plane in the shop.
Date: Thu=2C 15 Jan 2009 09:37:37 -0800From: williamtsullivan(at)att.netSubjec
t: Kolb-List: Landing gearTo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Jim Hauck- Last May you suggested using steel tubing for the landing legs
on a Firefly or old Firestar with the 1" legs. Your suggestion was to go
half way down with the 1"=2C and change to 3/4". I am considering steel le
gs=2C and wondered about the half way comment. Halfway from the bottom of
the "A" frame? I know about using 4130 and hardening to R48. Do you pre-d
rill before hardening? I haven't ordered any legs yet=2C but If I go to th
e new 1 1/8" Firefly legs I will have to drill out the aluminum tube spacer
in there.
Also=2C when joining the 1" to the 3/4" do you just run the bolt through
the "A" frame at the usual spot=2C or another bolt lower=2C or a weld at th
e top and allow the lower joint to move?
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks=2C Ct.
5 degrees and overcast
=2C light snow flurries
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Hotmail=AE: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_expl
ore_012009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Bill;
Do all drilling and welding prior to having them heat treated.
You want the gear legs to run all the way up in the gear socket till
they bottom out at the "V" junction of the gear sockets.
On my brothers Fire Star which we made steel gear legs for way back in
the late 80's we used 36 " gear legs. This give you more ability to
rotate on take off.
On the Fire Star, I would use one size tubing for the entire length as
it is much heavier than the Fire Fly.
Use 1 1/8" .120 wall tubing for your gear legs and for the axle sockets
use 7/8 .120 wall tubing. This will fit the 5/8 axle.
I would weld tubing for the axle insert at + 7 degrees camber. This will
put your wheels about 2 degrees positive when you are in the airplane.
When you heat treat the chromemoly tubing it then becomes a spring.
If I can help you with anything else feel free to ask.
Jim Hauck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Jim, If you don't mind a welding question, did you use any special gas when
mig welding the Kolb frames or did you just use steel mix.
Thanks,
Rick
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Jim Hauck wrote:
> *Bill;*
> **
> *Do all drilling and welding prior to having them heat treated.*
> **
> *You want the gear legs to run all the way up in the gear socket till they
> bottom out at the "V" junction of the gear sockets.*
> **
> *On my brothers Fire Star which we made steel gear legs for way back in
> the late 80's we used 36 " gear legs. This give you more ability to rotate
> on take off.*
> **
> *On the Fire Star, I would use one size tubing for the entire length as it
> is much heavier than the Fire Fly.*
> **
> *Use 1 1/8" .120 wall tubing for your gear legs and for the axle sockets
> use 7/8 .120 wall tubing. This will fit the 5/8 axle.*
> **
> *I would weld tubing for the axle insert at + 7 degrees camber. This will
> put your wheels about 2 degrees positive when you are in the airplane.*
> **
> *When you heat treat the chromemoly tubing it then becomes a spring.*
> **
> **
> *If I can help you with anything else feel free to ask.*
> **
> *Jim Hauck*
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Rick;
Most of the welding I do on Kolb's, it TIG, when I use MIG I use 25%
Argon and 75% CO2. This keeps the splatter down considerably.
Jim H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote:
> Lucien
>
> I didn't realize the HKS got that expensive. The HKS is a fine engine that
> will give its owners peace of mind that it will not let them down and that
> is worth some of the extra cost. The problem here is that again there is no
> competition, We need alternatives.
>
> When fuel prices come back up fuel burn will be a issue again. Most of the
> 503 powered FSIIs that I fly with burn about 4 gallons and hour and a bit
> more if they are trying to keep up with my VW powered MKIIIC burning 4
> gallons per hour at 74MPH.
>
> I also didn't realize a 503 was $6,000!!!!! I rest my case......
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
>
> ---
Well, 5500 with a C box, but close enough.....
I dunno, I don't see all these high operational costs of the 2-strokes that most
other guys seem to complain about, especially with the 503. I've always just
bought em, bolted the boxes on em, installed them on the plane and went flying.
I've never gotten a 503 to burn 4gph unless it was close to full throttle at all
times, like was the case in my original ultralight when climbing to high altitudes.
My FSII did 3gph max, cruising around places at 60 to 65mph.
I've been flying the 503 (and a couple 447's) for almost a decade until I got my
912 and I just havn't seen all this expense and trouble. So I'm a little confused......
This isn't to knock the HKS, but it just doesn't seem like it's zounds better than
it's competitors. I've already talked about the 503 and the 912 80 horse is
only about 5 large away from the 10 large of the HKS. That puts you in a different
class of plane you can fly too, such as the kolbra or the mark III (not
that the FS isn't a bad plane of course)......
Anyway, just thinking out loud here and don't mean to stir up anything....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224984#224984
________________________________________________________________________________
Only about a year ago the whole thing was just under $10k.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 1/15/2009 10:53:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
fs2kolb(at)aol.com writes:
Close to 12 grand to install an HKS on a FireStar II when you add the
exhaust, oil tank, oil cooler, mounting hardware and every thing else.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
- Thanks for the prompt responses.- Jim- I may downsize a bit from your
recommendations, as this particular plane is probably lighter than the cur
rent Firefly.- John thinks it is a very early one, built to Part 103 spec
s.- I'll check weights,as I want to add brakes this time.
- If you have to drill a spring, spot anneal first.- Drill with lots of
coolant, as heat will harden the material as you drill.- I have ended up
with some weird looking drill bits finding this out.- Sometimes you don'
t know what the steel is, and it can be interesting trying to drill it.
-
-------------------------
------------------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
------------------- Windsor Locks, Ct
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Bill:
The specs Jim gave you are the specs that work.
We didn't come up with them the first time around. We tried 1"X.090" heat
treated to 42 RC. These were our first steel legs. I didn't know where to
start with heat treating. Got the 42 RC from Max Air and went with it. I
t was too soft. 48 RC is hard enough, but not too hard. They will bend 90
deg before they break. I have tested them in actual situations.
If you go lighter, the system will fail eventually.
john h
mkIII
Thanks for the prompt responses. Jim- I may downsize a bit from
your recommendations, as this particular plane is probably lighter than the
current Firefly.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
HShack(at)aol.com wrote:
> Only about a year ago the whole thing was just under $10k.
>
Well didn't mean to stir up any broohaha on this, I know the guys who run the HKS
love em and it does appear to be a really good engine out in the field.
Even I'm a 912 driver these days and hope the sucker stays together for a long
while.
I'm sure a lot of the increase over the last year is the falling USD. It's fallen
against pretty much everything including the JPY, so that's just the cost of
doing business.
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224994#224994
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
- John- Do you think that spec might be a little too ridgid for a 103 pla
ne?- Gross weight will be about 475 total.- Jim's original letter of Ma
y 19, 2008 gave me the lighter spec legs.
-
-------------------------
-------------------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
---------------------Windsor Lock
s, Ct.
