Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-pf
November 11, 2018 - January 19, 2019
Titus, Alabama
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Young
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 8:23 PM
| Subject: | Re: Bing 54s & primers |
I'll pull the filter assy & look for a squirt of fuel when it's
activated.
You won't get a squirt.... The fuel goes from the float bowl through an
enrichner jet into a small resivour in the corner of the float bowl.
When the enrichner is activated a suction tube that goes to the bottom
of the enrichner resivour quickly drains the resivour providing a slug
of fuel. If the enrichner is left on the only fuel that can get to the
enrichner circuit has to go through the jet. If the engine does not
start, let the starter rest. The jet will allow the enrichner
resivour to fill again. Cranking the engine again will again supply
another slug of fuel.
It has always worked for me.
Boyd Young
Mkiii with 912 Utah
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bing 54s & primers |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Got the primer bulb issues T shirt; one of the upgrades is a Facet style
pump & a battery to run it.
Thanks to all for the help; I'll report when I get everything back
together & tested.
Charlie
On 11/11/2018 8:12 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Been 25 years since I had a Rotax 2 stroke. Forgot to mention a
> couple things that are important:
>
> -In order for the enricher system to work correctly, the throttle must
> be closed. If the throttle is cracked it defeats the enricher system.
>
> -Make sure the enricher seal is in good shape. They didn't last long
> back in my day. If they leak they'll drive you nuts trying to figure
> out why your engine ain't runnin' right.
>
> -The carb float bowl should be full prior to attempting a cold start.
> Fill with the primer bulb or an electric fuel pump. Getting rid of the
> primer bulb and installing a Facet pump will take care of filling the
> float bowl and eliminate a probable problem.
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
> *From:*owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John Hauck
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2018 7:35 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
>
> I never had the need for a primer on my two strokes, both Cuyuna and
> Rotax. Engines would start with no problem well below freezing. Same
> or similar carbs as mounted on snow machines (snowmobiles). Reckon it
> gets pretty cold, in their environment, at times.
>
> If the engine and fuel system is in good shape, it will start with the
> enricher in a couple pulls, and even quicker with an electric starter.
>
> When the enricher is pulled it opens a valve to dump the fuel stored
> in the enricher well, doing same thing a primer does. Then the engine
> is pulling fuel from the idle jet and the enricher jet plus allows a
> little more air through the carb.
>
> Before I'd spend the money and hang another gadget on my airplane I'd
> make sure that the carb is doing what it is supposed to do, especially
> the enricher system. Could be you aren't getting that initial dump of
> fuel from the enricher well on start up.
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
> *From:*owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Charlie
> England
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2018 2:13 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
>
> My ancient Rotax 503 was modified by the previous owner from one Bing
> to a pair of Bings. The original Bing has a cable to the enricher, but
> the other only has the little handle to activate, and it's really
> cranky about starting even with both activated. The previous owner
> said that it will start easier if I install a primer (and the engine
> seems to agree, based on 'dribble priming' it).
>
> So, I just ordered a primer plunger kit (made for Mikunis) , but only
> one of the carbs has the primer port in the body. Anyone out there
> with any experience using manual primers that can tell me if priming
> both carbs will materially improve starting? Should I just bite the
> bullet & drill the other carb for a primer fitting?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Bing 54s & primers |
Not an accelerator pump, but does pull all the fuel out of the fuel
enricher well on initial engine turn over, if the throttle is closed.
You won't see a squirt of fuel when it is activated, and if the throttle
is cracked, it defeats the enricher system.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
That's a good data point to know. None of the docs I've read mention the
enricher acting like an accelerator pump when it's activated; they just
talk about the plunger opening up a second, richer fuel path when the
throttle is closed. I'll pull the filter assy & look for a squirt of
fuel when it's activated.
Thanks,
Charlie
On 11/11/2018 7:34 PM, John Hauck wrote:
I never had the need for a primer on my two strokes, both Cuyuna and
Rotax. Engines would start with no problem well below freezing. Same
or similar carbs as mounted on snow machines (snowmobiles). Reckon it
gets pretty cold, in their environment, at times.
If the engine and fuel system is in good shape, it will start with the
enricher in a couple pulls, and even quicker with an electric starter.
When the enricher is pulled it opens a valve to dump the fuel stored in
the enricher well, doing same thing a primer does. Then the engine is
pulling fuel from the idle jet and the enricher jet plus allows a little
more air through the carb.
Before I'd spend the money and hang another gadget on my airplane I'd
make sure that the carb is doing what it is supposed to do, especially
the enricher system. Could be you aren't getting that initial dump of
fuel from the enricher well on start up.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 2:13 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
My ancient Rotax 503 was modified by the previous owner from one Bing to
a pair of Bings. The original Bing has a cable to the enricher, but the
other only has the little handle to activate, and it's really cranky
about starting even with both activated. The previous owner said that it
will start easier if I install a primer (and the engine seems to agree,
based on 'dribble priming' it).
So, I just ordered a primer plunger kit (made for Mikunis) , but only
one of the carbs has the primer port in the body. Anyone out there with
any experience using manual primers that can tell me if priming both
carbs will materially improve starting? Should I just bite the bullet &
drill the other carb for a primer fitting?
Thanks,
Charlie
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bing 54s & primers |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Got it; thanks!
On 11/11/2018 9:10 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Not an accelerator pump, but does pull all the fuel out of the fuel
> enricher well on initial engine turn over, if the throttle is closed.
>
> You won't see a squirt of fuel when it is activated, and if the
> throttle is cracked, it defeats the enricher system.
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
> *From:*owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Charlie
> England
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2018 8:00 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
>
> That's a good data point to know. None of the docs I've read mention
> the enricher acting like an accelerator pump when it's activated; they
> just talk about the plunger opening up a second, richer fuel path when
> the throttle is closed. I'll pull the filter assy & look for a squirt
> of fuel when it's activated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
> On 11/11/2018 7:34 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> I never had the need for a primer on my two strokes, both Cuyuna
> and Rotax. Engines would start with no problem well below
> freezing. Same or similar carbs as mounted on snow machines
> (snowmobiles). Reckon it gets pretty cold, in their environment,
> at times.
>
> If the engine and fuel system is in good shape, it will start with
> the enricher in a couple pulls, and even quicker with an electric
> starter.
>
> When the enricher is pulled it opens a valve to dump the fuel
> stored in the enricher well, doing same thing a primer does. Then
> the engine is pulling fuel from the idle jet and the enricher jet
> plus allows a little more air through the carb.
>
> Before I'd spend the money and hang another gadget on my airplane
> I'd make sure that the carb is doing what it is supposed to do,
> especially the enricher system. Could be you aren't getting that
> initial dump of fuel from the enricher well on start up.
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
> *From:*owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Charlie England
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2018 2:13 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
>
> My ancient Rotax 503 was modified by the previous owner from one
> Bing to a pair of Bings. The original Bing has a cable to the
> enricher, but the other only has the little handle to activate,
> and it's really cranky about starting even with both activated.
> The previous owner said that it will start easier if I install a
> primer (and the engine seems to agree, based on 'dribble priming'
> it).
>
> So, I just ordered a primer plunger kit (made for Mikunis) , but
> only one of the carbs has the primer port in the body. Anyone out
> there with any experience using manual primers that can tell me if
> priming both carbs will materially improve starting? Should I just
> bite the bullet & drill the other carb for a primer fitting?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Sidebottom <cloudancer52(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Please unsubscribe me from this group. Thanks |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lynn Freimark <cocopee414(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | List Contribution - Value of the List... |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Aman <zeprep251(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bing 54s & primers |
my 503 dual bing 54=9Ds,enrichers pulled on ,three full strokes
of the primer start on the first pull.it <http://pull.it/> took a while
for me to find out that you can=99t hardly get too much fuel into
a cold 2 stroke.
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 10:44 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
>
> Got it; thanks!
>
> On 11/11/2018 9:10 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>> Not an accelerator pump, but does pull all the fuel out of the fuel
enricher well on initial engine turn over, if the throttle is closed.
>>
>> You won't see a squirt of fuel when it is activated, and if the
throttle is cracked, it defeats the enricher system.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>> Titus, Alabama
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
>> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 8:00 PM
>> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
>>
>> That's a good data point to know. None of the docs I've read mention
the enricher acting like an accelerator pump when it's activated; they
just talk about the plunger opening up a second, richer fuel path when
the throttle is closed. I'll pull the filter assy & look for a squirt of
fuel when it's activated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On 11/11/2018 7:34 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>> I never had the need for a primer on my two strokes, both Cuyuna and
Rotax. Engines would start with no problem well below freezing. Same
or similar carbs as mounted on snow machines (snowmobiles). Reckon it
gets pretty cold, in their environment, at times.
>>
>> If the engine and fuel system is in good shape, it will start with
the enricher in a couple pulls, and even quicker with an electric
starter.
>>
>> When the enricher is pulled it opens a valve to dump the fuel stored
in the enricher well, doing same thing a primer does. Then the engine
is pulling fuel from the idle jet and the enricher jet plus allows a
little more air through the carb.