8 degrees, and going to -1 tonight
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Bill:
Those are the legs I flew very successfully with on my 1986 original Firest
ar.
Once heat treated, the legs are springs.
john h
mkIII
John- Do you think that spec might be a little too ridgid for a 1
03 plane? Gross weight will be about 475 total. Jim's original letter of
May 19, 2008 gave me the lighter spec legs.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
- I'll drill the sockets for the 1 1/8", if the weather ever gets warmer.
- Thanks.
-
-------------------------
---------------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
---------------- Windsor Locks, Ct.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Bill:
My original FS came with 1" aluminum legs. I bent them taxiing before I ev
en got in the air the first time.
Tried Twinstar legs, 1.125", and bent them too. Then we started working on
some heat treated steel legs.
I had to remove the aluminum tube sleeve from the gear leg sockets. Made a
simple home made slide hammer and went to work. Took a little effort but
the sleeves lost the battle. I also had to clean up some places where the
welds had burned through before I could get the legs all the way into the s
ocket up to the intersection where they bottomed out.
We used gear leg/axle sockets initially. After a couple failures, we start
ed welding the axle sockets to the bottom of the gear legs. That fixed tha
t problem.
john h
mkIII
I'll drill the sockets for the 1 1/8", if the weather ever gets w
armer. Thanks.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Pat Ladd wrote
nice pics but I notice that you had nearly 5000 on the altimeter. I
assume that is not AGL. Is it usual to use that setting.?
That was the altitude above Sea Level that I was flying, here when ever
you go into an airport they give you on the ATIS channel the altimeter
setting - 30.1 - whatever it may be and that sets your altimeter to the
correct altitude. Since most of the areas rarely have the same
barometric pressure just setting it to 0 when you are on the ground
would quite likely not be the correct altitude for entering the traffic
pattern.
Rick Girard wrote-
Larry, From HKS Operation Manual, page 10:
3.8 Cylinder head temperature
Max. permissible cylinder head temperature
(Measured on the hottest cylinder): 170 Deg. C (338 Deg. F)
Rick Girard wrote-
Some how or the other I managed to lose my manual ( I have since found
it on the internet and printed up a new copy) I went on line and found a
site with "specs" and it said that the max temps were 446. Might have
been a typo. Thanks for the correction.
"Thom Riddle" wrote
Larry,
Couple of questions:
How far away is your nearest neighbor?
What are the 5.0 and 5 (integer) on your EIS measuring? I know the
others... I think.
Nearest neighbor is three miles away, after that the distance really
gets up there. :-) The middle figures 5.0 is my #1 aux and that tells me
that I have a full five gallons of fuel in which ever tank I am drawing
out of. I have two 5 gal tanks and control which be a valve. The other
one (lower) is #2 aux, and I do not use it. 5 is the default.
Rick Neilsen wrote-
Most of the 503 powered FSIIs that I fly with burn about 4 gallons and
hour
My 503 always burned 4 gph no matter what throttle setting I used. I
have never understood why, it just did.
Someone mentioned that the price for the HKS was almost the cost of an
entire new plane. That may be true, I know that I could have bought
probably a couple of 150's for the money that I have invested in the
Firestar, but then I really like this plane more than I would one of
those or any other plane that I could think of. Including a Mark III or
even a Kolbra. The sucker suits me and my area better than anything else
I could get. I also penciled the cost out and figured that I would be
money way ahead if I can get the bugs worked out. It should last me
without having to rebuild until I am most likely not safe to fly any
more. I don't know about the rest of you, but I had trouble justifying
my flights when the gas was up so high. I believe that I can assure you
that with the recent elections, and the ruling party in power, that
there is going to be little done to ease the fuel shortage any time
soon.
I did not have any problems with the 503 that I had. I never worried
about dropping 700 feet down into any of these canyons on the Owyhee.
What did give me fits was that my range was so short without throwing in
another 5 gallon tank in the back. That it cut into my camping gear and
therefore my comfort entirely too much. Not to mention that it is 120
miles to decent gas, and the 4 gph cut into the number of trips that I
could take before I had to go get more gas.
I synchronized my carbs today, and I want to thank whoever that clever
person was who mentioned that you could do it with bing tubing. I put a
bit of Marvel Mystery Oil in the tubing to act as level and managed to
get them set. I didn't get to go to as high throttle setting as I would
have liked since I was working alone and standing on a ladder in front
of the wing to do it, but it is a hell of a lot closer than it was. I
was hoping that it would reduce the CHT heat, but that was just wishful
thinking. After I finished I rolled it out and took off to see if there
would be any difference. It was smoother but not cooler. The OAT was 49,
I too am wondering what its going to be like at 95 degrees this summer.
I was surprised to find that the engine did not go as high on the RPM's
today as it did before I worked on the carbs. Could it just be the
difference in atmosphere or what? Ideas welcomed.
The plane flies hands off with no climb at 5300 but the CHT was 328
degrees while the oil temps were less than 170. Not sure what to think.
I know the engine is tight and needs to be broken in, but is it that
tight?
Larry C, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
| From: | "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)gmail.com> |
Have any of you ever seen anything similar to what I have attached here in the
photos?
I am getting some fretting corrosion where the fabric is tight against the aluminum
tubes on the cockpit cage.
I've received two suggestions...one to put some thin adhesive-backed weatherstripping
between the tubes and fabric...another to use some clear duct tape on the
tube to keep the fabric from rubbing it.
Keep in mind the fabric is really tight and I don't think I'll be able to easily
get much of anything between the tubes and the fabric.
When you build these planes is there any instruction to put anything between the
tubes and fabric?
--------
Cristal Waters
Kolb Mark II Twinstar
Rotax 503 DCSI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225022#225022
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2008_12_20_cage_tubing_next_to_fabric_581.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2008_12_20_cage_tubing_next_to_fabric2_840.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2008_12_20_black_oily_substance_leaking_through_fabric_923.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Cristal,
It could be that the tubes themselves are moving and have come loose at their attach
points. A careful inspection will need to done to find out if this is the
case.
You might be able to re-glue the fabric to the tubes once you know what finishing
system was used to cover the plane. You may have to partially remove the finish
in a band along the tubes, re-glue the fabric to the tubes, add reinforcing
tape and rib stitch the fabric to the tubes where the fabric is rubbing. Then
reapply the needed coatings and repaint the color back on in the repair areas.
Otherwise you may have to recover the whole fuselage and rib stitch the fabric
to the tubes to keep it from chaffing/rubbing.
No easy answers here unfortunately.
Best Regards
Carlos G.
AKA
BaronVonEvil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225036#225036
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
the fact that you know what fretting corrosion is impresses me. Are
you sure it is only a
metallic substance and not oil? I would go with the packing tape
suggestion if you can
get it in there, otherwise maybe one of those skinny venetian blind
slats?
BB
On 15, Jan 2009, at 10:50 PM, cristalclear13 wrote:
>
>
> Have any of you ever seen anything similar to what I have attached
> here in the photos?
> I am getting some fretting corrosion where the fabric is tight
> against the aluminum tubes on the cockpit cage.
> I've received two suggestions...one to put some thin adhesive-
> backed weatherstripping between the tubes and fabric...another to
> use some clear duct tape on the tube to keep the fabric from
> rubbing it.
> Keep in mind the fabric is really tight and I don't think I'll be
> able to easily get much of anything between the tubes and the fabric.
>
> When you build these planes is there any instruction to put
> anything between the tubes and fabric?
>
> --------
> Cristal Waters
> Kolb Mark II Twinstar
> Rotax 503 DCSI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225022#225022
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/
> 2008_12_20_cage_tubing_next_to_fabric_581.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/
> 2008_12_20_cage_tubing_next_to_fabric2_840.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/
> 2008_12_20_black_oily_substance_leaking_through_fabric_923.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
- John and Jim- Thanks for the feedback.- It was just that old message
(I had saved it) that caused the confusion.- I have 3 sets of the old 1"
legs (all bent) that came with it- one set is 6061, bent while taxiing.-
-I have the old type axle fitting, 3/4" socket and a 5/8" tube for an axl
e.- I intend to re-fit with brakes, so changes have to be made.
- While I'm digging in your memories of that old Firestar- What kind of e
mpennage attachment was on it?- Mine doesn't match any photos I have been
able to find.- The lower "skeg" end has two pieces of steel tubing going
forward into the fuselage, and no exterior supporting ring.- Old style?
-
2 below zero at 7am, and where is the global warming they have been promisi
ng?
-
-------------------------
-------------------------
Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
-------------------------
Windsor Locks, Ct.
-
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
At 07:13 AM 1/16/2009, william sullivan wrote:
> While I'm digging in your memories of that old Firestar- What kind of
> empennage attachment was on it? Mine doesn't match any photos I have
> been able to find. The lower "skeg" end has two pieces of steel tubing
> going forward into the fuselage, and no exterior supporting ring. Old style?
I don't know about the FS, new or old, but that's how the US is built.
> 2 below zero at 7am, and where is the global warming they have been
> promising?
Yeah, I have to leave the water dripping all night to keep the pipes from
freezing. But haven't you heard? It's not "global warming" any more, it's
"climate change". That way they can say they're right no matter what the
climate does. The scientists are all abandoning the global warming thing
like rats fleeing a sinking ship, leaving only the brain dead or corrupt
politicians on board
-Dana
--
Chaste: why virgins run.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
| From: | zeprep251(at)aol.com |
Where in the cockpit cage does Kolb use aluminum?
-----Original Message-----
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fabric rubbing on cage tubes
?
the fact that you know what fretting corrosion is impresses me. Are you sure it
is only a?
metallic substance and not oil? I would go with the packing tape suggestion if
you can?
get it in there, otherwise maybe one of those skinny venetian blind slats??
BB?
?
On 15, Jan 2009, at 10:50 PM, cristalclear13 wrote:?
?
>?
> Have any of you ever seen anything similar to what I have attached > here in
the photos??
> I am getting some fretting corrosion where the fabric is tight > against the
aluminum tubes on the cockpit cage.?
> I've received two suggestions...one to put some thin adhesive-> backed weatherstripping
between the tubes and fabric...another to > use some clear duct tape
on the tube to keep the fabric from > rubbing it.?
> Keep in mind the fabric is really tight and I don't think I'll be > able to easily
get much of anything between the tubes and the fabric.?
>?
> When you build these planes is there any instruction to put > anything between
the tubes and fabric??
>?
> --------?
> Cristal Waters?
> Kolb Mark II Twinstar?
> Rotax 503 DCSI?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> Read this topic online here:?
>?
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225022#225022?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> Attachments:?
>?
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/> 2008_12_20_cage_tubing_next_to_fabric_581.jpg?
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/> 2008_12_20_cage_tubing_next_to_fabric2_840.jpg?
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/> 2008_12_20_black_oily_substance_leaking_through_fabric_923.jpg?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fuselage fabric fix |
Once you know what's causing this, loose tubes, oil contamination, whatever,
and you know what your covering and finishing system is, consider this:Assuming
Poly Fiber system and a Poly Tone top finish (if you have Aerothane, this
won't work)
1. Use MEK to remove finish all the way down to bare fabric 2" either
side of tube.
2. Examine fabric to insure it has not started to fray.
3. If unfrayed, follow instructions for round ribs, no rib stitching, use
rivets or screws and possibly a cover strip of light gauge aluminum over
fabric and rib.
4. If frayed, put down a pinked edge reinforcing tape first then finish
as 3.
Hope this helps.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Bill:
I think you are referring to the tail post attachment.
That is the way it was done on early Firestars. No exterior ring.
On my Ultrastar, the inboard rib attached to the main spar with two tubes i
nserted into the spar. This was a poor method of attachment because it all
owed the wing to twist. Aileron input was counteracted by wing twist. One
had to be very gentle with ailerons.
The Ultrastar was not the only aircraft with wing twist problems. One of m
y old Air Force buddies flew B-47's. That aircraft had the same problem as
the Ultrastar.
john h
mkIII - 17F at hauck's holler
While I'm digging in your memories of that old Firestar- What kin
d of empennage attachment was on it? Mine doesn't match any photos I have
been able to find. The lower "skeg" end has two pieces of steel tubing goi
ng forward into the fuselage, and no exterior supporting ring. Old style?
2 below zero at 7am, and where is the global warming they have been
promising?
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, C
t.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
- I have been repairing the fiberglass nosecone, and ran into a problem a
nd a solution.- Once I pieced the nosecone back together, it was 1/2" too
wide where it was supposed to be bolted through the upper tube.- If I bo
lted it on it could be pulled into place, but I thought it would be likely
to crack under vibration.- When pulled in, it measured 17" on the outside
at that point.- I placed it panel down on a piece of wood, and screwed 2
blocks spaced 17" apart to hold it in position.- I took a heat gun and w
armed up the area thoroughly to stress relieve it.- When it cooled, it re
tained the 17" dimension.- It worked great, and only took 5 minutes.- J
ust passing along the tip.
-
-------------------------
----------------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
----------------- Windsor Locks, Ct.
16 degrees and clear, no wind at 11:40am
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
At 10:04 AM 1/16/2009, John Hauck wrote:
>
>On my Ultrastar, the inboard rib attached to the main spar with two tubes
>inserted into the spar. This was a poor method of attachment because it
>allowed the wing to twist. Aileron input was counteracted by wing
>twist. One had to be very gentle with ailerons.
John, did you ever do the mod (I think it was Richard Swiderski who posted
details on it) to add the collar on the wing root? It's tempting, but a
bit of work, and I wonder how much improvement it would actually make.
-Dana
--
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors-- and miss.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Dana:
No, we did not make that change. Would have been easier to build new wings
with an updated inboard rib.
Also, the improvements of the original FS over most of the problems with th
e US out weighed any decision to put more time and money in the US.