>>
>> Before I'd spend the money and hang another gadget on my airplane I'd
make sure that the carb is doing what it is supposed to do, especially
the enricher system. Could be you aren't getting that initial dump of
fuel from the enricher well on start up.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>> Titus, Alabama
>>
>> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
>> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 2:13 PM
>> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Kolb-List: Bing 54s & primers
>>
>> My ancient Rotax 503 was modified by the previous owner from one Bing
to a pair of Bings. The original Bing has a cable to the enricher, but
the other only has the little handle to activate, and it's really cranky
about starting even with both activated. The previous owner said that it
will start easier if I install a primer (and the engine seems to agree,
based on 'dribble priming' it).
>>
>> So, I just ordered a primer plunger kit (made for Mikunis) , but only
one of the carbs has the primer port in the body. Anyone out there with
any experience using manual primers that can tell me if priming both
carbs will materially improve starting? Should I just bite the bullet &
drill the other carb for a primer fitting?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. If you've been
putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose
from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser.
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming Soon! |
Dear Listers,
There's just two more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russ Kinne <russk50(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Please unsubscribe me from this group. Thanks |
Please do NOT unsubscribe me! Thanx
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Steven Sidebottom wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
A quick reminder that November is the annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists
are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are covered solely
through your Contributions during this time of the year.
*Your* personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics
Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running for another
great year!
Use a credit card or your PayPal account here:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by sending a personal check to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | "loctupdave" <loctupdave(at)att.net> |
I said enough with the paint stripper and took the fuselage to a sandblaster.
Now that the weather is hanging in the upper 20's I be waiting for warmer days
for painting.
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/sandblasted_zpsrh4vqkvb.jpg.html)
So what I have been working on is stripping down the engine for rebuild.
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/partial%20engine_zpsuwyncnuf.jpg.html)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485213#485213
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 11/18/2018 3:23 PM, loctupdave wrote:
>
> I said enough with the paint stripper and took the fuselage to a sandblaster.
> Now that the weather is hanging in the upper 20's I be waiting for warmer days
for painting.
>
> (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/sandblasted_zpsrh4vqkvb.jpg.html)
>
> So what I have been working on is stripping down the engine for rebuild.
>
> (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/partial%20engine_zpsuwyncnuf.jpg.html)
>
>
If there's *any* moisture in the air, it won't look like that for long.
I'd be finding a way to get some kind of rust proofing on there quickly.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
loctupdave wrote:
> Ritchard
> I have been looking at your Kolb with a full enclosure, I was looking for ideas
on how I was going to do just that. The question is what kind of cruse speed
you are getting on that bird with wheel pants, enclosure, strut and wheel leg
fairings, and what engine are you using? A question from a newbie to the site.
>
When I had the original fat aluminum gear, adding fairings to the gear changed
the nose up/nose down trim noticeably, and added a couple of mph to the cruise
speed.
Do not have wheel pants now.
The current enclosure gives me around 65 mph at 5400 rpm with the 582, IVO 72"
2 blade, and 2.58:1 B box.
The wing struts are extruded faired, so they are as good as they are going to get.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Repairing the fiberglass nose bowl. Ugh.)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485217#485217
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First
test flight with the completely sealed center section.
It showed a 10% improvement in "cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to
50 MPH now in level flight at 5400 RPM.
This is an improvement, but not nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking
for. The aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS Firestar in the
same (no strut fairings or gear leg fairings) configuration.
More importantly, the aircraft did NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb
performance that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off the ground
in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to the far end of a 3800 foot
runway, I am only 250 feet above ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar
should be twice or three times that high over that distance.
So considering the cost of replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I really did not want to do at all.
But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the gearbox from the "down" position
to the "up" position and install a much larger propeller. Probably going from
65 inch diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
This will OF COURSE require me to put the stabilizer back to the original stock
position, which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently the front
stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the stock fitting hole). Moving
the thrust line that far upwards will create a very strong pitch-down, so
I am now hoping that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I am
hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I will have to approach
it slowly.
In the current configuration (stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically
on takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to hold it level until
the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off and gains speed, I can relax the
stick and fly normally. Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will hopefully
provide a little more down-force on the tail from propeller blast, and
HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down force form the propeller being higher
above the aircraft.
So now I have to find a propeller to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr
eport on how well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a fairly
good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember, I got 250 pounds of
static thrust, which is less than some other people (like Wakataka copied below)
measured with smaller engines.
I'm afraid that I am the one who puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS / Firestar STATIC THRUST test
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018, 4:26 PM
"wakataka"
I measured 290 pounds static with a
Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop. There was a slight amount
of tailwind that day, so I suspect that number is slightly
inflated, but I'm sure it produces at least 250 pounds. It
jumps right off the ground.
--------
There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out
of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First
test flight with the completely sealed center section.
It showed a 10% improvement in "cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to
50 MPH now in level flight at 5400 RPM.
This is an improvement, but not nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking
for. The aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS Firestar in the
same (no strut fairings or gear leg fairings) configuration.
More importantly, the aircraft did NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb
performance that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off the ground
in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to the far end of a 3800 foot
runway, I am only 250 feet above ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar
should be twice or three times that high over that distance.
So considering the cost of replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I really did not want to do at all.
But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the gearbox from the "down" position
to the "up" position and install a much larger propeller. Probably going from
65 inch diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
This will OF COURSE require me to put the stabilizer back to the original stock
position, which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently the front
stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the stock fitting hole). Moving
the thrust line that far upwards will create a very strong pitch-down, so
I am now hoping that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I am
hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I will have to approach
it slowly.
In the current configuration (stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically
on takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to hold it level until
the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off and gains speed, I can relax the
stick and fly normally. Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will hopefully
provide a little more down-force on the tail from propeller blast, and
HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down force form the propeller being higher
above the aircraft.
So now I have to find a propeller to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr
eport on how well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a fairly
good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember, I got 250 pounds of
static thrust, which is less than some other people (like Wakataka copied below)
measured with smaller engines.
I'm afraid that I am the one who puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS / Firestar STATIC THRUST test
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018, 4:26 PM
"wakataka"
I measured 290 pounds static with a
Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop. There was a slight amount
of tailwind that day, so I suspect that number is slightly
inflated, but I'm sure it produces at least 250 pounds. It
jumps right off the ground.
--------
There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out
of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are improving. Im going to ask a John H. question.
Did you do a speed check, WOT straight and level?
Your climb seems low. What are you using for your climb speed. Ive found my Firestar
that 44 to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I gotten higher
figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15 mph by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings.
Thats been my experience. Im actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth with a 2:29
G50 gearbox and a 64 3 blade Powerfin. Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm
@ 5500 rpm, which is the suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40
and 65 mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The wings are basically
the same so Im just giving you what Im getting out of a original Firestar.
Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill Berle wrote:
>
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS powered Firestar again yesterday morning.
First test flight with the completely sealed center section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in "cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH
to 50 MPH now in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking
for. The aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS Firestar in
the same (no strut fairings or gear leg fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft did NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb
performance that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off the ground
in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to the far end of a 3800
foot runway, I am only 250 feet above ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar
should be twice or three times that high over that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at
present), I have to go back and do something I really did not want to do at all.
But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the gearbox from the "down" position
to the "up" position and install a much larger propeller. Probably going
from 65 inch diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me to put the stabilizer back to the original stock
position, which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently the front
stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the stock fitting hole). Moving
the thrust line that far upwards will create a very strong pitch-down, so
I am now hoping that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I will have to approach
it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration (stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically
on takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to hold it level
until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off and gains speed, I can relax the
stick and fly normally. Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from propeller blast, and
HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down force form the propeller being higher
above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a propeller to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr
eport on how well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember, I got 250 pounds
of static thrust, which is less than some other people (like Wakataka copied below)
measured with smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS / Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018, 4:26 PM
>
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static with a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop. There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I suspect that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it produces at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating about
> science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort
of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by popping a personal check in the mail to:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have
helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
George H/Kolbers:
I could get the same numbers as George H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35 hp
Cuyuna ULII02, and the only streamlining was my big toes on the open rudder pedals.
I think our buddy Bill B has a sick engine. Maybe a sick engine, gear box, prop
combo. Who knows? I have no idea sitting here with my second cup of hot coffee
in front of a computer screen 2500 miles away.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George Helton
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are improving. Im going to ask a John H. question.
Did you do a speed check, WOT straight and level?
Your climb seems low. What are you using for your climb speed. Ive found my Firestar
that 44 to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I gotten higher
figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15 mph by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings.
Thats been my experience. Im actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth with a 2:29
G50 gearbox and a 64 3 blade Powerfin. Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm
@ 5500 rpm, which is the suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40
and 65 mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The wings are basically
the same so Im just giving you what Im getting out of a original Firestar.
Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill Berle wrote:
>
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS powered Firestar again yesterday morning.
First test flight with the completely sealed center section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in "cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH
to 50 MPH now in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking
for. The aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS Firestar in
the same (no strut fairings or gear leg fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft did NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb
performance that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off the ground
in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to the far end of a 3800
foot runway, I am only 250 feet above ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar
should be twice or three times that high over that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at
present), I have to go back and do something I really did not want to do at all.