The US had a lot of little problems and was easy to bend things.
The FS also had problems in some of the same areas. Winter of 1988 and 89,
Jim and I completely overhauled and modified my FS. A lot of the initial
problems were solved by Jim adding a couple additional tubes here and there.
john h
mkIII
John, did you ever do the mod (I think it was Richard Swiderski who post
ed details on it) to add the collar on the wing root? It's tempting, but a
bit of work, and I wonder how much improvement it would actually make.
-Dana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Dana- Has yours been fixed?
-
-------------------------
------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
------- Windsor Locks, Ct.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
John
Coming from you...those "here and there tubes" sound
important...can you embellish?
Also Dana and John...I am planning to use a set of modified ultra
star root ribs on my Firefly/Firestar /ultrastar Tri
Fly hybrid...:-) Is the US "h" section sort of root attachment to
spar considered to be inferior...Looks plenty strong to me. Herb
At 12:35 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>Dana:
>
>No, we did not make that change. Would have been easier to build
>new wings with an updated inboard rib.
>
>Also, the improvements of the original FS over most of the problems
>with the US out weighed any decision to put more time and money in the US.
>
>The US had a lot of little problems and was easy to bend things.
>
>The FS also had problems in some of the same areas. Winter of 1988
>and 89, Jim and I completely overhauled and modified my FS. A lot
>of the initial problems were solved by Jim adding a couple
>additional tubes here and there.
>
>john h
>mkIII
>
>
> John, did you ever do the mod (I think it was Richard Swiderski
> who posted details on it) to add the collar on the wing root? It's
> tempting, but a bit of work, and I wonder how much improvement it
> would actually make.
>
>-Dana
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Herb:
The original method of attaching inboard rib to main spar on the US was les
s than desireable. It allowed the wing to twist when ailerons were operate
d, effectively canceling out aileron input. That is why Homer came up with
the collar for attaching main spar and also tail post. Light aileron load
s worked pretty good, but if you had to get a little heavy handed, the more
aileron applied the more the wing would twist. Scared hell out of me firs
t time I got into that situation. I was used to flying helicopters. When
I gave them cyclic input the helicopter responded immediately. Brand new t
o airplanes and especially the Ultrastar, I dove on my house, pulled up and
tried to do a big wing over, but the more aileron I put in the more the wi
ng twisted and I ended up effectively wings level. Had a lot to learn abou
t these little airplanes.
john h
mkIII
Also Dana and John...I am planning to use a set of modified ultra sta
r root ribs on my Firefly/Firestar /ultrastar Tri Fly hybrid...:-) Is the
US "h" section sort of root attachment to spar considered to be inferior...
Looks plenty strong to me. Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Brings up 'nuther question...Did you have the braces on the drag
spar? Also wondering if my 24 foot wing span will be as
susceptible to the twist? Logically it would not..
Thanks Either way..I will make the collar...or hook a couple out
of Travis! :-) Herb
At 01:06 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>Herb:
>
>The original method of attaching inboard rib to main spar on the US
>was less than desireable. It allowed the wing to twist when
>ailerons were operated, effectively canceling out aileron
>input. That is why Homer came up with the collar for attaching main
>spar and also tail post. Light aileron loads worked pretty good,
>but if you had to get a little heavy handed, the more aileron
>applied the more the wing would twist. Scared hell out of me first
>time I got into that situation. I was used to flying
>helicopters. When I gave them cyclic input the helicopter responded
>immediately. Brand new to airplanes and especially the Ultrastar, I
>dove on my house, pulled up and tried to do a big wing over, but the
>more aileron I put in the more the wing twisted and I ended up
>effectively wings level. Had a lot to learn about these little airplanes.
>
>john h
>mkIII
>
>
> Also Dana and John...I am planning to use a set of modified
> ultra star root ribs on my Firefly/Firestar /ultrastar Tri
> Fly hybrid...:-) Is the US "h" section sort of root attachment to
> spar considered to be inferior...Looks plenty strong to me. Herb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Herb:
Fortunately, I was in the process of building my US wings when Dennis Soude
r broke the factory US. Yes, I got the drag strut braces and insured they
were installed correctly.
john h
mkIII
Brings up 'nuther question...Did you have the braces on the drag spar?
Also wondering if my 24 foot wing span will be as susceptible to the twis
t? Logically it would not..
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
That was the altitude above Sea Level that I was flying>>
Hi,
Thanks, I assumed that must be the case. Here the country is divided
into 3 Areas with their own barometric pressure and that is applicable
above 3000 feet. This means that everyone on a X country can set 3500
confident that you dont run into someone who is on a different setting.
Airfields which are manned will give landing instructions including
pressure when asked. Larger ones broadcast ATIS.
Most microlighters fly from farmers to farmers field and you must rely
on heights given on your chart and adjust your pressure to fit.
Thanks
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Patrick:
Over here, USA, our sectional charts are based on elevation above sea level.
Common practice to set field elevation before takeoff, updating during flig
ht when altimeter settings are available.
Only time I ever fly from a field with zero set in the altimeter is at Oshk
osh and Lakeland. For some reason the powers to be (the guys wearing the o
range vest) decided we could better keep up with our altitude above ground
that way, since we fly in a very tight box with other traffic patterns righ
t on top of us.
At home field and everywhere else, I set field elevation.
john h
mkIII
rent setting.
Airfields which are manned will give landing instructions including press
ure when asked. Larger ones broadcast ATIS.
Most microlighters fly from farmers to farmers field and you must rely on
heights given on your chart and adjust your pressure to fit.
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
> Have any of you ever seen anything similar to what I have attached
> here in the photos?
> I am getting some fretting corrosion where the fabric is tight
> against the aluminum tubes on the cockpit cage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Has the rubbing of the fabric rubbed off the primer paint on the tube?
Boyd Young
MkIIIC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
At 01:55 PM 1/16/2009, herb wrote:
> Also Dana and John...I am planning to use a set of modified ultra star
> root ribs on my Firefly/Firestar /ultrastar Tri Fly hybrid...:-) Is the
> US "h" section sort of root attachment to spar considered to be
> inferior...Looks plenty strong to me.
It's strong enough, but it (apparently) doesn't provide sufficient
resistance to twisting. One solution is described here:
http://tinyurl.com/ultrastar-wing-spar-collar
I haven't done this mod on my plane (yet), I want to look at it and maybe
come up with a simpler solution.
-Dana
--
Aviation is like drugs: You go up, then you come down. You are out a
big pile of money and have nothing to show for it but the experience.
And you can't wait to do it again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
R.Neilsen wrote: << There are a number of good engines out there as
Rotax alternatives.
... Tell us about your Non-Rotax engines on your Kolb. >>
Avoid the Verner.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, 912ul (formerly Verner-1400 powered)
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Dana- I was asking if you had made the wing root modification on your US.
- I seem to remember this discussion from about a year ago.