But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the gearbox from the "down" position
to the "up" position and install a much larger propeller. Probably going
from 65 inch diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me to put the stabilizer back to the original stock
position, which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently the front
stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the stock fitting hole). Moving
the thrust line that far upwards will create a very strong pitch-down, so
I am now hoping that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I will have to approach
it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration (stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically
on takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to hold it level
until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off and gains speed, I can relax the
stick and fly normally. Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from propeller blast, and
HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down force form the propeller being higher
above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a propeller to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr
eport on how well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember, I got 250 pounds
of static thrust, which is less than some other people (like Wakataka copied below)
measured with smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS / Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018, 4:26 PM
>
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static with a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop. There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I suspect that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it produces at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating about
> science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
I did not do a WOT run on the flight Saturday, but did see 5850 RPM on a shallow
clomb when getting to altitude, at approx. 50-52 MPH. 5800 RPM is the maximum
contitnuous power. The HKS has a takeoff rating of 6200 RPM for five minutes.
The engine does not appear to be sick, the compression is very very high. It's
a significant effort to swing the propeller by hand through a compression stroke,
far far more difficult than on any "normal" airplane engine (Lycoming / Continental).
Can't do it with one hand, even out at the end of the propeller.
Again, the aircraft is off the ground in a few seconds, four maybe five seconds.
It's off the ground in less than 300 feet, and my aircraft is almost 90 lb.
heavier than the "brochure" weight of a Firestar, and I'm a fat SOB myself (200+)
Yesterday's flight started with about 8 gallons of fuel on board. I have not measured/marked
the new fuel tank yet, but I put in 7 gallons and had a small amount
in there form the previous engine test run.
If I had an unlimited budget of time and money I would do things a lot differently
(we all would!), but in my case I am very limited in cost at the moment.Turning
the gearbox into the up position does not cost me anything, and hopefully
I can borrow a propeller to at least try. I'm not able to just buy a prop without
knowing that it will solve the issue I have been fighting with.
I am very much aware that having the propeller up that high above the tail boom
will be something that Kolb recommends against. Bryan said that 38-39 inches
above the tailboom is the limit and he would not want to fly a Kolb if the prop
was up above 40 inches. I'm pretty sure that turning the HKS gearbox around
will put me over 40 inches.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17 AM
Hauck"
George H/Kolbers:
I could get the same numbers as George
H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35 hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
the only streamlining was my big toes on the open rudder
pedals.
I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
engine. Maybe a sick engine, gear box, prop
combo. Who knows? I have no idea sitting here
with my second cup of hot coffee in front of a computer
screen 2500 miles away.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of George Helton
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
George Helton
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
improving. Im going to ask a John H. question. Did you do
a speed check, WOT straight and level?
Your climb seems low. What are you
using for your climb speed. Ive found my Firestar that 44
to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I
gotten higher figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15 mph
by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings. Thats been
my experience. Im actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64 3 blade Powerfin.
Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @ 5500 rpm, which is the
suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40 and 65
mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The
wings are basically the same so Im just giving you what
Im getting out of a original Firestar. Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill
Berle
wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill Berle
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS
powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First test flight
with the completely sealed center section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in
"cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not
nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking for. The
aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS
Firestar in the same (no strut fairings or gear leg
fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft did
NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb performance
that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off
the ground in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to
the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I am only 250 feet above
ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar should be
twice or three times that high over that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of
replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I really did not want to
do at all. But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the
gearbox from the "down" position to the "up" position and
install a much larger propeller. Probably going from 65 inch
diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me to
put the stabilizer back to the original stock position,
which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently
the front stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the
stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust line that far upwards
will create a very strong pitch-down, so I am now hoping
that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I
will have to approach it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration
(stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically on
takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to
hold it level until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off
and gains speed, I can relax the stick and fly normally.
Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from
propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down
force form the propeller being higher above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a propeller
to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr eport on how
well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember,
I got 250 pounds of static thrust, which is less than some
other people (like Wakataka copied below) measured with
smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who
puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com -
safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net
- winning proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
4:26 PM
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by:
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static with
a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop.
There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I suspect
that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it produces
at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating
about
> science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of
fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS
WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST
WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution
Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
One other important question for the Kolbers... HOW HIGH can the propeller be (center
of the prop) above the top of the tailboom tube before it becomes a problem?
I know there have been Firestars with 582 and 912 engines that use larger propellers
than the "normal" 503 power. Does anyone know what the dimensions were on
those aircraft? What is the highest prop location that any of you believe can
be "tolerated" by a Firestar?
I have also ready several posts over the years by Kolbers saying that people have
frequently put Kolbs over on the nose. I certainly do NOT want to do that.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17 AM
Hauck"
George H/Kolbers:
I could get the same numbers as George
H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35 hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
the only streamlining was my big toes on the open rudder
pedals.
I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
engine. Maybe a sick engine, gear box, prop
combo. Who knows? I have no idea sitting here
with my second cup of hot coffee in front of a computer
screen 2500 miles away.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of George Helton
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
George Helton
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
improving. Im going to ask a John H. question. Did you do
a speed check, WOT straight and level?
Your climb seems low. What are you
using for your climb speed. Ive found my Firestar that 44
to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I
gotten higher figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15 mph
by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings. Thats been
my experience. Im actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64 3 blade Powerfin.
Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @ 5500 rpm, which is the
suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40 and 65
mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The
wings are basically the same so Im just giving you what
Im getting out of a original Firestar. Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill
Berle
wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill Berle
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS
powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First test flight
with the completely sealed center section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in
"cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not
nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking for. The
aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS
Firestar in the same (no strut fairings or gear leg
fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft did
NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb performance
that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off
the ground in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to
the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I am only 250 feet above
ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar should be
twice or three times that high over that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of
replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I really did not want to
do at all. But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the
gearbox from the "down" position to the "up" position and
install a much larger propeller. Probably going from 65 inch
diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me to
put the stabilizer back to the original stock position,
which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently
the front stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the
stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust line that far upwards
will create a very strong pitch-down, so I am now hoping
that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I
will have to approach it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration
(stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically on
takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to
hold it level until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off
and gains speed, I can relax the stick and fly normally.
Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from
propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down
force form the propeller being higher above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a propeller
to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr eport on how
well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember,
I got 250 pounds of static thrust, which is less than some
other people (like Wakataka copied below) measured with
smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who
puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com -
safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net
- winning proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
4:26 PM
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by:
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static with
a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop.
There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I suspect
that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it produces
at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating
about
> science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of
fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS
WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST
WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution
Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Just checked the HKS manual, turning the gearbox from down to up raises the prop
hub by 7 3/8".
I have a 65 inch propeller now, and the tip is just over 3/4" above the tailbooom
tube. Which means my prop hub is 33 1/4" above the tube, and if I switch the
gearbox around it will be 40 5/8".
What I do not know is whether that 40 inches mentioned by Bryan is an absolute
life/death safety limit, or whether it's "kinda getting up there", or whether
Bryan is just being overly cautious and the Kolb will fly safely with the prop
four feet above the tailboom.
I am not trying to be annoying or overly nit-picking here, but I do want to do
this safely. This is all suppposed to be fun, not death-defying.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17 AM
Hauck"
George H/Kolbers:
I could get the same numbers as George
H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35 hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
the only streamlining was my big toes on the open rudder
pedals.
I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
engine. Maybe a sick engine, gear box, prop
combo. Who knows? I have no idea sitting here
with my second cup of hot coffee in front of a computer
screen 2500 miles away.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of George Helton
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
George Helton
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
improving. Im going to ask a John H. question. Did you do
a speed check, WOT straight and level?
Your climb seems low. What are you
using for your climb speed. Ive found my Firestar that 44
to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I
gotten higher figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15 mph
by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings. Thats been
my experience. Im actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64 3 blade Powerfin.
Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @ 5500 rpm, which is the
suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40 and 65
mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The
wings are basically the same so Im just giving you what
Im getting out of a original Firestar. Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill
Berle
wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill Berle
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS
powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First test flight
with the completely sealed center section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in
"cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not
nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking for. The
aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS
Firestar in the same (no strut fairings or gear leg
fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft did
NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb performance
that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off
the ground in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to
the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I am only 250 feet above
ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar should be
twice or three times that high over that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of
replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I really did not want to
do at all. But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the
gearbox from the "down" position to the "up" position and
install a much larger propeller. Probably going from 65 inch
diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me to
put the stabilizer back to the original stock position,
which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently
the front stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the
stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust line that far upwards
will create a very strong pitch-down, so I am now hoping
that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I
will have to approach it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration
(stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically on
takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to
hold it level until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off
and gains speed, I can relax the stick and fly normally.
Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from
propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down
force form the propeller being higher above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a propeller
to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr eport on how
well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember,
I got 250 pounds of static thrust, which is less than some
other people (like Wakataka copied below) measured with
smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who
puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com -
safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net
- winning proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
4:26 PM
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by:
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static with
a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop.
There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I suspect
that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it produces
at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating
about
> science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of
fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS
WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST
WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution
Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Maybe we have a failure to communicate. That happens through email.
If max continuous rpm is 5800 rpm, then that is what you want to see at WOT straight
and level flight. Got to hold the throttle wide open until the aircraft
is flying as fast as it will go straight and level. If it is climbing at 5850
rpm it is under pitched and will turn higher in level flight WOT. You know,
like running around in 2 gear with a 3 speed transmission. Normal climb rpm
WOT will be a couple hundred rpm lower that WOT rpm when in straight and level
flight. 6200 rpm for 5 min is like "military power". Forget about that unless
you have an in flight adjustable prop.
If Bryan Melborn gave you a max limit for thrust line, I'd adhere to that. The
higher the thrust line the more power it will absorb to overcome pitch down.