- I checked the Firestar wings, and they have the "ring" mount that John
described.- The tail has the-twin tubes-instead of the ring, so this
thing looks to have been built fairly early.
-
-------------------------
------------ Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
------------ Windsor Locks, Ct.
11 degrees and going down, at 6pm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
At 06:07 PM 1/16/2009, william sullivan wrote:
>Dana- I was asking if you had made the wing root modification on your
>US. I seem to remember this discussion from about a year ago.
> I checked the Firestar wings, and they have the "ring" mount that John
> described. The tail has the twin tubes instead of the ring, so this
> thing looks to have been built fairly early.
No, no ring on mine. I can visibly see the wing twist if I use full
aileron at speed. The tail attachment should be fine as is, but the wing
root is a good thing to have.
-Dana
--
When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important
lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
At 06:07 PM 1/16/2009, william sullivan wrote:
>Dana- I was asking if you had made the wing root modification on your
>US. I seem to remember this discussion from about a year ago.
> I checked the Firestar wings, and they have the "ring" mount that John
> described. The tail has the twin tubes instead of the ring, so this
> thing looks to have been built fairly early.
No, no ring on mine. I can visibly see the wing twist if I use full
aileron at speed. The tail attachment should be fine as is, but the wing
root is a good thing to have.
-Dana
--
When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important
lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
| From: | "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)gmail.com> |
Boyd, It doesn't appear that any paint (or primer) was applied to these tubes...I
didn't build this plane...bought it used.
Mike (planecrazzzy), If the chafing tape doesn't go here, where would it go?
Mike and Bob, If the fabric is rubbing with the tube it can cause bits of aluminum
to come loose and oxidize and cause more abrasion. When the aluminum oxide
mixes with EITHER water or oil it makes an oily-looking substance. I mix my
gas and oil so it's not like I have an oil leak and especially not there. The
condensation inside the cage or perhaps even from the inside of the steel tubing
coming out where it runs into the aluminum tubing could add water to the
mix.
Bob, don't be impressed...I just listened closely in Mike Huffman's repairman class.
Carlos, I will check for looseness. Is that what most people do...glue the fabric
to the tubes? I will check tomorrow (if I can brave the cold South Georgia
weather). Mine may have been glued originally and maybe the glue has deteriorated.
zeprep251(at)aol.com (name?), 12.584% of my cage is AL. (see attachment)
[Wink] [Wink]
--------
Cristal Waters
Kolb Mark II Twinstar
Rotax 503 DCSI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225219#225219
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/12584percent_119.bmp
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
| From: | "The BaronVonEvil" <grageda(at)innw.net> |
Hi Cristal,
The way the fabric is attached to the fuselage depends upon the designer/ manufacturer
of the aircraft and the fabric makers finishing system.
For Polyfiber the fabric is usually glued to the primary edges of the fuselage
and shrunk down to a final tension. Then comes the sealer(Polybrush) that penetrates
the fabric and will stick to tubes that the fabric is bearing against.
If the fabric is in the propblast, depending upon the designer/manufacturer,
the fabric maybe reinforced with a ribbon type tape, then stitches are used to
mechanically attach the fabric to the tubes, and a extra layer of fabric tape
is placed over the stitches and more Polybrush is applied to seal everything
up. This is just a brief explanation and the fabric supplier's books, the A/C
manufacturer manuals should be followed to assure a correct installation any covering.
Also Advisory Circular 43-13 ( actually a book) is a good reference for
fabric installation and many types of aircraft structural repairs too.
If the aluminum tubes are secure, then I would suspect that the fabric installation
wasn't done properly. I would suggest that you ask someone at your airport
who has done fabric work or an A & P Mechanic to inspect the fabric of your
plane to see what your specific problems are.
If you were nearby, I would be more that happy to help you out but Georgia is a
wee-bit far from Washington state.
Doing a fabric job isn't hard and can be somewhat fun. I use the PolyFiber process
myself. It just takes a little patience and careful work to do a good covering
job.
I am always looking at fabric covered aircraft to see how it has been done. I like
to study how little problem areas (around windows, edges, fittings sticking
out, etc.) are executed to learn from others possible solutions and mistakes
too.
Let us know what you find.
Best Regards
Carlos G.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225241#225241
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
The way the fabric is attached to the fuselage depends upon the designer/
manufacturer of the aircraft and the fabric makers finishing system.>>
Hi,
there is talk here in the UK of precoloured fabric/plastic aircraft
covering.
That would be pretty neat. Shrink it on in the usual way with no spray
problems etc. to follow.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
Over here, USA, our sectional charts are based on elevation above sea
level.>>
Hi John,
thanks. Here in this little counry it is a bit simpler. Flying charts
are available in quarter million and half million and 8 quarter mil or
3 half mil charts cover the whole country. Heights are shown above sea
level but of course only for `proper` airfields
Obviously pressure changes across the country but usually one decent
sized High or one Low covers the UK.and 3 Regiional Pressure areas are
enough. There are a couple of publications which give details of
airfields. Height, runway details, fuel available etc and one
publication which covers farm strips. These are usually Prior Permission
only which means you ring up before you leave to make sure that there
are no sheep wandering around the airfield and that the strip has been
cut.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MK3X Aileron Cable Bracket Misalignment |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
Here is my fix for the problem. This actually turned out to be an excellent way
to precisely align the cable. The spacer is 1.25x1.25 aluminum tubing
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225267#225267
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pic00004_162.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
At 06:51 AM 1/17/2009, pj.ladd wrote:
>there is talk here in the UK of precoloured fabric/plastic aircraft covering.
>
>That would be pretty neat. Shrink it on in the usual way with no spray
>problems etc. to follow.
I saw something like that not long ago, but I can't find the link.
R/C'ers, of course, have had that for years in "Coverite", a precolored
dacron fabric with heat sensitive adhesive on one side... you simply iron
it on; the heat activates the adhesive and shrinks the fabric in one easy
step. There's also "Monokote" (or the UK equivalent "Solarfilm"), a
similar product except it's mylar film (to easy to rip for a man carrying
aircraft!). Anyway, I'm pretty sure I saw something like this for full
sized aircraft, but where I don't know.
-Dana
--
The air up there in the clouds is very pure and fine, bracing and
delicious. And why shouldn't it be? -- it is the same the angels
breathe.
- Mark Twain
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
If you can manage to clean off the discoloration with a brush and
detergent then you should be able
to prevent further fretting with a strip of hardware store GOOP
cement in the problem area.
BB
On 17, Jan 2009, at 6:51 AM, pj.ladd wrote:
>
> The way the fabric is attached to the fuselage depends upon the
> designer/ manufacturer of the aircraft and the fabric makers
> finishing system.>>
>
> Hi,
> there is talk here in the UK of precoloured fabric/plastic aircraft
> covering.
>
> That would be pretty neat. Shrink it on in the usual way with no
> spray problems etc. to follow.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pat
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MK3X Aileron Cable Bracket Misalignment |
Rick
You are one of the first to use the new wing design and as happens these
bugs get worked out by.... you.