With a big boy like you it will take even more power. How much? I don't know,
but it will rob power as the thrust line is raised.
My recommendation is:
-Make sure engine is putting out rated power/hp.
-Make sure the aircraft is rigged correctly.
-Stop what you are doing and pitch the prop correctly through flight test - straight
and level WOT bump 5800 rpm.
If the above doesn't work, sell or burn the aircraft.
Like I said in a previous email, my fully open 35hp Ultrastar with bare fuselage
would fly 75 mph, climb like a home sick angel, and get off the ground in a
second with a 180 lb pilot and 7.75 gal of fuel.
I've been lucky enough to fly many different Kolb aircraft over the last 35 years
and I've never flown one that performed as you describe yours flies. Makes
ya wonder doesn't it.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
I did not do a WOT run on the flight Saturday, but did see 5850 RPM on a shallow
clomb when getting to altitude, at approx. 50-52 MPH. 5800 RPM is the maximum
contitnuous power. The HKS has a takeoff rating of 6200 RPM for five minutes.
The engine does not appear to be sick, the compression is very very high. It's
a significant effort to swing the propeller by hand through a compression stroke,
far far more difficult than on any "normal" airplane engine (Lycoming / Continental).
Can't do it with one hand, even out at the end of the propeller.
Again, the aircraft is off the ground in a few seconds, four maybe five seconds.
It's off the ground in less than 300 feet, and my aircraft is almost 90 lb.
heavier than the "brochure" weight of a Firestar, and I'm a fat SOB myself (200+)
Yesterday's flight started with about 8 gallons of fuel on board. I have not measured/marked
the new fuel tank yet, but I put in 7 gallons and had a small amount
in there form the previous engine test run.
If I had an unlimited budget of time and money I would do things a lot differently
(we all would!), but in my case I am very limited in cost at the moment.Turning
the gearbox into the up position does not cost me anything, and hopefully
I can borrow a propeller to at least try. I'm not able to just buy a prop without
knowing that it will solve the issue I have been fighting with.
I am very much aware that having the propeller up that high above the tail boom
will be something that Kolb recommends against. Bryan said that 38-39 inches
above the tailboom is the limit and he would not want to fly a Kolb if the prop
was up above 40 inches. I'm pretty sure that turning the HKS gearbox around
will put me over 40 inches.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17 AM
Hauck"
George H/Kolbers:
I could get the same numbers as George
H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35 hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
the only streamlining was my big toes on the open rudder
pedals.
I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
engine. Maybe a sick engine, gear box, prop
combo. Who knows? I have no idea sitting here
with my second cup of hot coffee in front of a computer
screen 2500 miles away.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of George Helton
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
George Helton
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
improving. Im going to ask a John H. question. Did you do
a speed check, WOT straight and level?
Your climb seems low. What are you
using for your climb speed. Ive found my Firestar that 44
to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I
gotten higher figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15 mph
by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings. Thats been
my experience. Im actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64 3 blade Powerfin.
Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @ 5500 rpm, which is the
suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40 and 65
mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The
wings are basically the same so Im just giving you what
Im getting out of a original Firestar. Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill
Berle
wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill Berle
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS
powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First test flight
with the completely sealed center section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in
"cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not
nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking for. The
aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS
Firestar in the same (no strut fairings or gear leg
fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft did
NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb performance
that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off
the ground in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to
the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I am only 250 feet above
ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar should be
twice or three times that high over that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of
replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I really did not want to
do at all. But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the
gearbox from the "down" position to the "up" position and
install a much larger propeller. Probably going from 65 inch
diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me to
put the stabilizer back to the original stock position,
which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently
the front stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the
stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust line that far upwards
will create a very strong pitch-down, so I am now hoping
that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I
will have to approach it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration
(stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically on
takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to
hold it level until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off
and gains speed, I can relax the stick and fly normally.
Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from
propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down
force form the propeller being higher above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a propeller
to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr eport on how
well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember,
I got 250 pounds of static thrust, which is less than some
other people (like Wakataka copied below) measured with
smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who
puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com -
safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net
- winning proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
4:26 PM
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by:
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static with
a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop.
There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I suspect
that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it produces
at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating
about
> science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of
fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS
WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST
WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution
Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Well, selling or burning it has occurred to me more than once :)
The Firestar folds down to a size that fits in the narrow space I have for it.
I cannot store an Airbike, Quicksilver, Kitfox, Avid, or Zenair 701 in this small
space. That's why I went looking for a Kolb in the firsty place. So the Kolb
and I are stuck with each other for now. I also don't like giving up on a project
and failing to succeed.
The flying characteristics of this particular Firestar do not support the idea
of an aircraft that is bent, twisted, poorly built, etc. Fortunately I have owned
enough airplanes to be able to spot somehting that was not built well, and
I have looked at this one enough to know it is not twisted, kinked, etc. The
fabric is reasonably tight, similar to the Taylorcrafts, Cubs, etc. The fabric
is riveted to the ribs and is not bubblling away from the airfoil surface. The
tail is on straight, or very very nearly straight. There are no doublers, scab
patches, fish-mouth repairs, etc. on the steel cage.
The bottom of the wing is about 3-4 degrees to the horizon in level flight. Very
similar or equal to the many photos I have researched and seen of Kolbs flying.
The control response is normal. Elevator and rudder work correctly, ailerons work
correctly but are slower than the elevator and rudder. This matches everything
I have learned and read about Kolbs.
When I come in to land, the aircraft behaves normally when I reduce the power.
It does NOT drop like a brick with the power reduced. There is a definite glide,
and it is very controllable, the only difference is that the speed bleeds off
faster than the Taylorcraft or Cub or Cessna. Not as much time between pre-flare
"roundout" and touchdown. Again this is all 100% consistent with what Kolbers
and other ultralight people have explained to me as being normal for this
type of aircraft. So if this particular Kolb was "Wrong", twisted, bent, rigged
wrong, etc. then I suspect it would not fly as well as this one does.
Anyway, I apologize if I created abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing to
the Kolbers. I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that doesn't work I will
flip the gearbox and borrow a larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't work
THEN I may think about burning it...
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 9:46 AM
Hauck"
Maybe we have a failure to
communicate. That happens through email.
If max continuous rpm is 5800 rpm, then
that is what you want to see at WOT straight and level
flight. Got to hold the throttle wide open until the
aircraft is flying as fast as it will go straight and
level. If it is climbing at 5850 rpm it is under
pitched and will turn higher in level flight WOT. You
know, like running around in 2 gear with a 3 speed
transmission. Normal climb rpm WOT will be a couple
hundred rpm lower that WOT rpm when in straight and level
flight. 6200 rpm for 5 min is like "military
power". Forget about that unless you have an in flight
adjustable prop.
If Bryan Melborn gave you a max limit
for thrust line, I'd adhere to that. The higher the
thrust line the more power it will absorb to overcome pitch
down. With a big boy like you it will take even more
power. How much? I don't know, but it will rob
power as the thrust line is raised.
My recommendation is:
-Make sure engine is putting out rated
power/hp.
-Make sure the aircraft is rigged
correctly.
-Stop what you are doing and pitch the
prop correctly through flight test - straight and level WOT
bump 5800 rpm.
If the above doesn't work, sell or burn
the aircraft.
Like I said in a previous email, my
fully open 35hp Ultrastar with bare fuselage would fly 75
mph, climb like a home sick angel, and get off the ground in
a second with a 180 lb pilot and 7.75 gal of fuel.
I've been lucky enough to fly many
different Kolb aircraft over the last 35 years and I've
never flown one that performed as you describe yours
flies. Makes ya wonder doesn't it.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 11:05
AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
Bill Berle
I did not do a WOT run on the flight
Saturday, but did see 5850 RPM on a shallow clomb when
getting to altitude, at approx. 50-52 MPH. 5800 RPM is the
maximum contitnuous power. The HKS has a takeoff rating of
6200 RPM for five minutes.
The engine does not appear to be sick,
the compression is very very high. It's a significant effort
to swing the propeller by hand through a compression stroke,
far far more difficult than on any "normal" airplane engine
(Lycoming / Continental). Can't do it with one hand, even
out at the end of the propeller.
Again, the aircraft is off the ground
in a few seconds, four maybe five seconds. It's off the
ground in less than 300 feet, and my aircraft is almost 90
lb. heavier than the "brochure" weight of a Firestar, and
I'm a fat SOB myself (200+)
Yesterday's flight started with about 8
gallons of fuel on board. I have not measured/marked the new
fuel tank yet, but I put in 7 gallons and had a small amount
in there form the previous engine test run.
If I had an unlimited budget of time
and money I would do things a lot differently (we all
would!), but in my case I am very limited in cost at the
moment.Turning the gearbox into the up position does not
cost me anything, and hopefully I can borrow a propeller to
at least try. I'm not able to just buy a prop without
knowing that it will solve the issue I have been fighting
with.
I am very much aware that having the
propeller up that high above the tail boom will be something
that Kolb recommends against. Bryan said that 38-39 inches
above the tailboom is the limit and he would not want to fly
a Kolb if the prop was up above 40 inches. I'm pretty sure
that turning the HKS gearbox around will put me over 40
inches.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety
& performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net
- winning proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck
wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17
AM
"John
Hauck"
George H/Kolbers:
I could get the same numbers as
George
H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35
hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
the only streamlining was my big toes
on the open rudder
pedals.