I have some concerns about your fix. My pet peeve is weight. I was a
stickler about the little things. A bunch of little weight savings add up to
real savings. Your fix adds weight.
The second is a minor concern about the stress this stand off would add to
the cable bracket mount in the wing. It was designed to handle the load of
aileron deflection bolted directly to the mount. Your stand off would add a
leverage arm to that load maybe overloading or flexing the mount. I can't
see much about how it is made and I can't see if you had added a gusset to
carry the additional flexing load.
Is there any way you could move the mount to align with the bell crank?
Again I can't see how it is attached or what it is attached to.
As always, the advice is worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK3X Aileron Cable Bracket Misalignment
>
> Here is my fix for the problem. This actually turned out to be an
> excellent way to precisely align the cable. The spacer is 1.25x1.25
> aluminum tubing
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225267#225267
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/pic00004_162.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fabric rubbing on cage tubes |
Cristal,
May be I missed it. It seems that if fabric tension was high enough, it
could/would not fret. Can you push the fabric away from the tube? If so, I
would try heating the fabric and try to shrink and increase fabric tension.
It is easy to see if it is working by thunking the fabric and listening for
a higher pitched response. It may be worth a try.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking forward to MV /wheel Pants |
| From: | "Nelson, Craig" <craig.nelson(at)heraeus.com> |
<> <> <>
<>
Hi to all from uncle craig and milow tim Looking forward to MV put in
for vacation yesterday
Uncle Craig
~~--~~-~~~-~---~~~-~--~~~-~--~~~--~~--~~--~~
This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
entity named above and may constitute information that is privileged or
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution, forwarding or copying of this e-mail by anyone other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail
and completely delete or destroy any and all electronic or other copies
of the original message.
*** 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 - ONLINE! Please click on over to www.heraeus.com to
experience the new websites for yourself! ***
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Any Kolbers on Facebook? |
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
I recently started a Facebook page. If you are unfamiliar with Facebook, take
a look. I've been wanting my own website for a long time to post flying picture,
but never got around to it. Facebook gives me quite a bit of space to do that.
Here is a link to the photos:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/album.php?aid 03527&id=1174278290
If you have a facebook page, feel free to add me as a friend.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225336#225336
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <ez(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Any Kolbers on Facebook? |
Roger,
Fantastic Pictures !
On Jan 17, 2009, at 2:25 PM, R. Hankins wrote:
>
> I recently started a Facebook page. If you are unfamiliar with
> Facebook, take a look. I've been wanting my own website for a long
> time to post flying picture, but never got around to it. Facebook
> gives me quite a bit of space to do that. Here is a link to the
> photos:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/album.php?aid 03527&id=1174278290
>
> If you have a facebook page, feel free to add me as a friend.
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225336#225336
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 07:15 AM 1/17/2009, pj.ladd wrote:
>Over here, USA, our sectional charts are based on elevation above sea level.>>
>
>Hi John,
>thanks. Here in this little counry it is a bit simpler. Flying charts are
>available in quarter million and half million and 8 quarter mil or 3 half
>mil charts cover the whole country. Heights are shown above sea level but
>of course only for `proper` airfields
But you still need to set your altimeter to sea level in order to enter the
traffic pattern at the correct altitude at any destination airport other
than where you took off from, no?
I don't think your charts are all that different from ours. Ours show some
private airfields, if the owner wishes it to be charted. Some are truly
prior permission required; others are "private" for liability reasons but
visitors are welcome.
-Dana
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to
take away everything you have. --Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking forward to MV /wheel Pants |
Hi to all from uncle craig and milow tim Looking forward to MV put in
for vacation yesterday
Uncle Craig
~~--~~-~~~-~---~~~-~--~~~-~--~~~--~~--~~--~~
Hey Craig, why don't you and MT come on up with John H to the Rock
house and we can give those suckers a real world test. :-) If they were
pointer on the front end wouldn't they part the sage brush a bit better?
Seriously though they look great, just a little too "purty" for here
though.
Larry C, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MK3X Aileron Cable Bracket Misalignment |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
Rick
The stand off is a piece of 1.25x1.25 piece of square tubing there fore the
lever arm, your talking about, is only 1.25". I believe this is a good fix
and will not cause any problems. As far as adding weight, well your right but
not much I can do about it in this case. The rib in the aileron was already
riveted in place by the time I got to this stage. If I had only know this was
going to happen, I would have waited to put this rib in place and moved it where
it really needed to be. I'm hoping that future builders will take note of
this. I like this kind of feedback it keeps me on my toes and is appreciated.
Talking about weights, I'm about to post the weight added by those lovely wing
tips and fiberglass tub seat. I try to watch my weights also, you just have
to, little things sure do add up as a whole.
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225364#225364
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weights of Parts We Like |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
Sometime back I read in this forum that people are wishing they had those beautiful
fiberglass wing tips on their plane. I haven't heard anyone mention the
nice fiberglass tub seat that now used on the MK3X. For those of you that really
would like to have the two items but don't want to go to the trouble or expense
to have them then let me make you feel better about not having them at all.
The weight added to your plane using the new wing tips is 15 pounds. The
weight of the nice fiberglass bucket seats are 14 pounds. ( I think Rick Neilson
just passed out). I will be installing both of these items on my plane because
they are nice and pretty and supplied with the kit. Leave your wing tips
alone and keep the nice light weight sling seats. :D
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225366#225366
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another Windshield Install Question |
| From: | "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net> |
I didn't want my question to get lost in the other windshield install post so I'm
making another one.
I will be installing my windows soon and am wondering if once the windshield
is clamped into place can you apply heat with heat lamps at a distance so the
lexan would take the shape of the bend. It seams like a mild heat would make
the lexan take the new shape and therefore would not have continuous strain
on the rivets. Maybe this happens naturally over time, out in the sun. Whats
ya think?
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225403#225403
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Windshield Install Question |
> I will be installing my windows soon and am wondering if once the
> windshield is clamped into place can you apply heat with heat lamps at a
> distance so the lexan would take the shape of the bend. It seams like a
> mild heat would make the lexan take the new shape and therefore would not
> have continuous strain on the rivets. Maybe this happens naturally over
> time, out in the sun. Whats ya think?
>
> Rick Lewis
Hi Rick L:
The way I see it, a rivet, if pulled properly, will always be under strain,
no matter what the application. My experience, after installing and
removing many of my own Kolb windshields, is the Lexan will not necessarily
take on the shape it has been in after many years. I would not use heat on
Lexan to stress relieve it.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Crab vs sideslip crosswing landing |
| From: | "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> |
I had my 1st big challenge today with wind! The forecast was for 5mph winds however
the wind was low but gusty and turbulent at times and variable in direction.
On my final I checked the AWOS and it had winds at 7knots from 180o and I
was landing on 23.
The air was a bit rough descending down through 500 to 100 feet and the wind was
pushing me away from centerline. I had the plane in a crap on most of the
approach keeping center. Once I got lower 100 feet I went to the slide slip.
It took a boot full or right rudder to get the nose straight with the runway.
I think I was close to max deflection. Of course once the nose is straight ailerons
have to be turned into the wind or the dreaded side drift occurs. Anyway
i used power all the way down to flair.
I usually approach 65 mph to 70 I used 75 to 80 on this one. All was looking pretty
good until I backed off the power. At this point I am in the round out stage
and as the speed decreases I start drifting again and the nose starts trying
to go into the wind again.
After a bit of fighting the wind I touch down ok but the plane bounces back up
about 10 to 15 feet. I chase it with power touch down again bounce again and finally
touch down one last time and stay planted!
Asphalt seem to aggravate cross wind landing a good bit over grass.
What method do you guys use during cross wind landings crab or sideslip?
Any suggestions for me? i know I need more practice for one since I am
a low time pilot.
Grant
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225412#225412
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weights of Parts We Like |
Rick
I just woke up wow are your saying 29 lbs!!!! You have enough power to
overcome this but be careful the best flying planes are the light ones. My
VW powered MKIIIC weighs 498Lbs and I forgot to remove my survival kit when
I weighed it. I was real careful adjusting every bolt. No more than three
threads showing. My Diehl accessory case has more holes than a block of
swiss cheese and is missing two ears. The big redrive bolt 3/4 inch? had ten
threads showing so I cut off 7.
I have looked and sat in the MKIIIX bucket seats. They are super but 14lbs!
Look at the shell of this seat. Trim it where you can. If some of it
overhangs the mounts by 1/2 inch cut it off. If there is a low stress areas
covered by fabric start drilling holes.
My rule is if it doesn't serve a function get rid of it.
Just because it is riveted in plane in place doesn't mean it can't be moved.
You do know how to drill out rivets?
Rick Neilsen
1st Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:08 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Weights of Parts We Like
>
> Sometime back I read in this forum that people are wishing they had those
> beautiful fiberglass wing tips on their plane. I haven't heard anyone
> mention the nice fiberglass tub seat that now used on the MK3X. For those
> of you that really would like to have the two items but don't want to go
> to the trouble or expense to have them then let me make you feel better
> about not having them at all. The weight added to your plane using the
> new wing tips is 15 pounds. The weight of the nice fiberglass bucket
> seats are 14 pounds. ( I think Rick Neilson just passed out). I will be
> installing both of these items on my plane because they are nice and
> pretty and supplied with the kit. Leave your wing tips alone and keep the
> nice light weight sling seats. :D
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225366#225366
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Another Windshield Install Question |
> I will be installing my windows soon and am wondering if once the windshield
is clamped into place can you apply heat with heat lamps at a distance so the
lexan would take the shape of the bend. It seams like a mild heat would make the
lexan take the new shape and therefore would not have continuous strain on
the rivets. Maybe this happens naturally over time, out in the sun. Whats ya think?
>
> Rick Lewis
Rick,
My MkIII spent this last summer on my large flatbed trailer, outside, in the
sun, with a 10 mil black visqueen cover. I was building my shop at the time.
My windshield was installed with clecos only. I checked underneath the visqueen
a couple of times, and the heat was phenominal! My guess would be it was
160 degrees in there. Maybe more!! I had spiders and bugs that crawled in the
fuselage, and immediately died from heat exhaustion.
The main point I'm making is that the windshield was so hot you could literally
fry an egg on it.
A few days ago I unclecoed it, and took it off, to get ready for some fuselage
paint. It has a slight curve to it. After a few months of unmercifully hot,
scorching, black visqueen covered heat, it barely has a curve in it.
What this tells me is , is that for you to obtain any "real" curve to it, like
enough to relieve the stress on the rivets, this would take an enourmous EVEN
heat. I can not imagine you could do it without ruining the clarity.
My advice would be to not try it. Can it be done under very precise controlled
conditions, yes. But, can you that at your shop? Probably not, and darn sure
not for the trouble, the risk, or the gain.
Shaping and forming Lexan, Plexiglass, and other polycarbinates can be done,
but it is usually by large commercial operations. You have to have an exact shape
you are after, heat the Lexan laying over your shape, to a precise temperature
for a few hours, and let it slowly mold itself onto the final shape you
want. Rather involved. Not impossible, just a lot of work.
Just my opinion,
Mike Welch
MkIII
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Another Windshield Install Question |
> I will be installing my windows soon and am wondering if once the windshield
is clamped into place can you apply heat with heat lamps at a distance so the
lexan would take the shape of the bend. It seams like a mild heat would make the
lexan take the new shape and therefore would not have continuous strain on
the rivets. Maybe this happens naturally over time, out in the sun. Whats ya think?
>
> Rick Lewis
Rick,
Oh yeah, one more thing. I noticed that when my windshield was clecoed in place,
it has a slight
ability to "indent" (flex in), if you push down hard enough in the middle. The
slight curve of the mounting may give the windshield an extra resistance to denting
due to the airstream pushing down on it.
If you took away some of the induced strength of this curved mounting method,
by preshaping it, I think it might be more likely to indent.
Just my thoughts on the matter,
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weights of Parts We Like |
That is good Rick....498 lbs...My very stock Kolb MkIII came in at
492 with no extras at all..and a 532 engine...Herb
At 09:45 PM 1/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Rick
>
>I just woke up wow are your saying 29 lbs!!!! You have enough power
>to overcome this but be careful the best flying planes are the light
>ones. My VW powered MKIIIC weighs 498Lbs and I forgot to remove my
>survival kit when I weighed it. I was real careful adjusting every
>bolt. No more than three threads showing. My Diehl accessory case
>has more holes than a block of swiss cheese and is missing two ears.
>The big redrive bolt 3/4 inch? had ten threads showing so I cut off 7.
>
>I have looked and sat in the MKIIIX bucket seats. They are super but
>14lbs! Look at the shell of this seat. Trim it where you can. If
>some of it overhangs the mounts by 1/2 inch cut it off. If there is
>a low stress areas covered by fabric start drilling holes.
>
>My rule is if it doesn't serve a function get rid of it.
>
>Just because it is riveted in plane in place doesn't mean it can't
>be moved. You do know how to drill out rivets?
>
>Rick Neilsen
>1st Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman(at)hughes.net>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:08 PM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Weights of Parts We Like
>
>
>>
>>Sometime back I read in this forum that people are wishing they had
>>those beautiful fiberglass wing tips on their plane. I haven't
>>heard anyone mention the nice fiberglass tub seat that now used on
>>the MK3X. For those of you that really would like to have the two
>>items but don't want to go to the trouble or expense to have them
>>then let me make you feel better about not having them at all. The
>>weight added to your plane using the new wing tips is 15
>>pounds. The weight of the nice fiberglass bucket seats are 14
>>pounds. ( I think Rick Neilson just passed out). I will be
>>installing both of these items on my plane because they are nice
>>and pretty and supplied with the kit. Leave your wing tips alone
>>and keep the nice light weight sling seats. :D
>>
>>Rick Lewis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225366#225366
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crab vs sideslip crosswing landing |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
grantr wrote:
> I had my 1st big challenge today with wind! The forecast was for 5mph winds
however the wind was low but gusty and turbulent at times and variable in direction.