I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
engine. Maybe a sick engine,
gear box, prop
combo. Who knows? I have
no idea sitting here
with my second cup of hot coffee in
front of a computer
screen 2500 miles away.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of George Helton
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS /
Firestar
FLIGHT TEST resumes
George Helton
Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
improving. Im going to ask a John
H. question. Did you do
a speed check, WOT straight and
level?
Your climb seems low. What are you
using for your climb speed. Ive
found my Firestar that 44
to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm
seems the norm. I
gotten higher figures then that, but
with a nice headwind.
I would guess youll get 5 to 15
mph
by adding a enclosure and wing strut
fairings. Thats been
my experience. Im actually running
a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64 3
blade Powerfin.
Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @
5500 rpm, which is the
suggested max. rpm. I can cruise
anywhere between 40 and 65
mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph
straight and level. The
wings are basically the same so Im
just giving you what
Im getting out of a original
Firestar. Good luck!
George H.
Firestar
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM,
Bill
Berle
wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill Berle
>
> Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the
HKS
powered Firestar again yesterday
morning. First test flight
with the completely sealed center
section.
>
> It showed a 10% improvement in
"cruise" speed, going from the
previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
in level flight at 5400 RPM.
>
> This is an improvement, but not
nearly as much of an improvement as I
was looking for. The
aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than
Larry C's HKS
Firestar in the same (no strut
fairings or gear leg
fairings) configuration.
>
> More importantly, the aircraft
did
NOT have anywhere near the spectacular
climb performance
that the Kolb should have with
50-60HP. Although I am off
the ground in a couple of hundred
feet, by the time I get to
the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I
am only 250 feet above
ground. From what I have learned, the
Firestar should be
twice or three times that high over
that distance.
>
> So considering the cost of
replacing the gearbox (which I simply
cannot do at present),
I have to go back and do something I
really did not want to
do at all. But I'm out of options. I
am going to turn the
gearbox from the "down" position to
the "up" position and
install a much larger propeller.
Probably going from 65 inch
diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3
blade.
>
> This will OF COURSE require me
to
put the stabilizer back to the
original stock position,
which will make John H and others
happy to hear. (Currently
the front stabilizer attach bolts are
1.125 inches above the
stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust
line that far upwards
will create a very strong pitch-down,
so I am now hoping
that the stock stabilizer angle will
be "down" far enough. I
am hoping to be able to use full pwoer
on takeoff, but I
will have to approach it slowly.
>
> In the current configuration
(stabilizer raised), the tail comes up
automatically on
takeoff roll, and I have to apply full
rearward stick to
hold it level until the aircraft lifts
off. As it lifts off
and gains speed, I can relax the stick
and fly normally.
Returning the stabilizer to the stock
position will
hopefully provide a little more
down-force on the tail from
propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will
offset the pitch-down
force form the propeller being higher
above the aircraft.
>
> So now I have to find a
propeller
to borrow, and turn the gearbox
around. I willr eport on how
well this did or did not work,
although I do expect to see a
fairly good improvement in thrust. As
you all may remember,
I got 250 pounds of static thrust,
which is less than some
other people (like Wakataka copied
below) measured with
smaller engines.
>
> I'm afraid that I am the one who
puts the "mental" in
"experimental"...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com -
safety & performance upgrade for
light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net
- winning
proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
4:26 PM
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by:
> "wakataka"
>
> I measured 290 pounds static
with
a
> Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO
prop.
There was a slight amount
> of tailwind that day, so I
suspect
that number is slightly
> inflated, but I'm sure it
produces
at least 250 pounds. It
> jumps right off the ground.
>
> --------
> There is something fascinating
about
> science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out
> of such a trifling investment of
fact.
>
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS
WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS
LIST
WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution
Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB
FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST
WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web
Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Bill
Been off of the list a while...and likely every suggestion under the sun has
been offered....Mine is to simply have someone take some pics of you in flight...post
them here....
By the way..when taking off...you should feel as if the nose is getting ready
to take a divit...Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Monday, November 19, 2018 1:05 PM, Bill Berle wrote:
>
> Well, selling or burning it has occurred to me more than once :)
>
> The Firestar folds down to a size that fits in the narrow space I have for it.
I cannot store an Airbike, Quicksilver, Kitfox, Avid, or Zenair 701 in this
small space. That's why I went looking for a Kolb in the firsty place. So the
Kolb and I are stuck with each other for now. I also don't like giving up on a
project and failing to succeed.
>
> The flying characteristics of this particular Firestar do not support the idea
of an aircraft that is bent, twisted, poorly built, etc. Fortunately I have
owned enough airplanes to be able to spot somehting that was not built well, and
I have looked at this one enough to know it is not twisted, kinked, etc. The
fabric is reasonably tight, similar to the Taylorcrafts, Cubs, etc. The fabric
is riveted to the ribs and is not bubblling away from the airfoil surface.
The tail is on straight, or very very nearly straight. There are no doublers,
scab patches, fish-mouth repairs, etc. on the steel cage.
>
> The bottom of the wing is about 3-4 degrees to the horizon in level flight. Very
similar or equal to the many photos I have researched and seen of Kolbs flying.
>
> The control response is normal. Elevator and rudder work correctly, ailerons
work correctly but are slower than the elevator and rudder. This matches everything
I have learned and read about Kolbs.
>
> When I come in to land, the aircraft behaves normally when I reduce the power.
It does NOT drop like a brick with the power reduced. There is a definite glide,
and it is very controllable, the only difference is that the speed bleeds
off faster than the Taylorcraft or Cub or Cessna. Not as much time between pre-flare
"roundout" and touchdown. Again this is all 100% consistent with what
Kolbers and other ultralight people have explained to me as being normal for this
type of aircraft. So if this particular Kolb was "Wrong", twisted, bent, rigged
wrong, etc. then I suspect it would not fly as well as this one does.
>
> Anyway, I apologize if I created abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing
to the Kolbers. I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that doesn't work I will
flip the gearbox and borrow a larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't
work THEN I may think about burning it...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrell1020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
I just checked the height of my prop and it is 33 1/4 from the tail boom.
Since I have longer legs on mine it is not easy to tip over on its nose,
but prior to the longer legs I have accomplished that ignominious feat at
least twice, maybe three times. Not fun, do not recommend it. I personally
think you should not get into a hurry to change the gear box around.
I have a few questions however. All the speeds that I relate as coming from
my plane are those shown over the ground by GPS. I do not trust anything
else, and it is the only thing that I feel can accurately portray the
actual speed of the plane. I have by tweaking the angle of the pitot tube
gotten my ASI to pretty closely match what the gps reads. In my video's the
speeds seem to be higher than reality. ( just my opinion)
I also have my prop set to a pitch that will allow me to climb at max rpm
of 6100. The climb difference between 5800 and 6100 is quite noticeable. I
also rarely see more than a 350 FPM climb rate, mostly less. In fact I have
never seen the climb rate claimed by those of you who have very light
firestars that are operating at or nearer sea level than I do. When I am
climbing out, I am bumping redline - 6100, always! When I get to where I
want to be or pass the two minute mark, I throttle back to cruise - 5430.
The engine seems to like it and I will be turning around 62 - 64 MPH per
the GPS. I have a trim tab on the elevator that keeps me level at 5430-
hands off ( for a while) I check my GPS to see what my climb rate is. If I
am close to level flight my speed will be around 62 MPH. It doesn't take
much climb to slow that speed by a lot. If I want to climb, I increase the
throttle, and leave the stick in neutral position. For instance I wanted to
clear the Steen's Mtn, 39 miles away. A climb of 6000 feet. At 5800 with
the stick neutral it took almost 38 miles to achieve that. However I did it
at 58 MPH.
I have flown my plane with a passenger that put me up to the Max gross, and
probably over by as much as 60 pounds. It will fly, but it takes a long
time to get up to speed, and take off. The climb is anemic and it handles a
lot like a C 150. I always feel as though I am riding a knife edge when I
am at gross. When I first got the plane it weighed 275 empty. Now I am
running about 410. It used to jump off the ground, sometimes before I was
ready. Now it doesn't. My speed with a 503 loaded for a trip to Texas, was
a max- Throttle set to 6200, of 60 MPH. Most times slower.
All of this was without any streamlining. I added streamlining to the
struts, gained about three MPH, streamlined the gear legs, added another
three.
My point is that I think you are where you should be considering your
weight. Lets face it the more weight you put on it the more doggy its going
to be. It was intended to be an ultralight, or to fit in that category.
Yeah, I think you would be a lot better off with a different gear box.
However your main problems is that it is so heavy. I believe you can
improve the speed with some stream lining. I would also suggest you try the
elevator back in its original position just for grins, and to see if you
actually need it jacked up in the air.
I think you are about where you should be. Try cleaning it up a bit,
lighten up on the pitch till you can hit 6100 wot on climb out. you need to
remember that the competition you have for your plane is within the
limitations of your plane. If its heavy, it will fly badly compared to a
lightly loaded one. Your best bet is to do the things that you can with
cleaning it up. If you can shed any weight off the plane do so, Other wise
like me you will just have to live with what Nature has saddled you with.
Keep feelers out for the right gear box, or perhaps a lot lighter plane.