On my final I checked the AWOS and it had winds at 7knots from 180o and
I was landing on 23.
>
> The air was a bit rough descending down through 500 to 100 feet and the wind
was pushing me away from centerline. I had the plane in a crap on most of the
approach keeping center. Once I got lower 100 feet I went to the slide slip.
It took a boot full or right rudder to get the nose straight with the runway.
I think I was close to max deflection. Of course once the nose is straight ailerons
have to be turned into the wind or the dreaded side drift occurs. Anyway
i used power all the way down to flair.
>
> I usually approach 65 mph to 70 I used 75 to 80 on this one. All was looking
pretty good until I backed off the power. At this point I am in the round out
stage and as the speed decreases I start drifting again and the nose starts trying
to go into the wind again.
>
> After a bit of fighting the wind I touch down ok but the plane bounces back up
about 10 to 15 feet. I chase it with power touch down again bounce again and
finally touch down one last time and stay planted!
>
> Asphalt seem to aggravate cross wind landing a good bit over grass.
>
> What method do you guys use during cross wind landings crab or sideslip?
>
> Any suggestions for me? i know I need more practice for one since I am
> a low time pilot.
>
> Grant
I used the wing-low (sideslip) method in my FSII (and in all my 3-axis planes actually).
I like to get the slideslip going fairly early on final, mostly to see
how much rudder I'm going to have to hold and to stabilize the descent rate
as much as possible. I don't like the "crab and kick" method because the change
in sink rate can be abrupt and it doesn't give you time to get things stabilized.
I always did wheel landings in crosswinds and usually carried a little power as
well to keep a little extra energy in the equation....
Once in the sideslip I think left/right drift with aileron, fuse alignment with
ground track with feet.....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225418#225418
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
But you still need to set your altimeter to sea level in order to enter
the
traffic pattern at the correct altitude at any destination airport other
than where you took off from, no?>>
Regional pressure (QNH) we would ordinarily set for x-country. All being
equal if you didnt change that and you landed at a field shown as 447ft
on your chart you would have 447ft on your altimeter.
Usually an airfield will give you the local pressure (QFE) along with
landing instructions. When you have landed your altimeter will show
zero.
The reason here for having `private` fields or PPR is usually not for
reasons of liability, which don`t feature as so important here as they
do for you. They are usually PPR so that landing instructions can be
given, `avoid flying over the village` `keep east of the railway line`
`watch for electricity pylons on the approach`. That sort of thing.
Sometimes it is because the local Council when giving permission for the
field to be used for flying have imposed a limit to the number of
landings and take offs per year.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crab vs sideslip crosswing landing |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Like Lucien, I much prefer slipping all the way down final and for the same reasons
he stated. Also, it appears to me that your bounce was at least partly due
to carrying more airspeed than ideal at touchdown.
The winds you experienced are considered calm to light in this part of the world.
That is not to belittle you or your landing in anyway, just to let you know
that with practice (like you are doing) most Kolbs can be safely landed in stronger
winds.
A few months ago there was a low-wing Piper (Cherokee or some a newer incarnation
of a Cherokee) wrecked at our airfield in gusting cross-winds. The private
pilot who recently earned her ticket refused to get serious cross-wind training
in wind conditions over her "personal minimums" not realizing how important
it is. When she left on this incident flight the winds were fairly light with
very little cross-wind component. When she returned, they were stronger, gusting
and directly across the runway. Instead of going to a nearby airport with wind-aligned
runway, she figured she could handle it without the training. She
got it down without injuring herself but the airplane was bent up. Practice is
the only way to learn these skills.
--------
Thom Riddle
N1208P RANS S6S, Tailwheel, 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people
understood each other, they would never agree.
- Charles Baudelaire
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225454#225454
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 06:12 AM 1/18/2009, pj.ladd wrote:
>
>Regional pressure (QNH) we would ordinarily set for x-country. All being
>equal if you didnt change that and you landed at a field shown as 447ft on
>your chart you would have 447ft on your altimeter.
>
>Usually an airfield will give you the local pressure (QFE) along with
>landing instructions. When you have landed your altimeter will show zero.
OK, that's different. Here the field would give you "altimeter setting"
which is always QNH. The "Q" codes aren't used much here.
> The reason here for having `private` fields or PPR is usually not for
> reasons of liability, which don`t feature as so important here as they do
> for you. They are usually PPR so that landing instructions can be given,
> `avoid flying over the village` `keep east of the railway line` `watch
> for electricity pylons on the approach`. That sort of thing. Sometimes it
> is because the local Council when giving permission for the field to be
> used for flying have imposed a limit to the number of landings and take
> offs per year.
Liability is certainly a factor, but the major reason for private fields
here is probably simply because the owner who has an airstrip behind his
house doesn't want to be bothered with a bunch of people flying in and
out. Listing a field for public use also may impose a higher standard of
required maintenance... if you land at a public airport and bend your
airplane rolling into a ditch across the runway you have good reason to be
upset; at a private field it's your own fault if you weren't supposed to
land there without prior permission anyway.
-Dana
--
Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crab vs sideslip crosswing landing |
| From: | "grantr" <grant_richardson25(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks guys. Yes I know 7kts is not too bad [Embarassed]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225465#225465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Windshield Install Question |
>
> I will be installing my windows soon and am wondering if once the
windshield is clamped into place can you apply heat with heat lamps at a
distance so the lexan would take the shape of the bend. It seams like a
mild heat would make the lexan take the new shape and therefore would not
have continuous strain on the rivets. Maybe this happens naturally over
time, out in the sun. Whats ya think?
>
Rick,
A few years back I was involved with the design and construction of TV
component manufacturing equipment. We hid numerical controls in out of the
way places and to protect them from dust and moisture we used thin lexan
covers. These covers were mechanically formed up using sheet metal forming
equipment. Thin lexan will form a permanent right angle bend with out
cracking.
I believe that if you used some blankets for surface protection and a few
two by fours on a smooth garage floor, plus the front wheel of a car, you
could bend your windshield to the desired curvature.
Before trying heat, I would check out what it does to a piece of scrap.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VICTOR PETERS" <vicsv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New pages added |
Scott,
I noticed a third brace- support for the elevator tube that connects
to both control
sticks. I could use one as I have a little play. Did you add it or do
they come that way?
Any suggestions as how to install one after the fact? Anyone?
Vic
MKIIIX 912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | reincarnation/windshields |
several years ago my MkIII had:
1. a 912 engine
2 a different cage/nose
3. a different left wing
4. a simple curve windshield
cote
now:
a suzuki engine (BTW those two blades came from the original prop)
two bend windshield
been through a lot but still flies
-BB
DSCN1711.JPG