Larry
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:10 AM Bill Berle
wrote:
>
> I did not do a WOT run on the flight Saturday, but did see 5850 RPM on a
> shallow clomb when getting to altitude, at approx. 50-52 MPH. 5800 RPM is
> the maximum contitnuous power. The HKS has a takeoff rating of 6200 RPM f
or
> five minutes.
>
> The engine does not appear to be sick, the compression is very very high.
> It's a significant effort to swing the propeller by hand through a
> compression stroke, far far more difficult than on any "normal" airplane
> engine (Lycoming / Continental). Can't do it with one hand, even out at t
he
> end of the propeller.
>
> Again, the aircraft is off the ground in a few seconds, four maybe five
> seconds. It's off the ground in less than 300 feet, and my aircraft is
> almost 90 lb. heavier than the "brochure" weight of a Firestar, and I'm a
> fat SOB myself (200+)
>
> Yesterday's flight started with about 8 gallons of fuel on board. I have
> not measured/marked the new fuel tank yet, but I put in 7 gallons and had
a
> small amount in there form the previous engine test run.
>
> If I had an unlimited budget of time and money I would do things a lot
> differently (we all would!), but in my case I am very limited in cost at
> the moment.Turning the gearbox into the up position does not cost me
> anything, and hopefully I can borrow a propeller to at least try. I'm not
> able to just buy a prop without knowing that it will solve the issue I ha
ve
> been fighting with.
>
> I am very much aware that having the propeller up that high above the tai
l
> boom will be something that Kolb recommends against. Bryan said that 38-3
9
> inches above the tailboom is the limit and he would not want to fly a Kol
b
> if the prop was up above 40 inches. I'm pretty sure that turning the HKS
> gearbox around will put me over 40 inches.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17 AM
>
> Hauck"
>
> George H/Kolbers:
>
> I could get the same numbers as George
> H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35 hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
> the only streamlining was my big toes on the open rudder
> pedals.
>
> I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
> engine. Maybe a sick engine, gear box, prop
> combo. Who knows? I have no idea sitting here
> with my second cup of hot coffee in front of a computer
> screen 2500 miles away.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of George Helton
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
> AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
> FLIGHT TEST resumes
>
> George Helton
>
> Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
> improving. I=99m going to ask a John H. question. Did you do
> a speed check, WOT straight and level?
> Your climb seems low. What are you
> using for your climb speed. I=99ve found my Firestar that 44
> to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm seems the norm. I
> gotten higher figures then that, but with a nice headwind.
> I would guess you=99ll get 5 to 15 mph
> by adding a enclosure and wing strut fairings. That=99s been
> my experience. I=99m actually running a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
> with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64=9D 3 blade Powerfin.
> Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @ 5500 rpm, which is the
> suggested max. rpm. I can cruise anywhere between 40 and 65
> mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph straight and level. The
> wings are basically the same so I=99m just giving you what
> I=99m getting out of a original Firestar. Good luck!
> George H.
> Firestar
> 14GDH
> Mesick, Michigan
> gdhelton(at)gmail.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM, Bill
> Berle
> wrote:
> >
> > --> Kolb-List message posted
> by: Bill Berle
> >
> > Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the HKS
> powered Firestar again yesterday morning. First test flight
> with the completely sealed center section.
> >
> > It showed a 10% improvement in
> "cruise" speed, going from the previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
> in level flight at 5400 RPM.
> >
> > This is an improvement, but not
> nearly as much of an improvement as I was looking for. The
> aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than Larry C's HKS
> Firestar in the same (no strut fairings or gear leg
> fairings) configuration.
> >
> > More importantly, the aircraft did
> NOT have anywhere near the spectacular climb performance
> that the Kolb should have with 50-60HP. Although I am off
> the ground in a couple of hundred feet, by the time I get to
> the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I am only 250 feet above
> ground. From what I have learned, the Firestar should be
> twice or three times that high over that distance.
> >
> > So considering the cost of
> replacing the gearbox (which I simply cannot do at present),
> I have to go back and do something I really did not want to
> do at all. But I'm out of options. I am going to turn the
> gearbox from the "down" position to the "up" position and
> install a much larger propeller. Probably going from 65 inch
> diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3 blade.
> >
> > This will OF COURSE require me to
> put the stabilizer back to the original stock position,
> which will make John H and others happy to hear. (Currently
> the front stabilizer attach bolts are 1.125 inches above the
> stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust line that far upwards
> will create a very strong pitch-down, so I am now hoping
> that the stock stabilizer angle will be "down" far enough. I
> am hoping to be able to use full pwoer on takeoff, but I
> will have to approach it slowly.
> >
> > In the current configuration
> (stabilizer raised), the tail comes up automatically on
> takeoff roll, and I have to apply full rearward stick to
> hold it level until the aircraft lifts off. As it lifts off
> and gains speed, I can relax the stick and fly normally.
> Returning the stabilizer to the stock position will
> hopefully provide a little more down-force on the tail from
> propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will offset the pitch-down
> force form the propeller being higher above the aircraft.
> >
> > So now I have to find a propeller
> to borrow, and turn the gearbox around. I willr eport on how
> well this did or did not work, although I do expect to see a
> fairly good improvement in thrust. As you all may remember,
> I got 250 pounds of static thrust, which is less than some
> other people (like Wakataka copied below) measured with
> smaller engines.
> >
> > I'm afraid that I am the one who
> puts the "mental" in "experimental"...
> >
> > Bill Berle
> > www.ezflaphandle.com -
> safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> > www.grantstar.net
> - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
> Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
> 4:26 PM
> >
> > --> Kolb-List message posted
> by:
> > "wakataka"
> >
> > I measured 290 pounds static with
> a
> > Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO prop.
> There was a slight amount
> > of tailwind that day, so I suspect
> that number is slightly
> > inflated, but I'm sure it produces
> at least 250 pounds. It
> > jumps right off the ground.
> >
> > --------
> > There is something fascinating
> about
> > science. One gets such wholesale
> returns of conjecture out
> > of such a trifling investment of
> fact.
> >
> > Mark Twain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Support Your Lists This Month --
> > (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
> Gifts!)
> > Fund Raiser. Click on
> > to find out more about
> > Incentive Gifts provided
> > www.mypilotstore.com
> > support!
> >
>
> > -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
> > The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> > Navigator to browse
> > List Un/Subscription,
> > 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> > - MATRONICS
> WEB FORUMS -
> > via the Web Forums!
> > - NEW MATRONICS LIST
> WIKI -
> > Email List Wiki!
> > - List Contribution
> Web Site -
> > support!
> >
>
> > -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
*The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of
others.*
*If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email
address before sending.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrell1020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
I just checked the height of my prop and it is 33 1/4 from the tail boom.
Since I have longer legs on mine it is not easy to tip over on its nose,
but prior to the longer legs I have accomplished that ignominious feat at
least twice, maybe three times. Not fun, do not recommend it. I personally
think you should not get into a hurry to change the gear box around.
I have a few questions however. All the speeds that I relate as coming from
my plane are those shown over the ground by GPS. I do not trust anything
else, and it is the only thing that I feel can accurately portray the
actual speed of the plane. I have by tweaking the angle of the pitot tube
gotten my ASI to pretty closely match what the gps reads. In my video's the
speeds seem to be higher than reality. ( just my opinion)
I also have my prop set to a pitch that will allow me to climb at max rpm
of 6100. The climb difference between 5800 and 6100 is quite noticeable. I
also rarely see more than a 350 FPM climb rate, mostly less. In fact I have
never seen the climb rate claimed by those of you who have very light
firestars that are operating at or nearer sea level than I do. When I am
climbing out, I am bumping redline - 6100, always! When I get to where I
want to be or pass the two minute mark, I throttle back to cruise - 5430.
The engine seems to like it and I will be turning around 62 - 64 MPH per
the GPS. I have a trim tab on the elevator that keeps me level at 5430-
hands off ( for a while) I check my GPS to see what my climb rate is. If I
am close to level flight my speed will be around 62 MPH. It doesn't take
much climb to slow that speed by a lot. If I want to climb, I increase the
throttle, and leave the stick in neutral position. For instance I wanted to
clear the Steen's Mtn, 39 miles away. A climb of 6000 feet. At 5800 with
the stick neutral it took almost 38 miles to achieve that. However I did it
at 58 MPH.
I have flown my plane with a passenger that put me up to the Max gross, and
probably over by as much as 60 pounds. It will fly, but it takes a long
time to get up to speed, and take off. The climb is anemic and it handles a
lot like a C 150. I always feel as though I am riding a knife edge when I
am at gross. When I first got the plane it weighed 275 empty. Now I am
running about 410. It used to jump off the ground, sometimes before I was
ready. Now it doesn't. My speed with a 503 loaded for a trip to Texas, was
a max- Throttle set to 6200, of 60 MPH. Most times slower.
All of this was without any streamlining. I added streamlining to the
struts, gained about three MPH, streamlined the gear legs, added another
three.
My point is that I think you are where you should be considering your
weight. Lets face it the more weight you put on it the more doggy its going
to be. It was intended to be an ultralight, or to fit in that category.
Yeah, I think you would be a lot better off with a different gear box.
However your main problems is that it is so heavy. I believe you can
improve the speed with some stream lining. I would also suggest you try the
elevator back in its original position just for grins, and to see if you
actually need it jacked up in the air.
I think you are about where you should be. Try cleaning it up a bit,
lighten up on the pitch till you can hit 6100 wot on climb out. you need to
remember that the competition you have for your plane is within the
limitations of your plane. If its heavy, it will fly badly compared to a
lightly loaded one. Your best bet is to do the things that you can with
cleaning it up. If you can shed any weight off the plane do so, Other wise
like me you will just have to live with what Nature has saddled you with.
Keep feelers out for the right gear box, or perhaps a lot lighter plane
Larry
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:10 PM Bill Berle
wrote:
>
> Well, selling or burning it has occurred to me more than once :)
>
> The Firestar folds down to a size that fits in the narrow space I have fo
r
> it. I cannot store an Airbike, Quicksilver, Kitfox, Avid, or Zenair 701 i
n
> this small space. That's why I went looking for a Kolb in the firsty plac
e.
> So the Kolb and I are stuck with each other for now. I also don't like
> giving up on a project and failing to succeed.
>
> The flying characteristics of this particular Firestar do not support the
> idea of an aircraft that is bent, twisted, poorly built, etc. Fortunately
I
> have owned enough airplanes to be able to spot somehting that was not bui
lt
> well, and I have looked at this one enough to know it is not twisted,
> kinked, etc. The fabric is reasonably tight, similar to the Taylorcrafts,
> Cubs, etc. The fabric is riveted to the ribs and is not bubblling away fr
om
> the airfoil surface. The tail is on straight, or very very nearly straigh
t.
> There are no doublers, scab patches, fish-mouth repairs, etc. on the stee
l
> cage.
>
> The bottom of the wing is about 3-4 degrees to the horizon in level
> flight. Very similar or equal to the many photos I have researched and se
en
> of Kolbs flying.
>
> The control response is normal. Elevator and rudder work correctly,
> ailerons work correctly but are slower than the elevator and rudder. This
> matches everything I have learned and read about Kolbs.
>
> When I come in to land, the aircraft behaves normally when I reduce the
> power. It does NOT drop like a brick with the power reduced. There is a
> definite glide, and it is very controllable, the only difference is that
> the speed bleeds off faster than the Taylorcraft or Cub or Cessna. Not as
> much time between pre-flare "roundout" and touchdown. Again this is all
> 100% consistent with what Kolbers and other ultralight people have
> explained to me as being normal for this type of aircraft. So if this
> particular Kolb was "Wrong", twisted, bent, rigged wrong, etc. then I
> suspect it would not fly as well as this one does.
>
> Anyway, I apologize if I created abig mystery that is annoying or
> perplexing to the Kolbers. I'm going to try one more flight with increase
d
> propeller pitch and see if that makes any significant difference. If that
> doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a larger propeller and tr
y
> that. If that doesn't work THEN I may think about burning it...
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 9:46 AM
>
> Hauck"
>
> Maybe we have a failure to
> communicate. That happens through email.
>
> If max continuous rpm is 5800 rpm, then
> that is what you want to see at WOT straight and level
> flight. Got to hold the throttle wide open until the
> aircraft is flying as fast as it will go straight and
> level. If it is climbing at 5850 rpm it is under
> pitched and will turn higher in level flight WOT. You
> know, like running around in 2 gear with a 3 speed
> transmission. Normal climb rpm WOT will be a couple
> hundred rpm lower that WOT rpm when in straight and level
> flight. 6200 rpm for 5 min is like "military
> power". Forget about that unless you have an in flight
> adjustable prop.
>
> If Bryan Melborn gave you a max limit
> for thrust line, I'd adhere to that. The higher the
> thrust line the more power it will absorb to overcome pitch
> down. With a big boy like you it will take even more
> power. How much? I don't know, but it will rob
> power as the thrust line is raised.
>
> My recommendation is:
>
> -Make sure engine is putting out rated
> power/hp.
>
> -Make sure the aircraft is rigged
> correctly.
>
> -Stop what you are doing and pitch the
> prop correctly through flight test - straight and level WOT
> bump 5800 rpm.
>
> If the above doesn't work, sell or burn
> the aircraft.
>
> Like I said in a previous email, my
> fully open 35hp Ultrastar with bare fuselage would fly 75
> mph, climb like a home sick angel, and get off the ground in
> a second with a 180 lb pilot and 7.75 gal of fuel.
>
> I've been lucky enough to fly many
> different Kolb aircraft over the last 35 years and I've
> never flown one that performed as you describe yours
> flies. Makes ya wonder doesn't it.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Bill Berle
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 11:05
> AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
> FLIGHT TEST resumes
>
> Bill Berle
>
> I did not do a WOT run on the flight
> Saturday, but did see 5850 RPM on a shallow clomb when
> getting to altitude, at approx. 50-52 MPH. 5800 RPM is the
> maximum contitnuous power. The HKS has a takeoff rating of
> 6200 RPM for five minutes.
>
> The engine does not appear to be sick,
> the compression is very very high. It's a significant effort
> to swing the propeller by hand through a compression stroke,
> far far more difficult than on any "normal" airplane engine
> (Lycoming / Continental). Can't do it with one hand, even
> out at the end of the propeller.
>
> Again, the aircraft is off the ground
> in a few seconds, four maybe five seconds. It's off the
> ground in less than 300 feet, and my aircraft is almost 90
> lb. heavier than the "brochure" weight of a Firestar, and
> I'm a fat SOB myself (200+)
>
> Yesterday's flight started with about 8
> gallons of fuel on board. I have not measured/marked the new
> fuel tank yet, but I put in 7 gallons and had a small amount
> in there form the previous engine test run.
>
> If I had an unlimited budget of time
> and money I would do things a lot differently (we all
> would!), but in my case I am very limited in cost at the
> moment.Turning the gearbox into the up position does not
> cost me anything, and hopefully I can borrow a propeller to
> at least try. I'm not able to just buy a prop without
> knowing that it will solve the issue I have been fighting
> with.
>
> I am very much aware that having the
> propeller up that high above the tail boom will be something
> that Kolb recommends against. Bryan said that 38-39 inches
> above the tailboom is the limit and he would not want to fly
> a Kolb if the prop was up above 40 inches. I'm pretty sure
> that turning the HKS gearbox around will put me over 40
> inches.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety
> & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net
> - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck
> wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar
> FLIGHT TEST resumes
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 7:17
> AM
>
> "John
> Hauck"
>
> George H/Kolbers:
>
> I could get the same numbers as
> George
> H with my Ultrastar powered with a 35
> hp Cuyuna ULII02, and
> the only streamlining was my big toes
> on the open rudder
> pedals.
>
> I think our buddy Bill B has a sick
> engine. Maybe a sick engine,
> gear box, prop
> combo. Who knows? I have
> no idea sitting here
> with my second cup of hot coffee in
> front of a computer
> screen 2500 miles away.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of George Helton
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:21
> AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS /
> Firestar
> FLIGHT TEST resumes
>
> George Helton
>
> Hi Bill. Sounds like things are
> improving. I=99m going to ask a John
> H. question. Did you do
> a speed check, WOT straight and
> level?
> Your climb seems low. What are you
> using for your climb speed. I=99ve
> found my Firestar that 44
> to 46mph works best. 850 to 1000 fpm
> seems the norm. I
> gotten higher figures then that, but
> with a nice headwind.
> I would guess you=99ll get 5 to 15
> mph
> by adding a enclosure and wing strut
> fairings. That=99s been
> my experience. I=99m actually running
> a 40hp , 2702 Hirth
> with a 2:29 G50 gearbox and a 64=9D 3
> blade Powerfin.
> Propspeed works out to be 2400 rpm @
> 5500 rpm, which is the
> suggested max. rpm. I can cruise
> anywhere between 40 and 65
> mph. WOT is around 70 to 75 mph
> straight and level. The
> wings are basically the same so I=99m
> just giving you what
> I=99m getting out of a original
> Firestar. Good luck!
> George H.
> Firestar
> 14GDH
> Mesick, Michigan
> gdhelton(at)gmail.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:38 AM,
> Bill
> Berle
> wrote:
> >
> > --> Kolb-List message posted
> by: Bill Berle
> >
> > Howdy Kolbers, I test flew the
> HKS
> powered Firestar again yesterday
> morning. First test flight
> with the completely sealed center
> section.
> >
> > It showed a 10% improvement in
> "cruise" speed, going from the
> previous 45 MPH to 50 MPH now
> in level flight at 5400 RPM.
> >
> > This is an improvement, but not
> nearly as much of an improvement as I
> was looking for. The
> aircraft is still 8-10 MPH slower than
> Larry C's HKS
> Firestar in the same (no strut
> fairings or gear leg
> fairings) configuration.
> >
> > More importantly, the aircraft
> did
> NOT have anywhere near the spectacular
> climb performance
> that the Kolb should have with
> 50-60HP. Although I am off
> the ground in a couple of hundred
> feet, by the time I get to
> the far end of a 3800 foot runway, I
> am only 250 feet above
> ground. From what I have learned, the
> Firestar should be
> twice or three times that high over
> that distance.
> >
> > So considering the cost of
> replacing the gearbox (which I simply
> cannot do at present),
> I have to go back and do something I
> really did not want to
> do at all. But I'm out of options. I
> am going to turn the
> gearbox from the "down" position to
> the "up" position and
> install a much larger propeller.
> Probably going from 65 inch
> diameter 3 blade to 72 inch diameter 3
> blade.
> >
> > This will OF COURSE require me
> to
> put the stabilizer back to the
> original stock position,
> which will make John H and others
> happy to hear. (Currently
> the front stabilizer attach bolts are
> 1.125 inches above the
> stock fitting hole). Moving the thrust
> line that far upwards
> will create a very strong pitch-down,
> so I am now hoping
> that the stock stabilizer angle will
> be "down" far enough. I
> am hoping to be able to use full pwoer
> on takeoff, but I
> will have to approach it slowly.
> >
> > In the current configuration
> (stabilizer raised), the tail comes up
> automatically on
> takeoff roll, and I have to apply full
> rearward stick to
> hold it level until the aircraft lifts
> off. As it lifts off
> and gains speed, I can relax the stick
> and fly normally.
> Returning the stabilizer to the stock
> position will
> hopefully provide a little more
> down-force on the tail from
> propeller blast, and HOPEFULLY it will
> offset the pitch-down
> force form the propeller being higher
> above the aircraft.
> >
> > So now I have to find a
> propeller
> to borrow, and turn the gearbox
> around. I willr eport on how
> well this did or did not work,
> although I do expect to see a
> fairly good improvement in thrust. As
> you all may remember,
> I got 250 pounds of static thrust,
> which is less than some
> other people (like Wakataka copied
> below) measured with
> smaller engines.
> >
> > I'm afraid that I am the one who
> puts the "mental" in
> "experimental"...
> >
> > Bill Berle
> > www.ezflaphandle.com -
> safety & performance upgrade for
> light aircraft
> > www.grantstar.net
> - winning
> proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Sun, 11/11/18, wakataka
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS /
> Firestar STATIC THRUST test
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Sunday, November 11, 2018,
> 4:26 PM
> >
> > --> Kolb-List message posted
> by:
> > "wakataka"
> >
> > I measured 290 pounds static
> with
> a
> > Rotax 377 turning a 72" IVO
> prop.
> There was a slight amount
> > of tailwind that day, so I
> suspect
> that number is slightly
> > inflated, but I'm sure it
> produces
> at least 250 pounds. It
> > jumps right off the ground.
> >
> > --------
> > There is something fascinating
> about
> > science. One gets such wholesale
> returns of conjecture out
> > of such a trifling investment of
> fact.
> >
> > Mark Twain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484870#484870
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Support Your Lists This Month --
> > (And Get Some AWESOME FREE
> Gifts!)
> > Fund Raiser. Click on
> > to find out more about
> > Incentive Gifts provided
> > www.mypilotstore.com
> > support!
> >
>
> > -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
> > The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> > Navigator to browse
> > List Un/Subscription,
> > 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> > - MATRONICS
> WEB FORUMS -
> > via the Web Forums!
> > - NEW MATRONICS
> LIST
> WIKI -
> > Email List Wiki!
> > - List Contribution
> Web Site -
> > support!
> >
>
> > -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB
> FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST
> WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web
> Site -
> support!
>
>
> -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
*The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of
others.*
*If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email
address before sending.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Apologize for what?
Again....if it was me, I wouldn't just try increased propeller pitch to see what
happens.....I'd try to concentrate on propping the aircraft correctly. Do it
right and no matter what the results you will know it is propped correctly.
After getting the prop pitch correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can
check that off your list and "really" discover and correct another problem. If
not....burn it.
Did you ever check static thrust to see how it compares with a Firestar that flies
normally? Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you are getting
normal power out of your rig. Anyhow...that's the way it looks from Gantt International
Airport, Titus, Alabama.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Anyway, I apologize if I created abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing to
the Kolbers. I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that doesn't work I will
flip the gearbox and borrow a larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't work
THEN I may think about burning it...
Bill Berle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Again Bill...do not recall whether you have an Ivo prop...Likely you know the diff
between ul versions and medium ones...I tried to install a three blade 60
inch medium on a Firefly only to have it bog down at abt 4400 rpms...447 engine..Simply
cannot remove enough pitch... It could be that a ul prop might work
with most of the pitch dialed in...definitely would not be ideal however..Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Monday, November 19, 2018 4:58 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Apologize for what?
>
> Again....if it was me, I wouldn't just try increased propeller pitch to see what
happens.....I'd try to concentrate on propping the aircraft correctly. Do
it right and no matter what the results you will know it is propped correctly.
After getting the prop pitch correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can
check that off your list and "really" discover and correct another problem. If
not....burn it.
>
> Did you ever check static thrust to see how it compares with a Firestar that
flies normally? Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you are getting
normal power out of your rig. Anyhow...that's the way it looks from Gantt International
Airport, Titus, Alabama.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
> Anyway, I apologize if I created abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing
to the Kolbers. I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that doesn't work I will
flip the gearbox and borrow a larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't
work THEN I may think about burning it...
>
> Bill Berle
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
I posted my static thrust test numbers to the Kolb list a week or so ago. 250 pounds
static thrust, measured on a new spring scale. 11 degrees pitch at the propeller
tip. I also asked for as many static thrust measurements from other Kolbers
as I could get. I only got a few replies with actual numbers. My static
thrust is a little or a lot less than some of the other numbers that were posted
on the Kolb list.
I also agree 100% that I am not getting the full amount of thrust out of my engine/prop
combination. I tried to fix theone thing on the airframe itself that
COULD have been a big problem, and that turned out to NOT be the big problem.So
I have to agree that I have a thrust probblem. But I do not think my problem
is that the engine is worn out or sick or defective. I believe the engine is
fairly healthy. I believe that the problem is in the gearbox/propeller combination,
transferring that power into usable thrust..
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 2:58 PM
Hauck"
Apologize for what?
Again....if it was me, I wouldn't just
try increased propeller pitch to see what happens.....I'd
try to concentrate on propping the aircraft correctly.
Do it right and no matter what the results you will know it
is propped correctly. After getting the prop pitch
correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check that
off your list and "really" discover and correct another
problem. If not....burn it.
Did you ever check static thrust to see
how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you
are getting normal power out of your rig.
Anyhow...that's the way it looks from Gantt International
Airport, Titus, Alabama.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Anyway, I apologize if I created abig
mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers. I'm
going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that
doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a larger
propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I may
think about burning it...
Bill Berle
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Yep...the prop is the direct link between power and thrust. To be happy, it must
be correct.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
I posted my static thrust test numbers to the Kolb list a week or so ago. 250 pounds
static thrust, measured on a new spring scale. 11 degrees pitch at the propeller
tip. I also asked for as many static thrust measurements from other Kolbers
as I could get. I only got a few replies with actual numbers. My static
thrust is a little or a lot less than some of the other numbers that were posted
on the Kolb list.
I also agree 100% that I am not getting the full amount of thrust out of my engine/prop
combination. I tried to fix theone thing on the airframe itself that
COULD have been a big problem, and that turned out to NOT be the big problem.So
I have to agree that I have a thrust probblem. But I do not think my problem
is that the engine is worn out or sick or defective. I believe the engine is
fairly healthy. I believe that the problem is in the gearbox/propeller combination,
transferring that power into usable thrust..
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 2:58 PM
Hauck"
Apologize for what?
Again....if it was me, I wouldn't just
try increased propeller pitch to see what happens.....I'd
try to concentrate on propping the aircraft correctly.
Do it right and no matter what the results you will know it
is propped correctly. After getting the prop pitch
correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check that
off your list and "really" discover and correct another
problem. If not....burn it.
Did you ever check static thrust to see
how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you
are getting normal power out of your rig.
Anyhow...that's the way it looks from Gantt International
Airport, Titus, Alabama.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Anyway, I apologize if I created abig
mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers. I'm
going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that
doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a larger
propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I may
think about burning it...
Bill Berle
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
I never measured thrust on any of my airplanes and engine combos. Don't have a
clue what it is.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
I posted my static thrust test numbers to the Kolb list a week or so ago. 250 pounds
static thrust, measured on a new spring scale. 11 degrees pitch at the propeller
tip. I also asked for as many static thrust measurements from other Kolbers
as I could get. I only got a few replies with actual numbers. My static
thrust is a little or a lot less than some of the other numbers that were posted
on the Kolb list.
I also agree 100% that I am not getting the full amount of thrust out of my engine/prop
combination. I tried to fix theone thing on the airframe itself that
COULD have been a big problem, and that turned out to NOT be the big problem.So
I have to agree that I have a thrust probblem. But I do not think my problem
is that the engine is worn out or sick or defective. I believe the engine is
fairly healthy. I believe that the problem is in the gearbox/propeller combination,
transferring that power into usable thrust..
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 2:58 PM
Hauck"
Apologize for what?
Again....if it was me, I wouldn't just
try increased propeller pitch to see what happens.....I'd
try to concentrate on propping the aircraft correctly.
Do it right and no matter what the results you will know it
is propped correctly. After getting the prop pitch
correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check that
off your list and "really" discover and correct another
problem. If not....burn it.
Did you ever check static thrust to see
how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you
are getting normal power out of your rig.
Anyhow...that's the way it looks from Gantt International
Airport, Titus, Alabama.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Anyway, I apologize if I created abig
mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers. I'm
going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
and see if that makes any significant difference. If that
doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a larger
propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I may
think about burning it...
Bill Berle
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrell1020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Bill if you want a direct comparison, box up your spring scale and send it
to me, I'll measure my HKS with it and send it back.
Larry
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:55 PM John Hauck wrote:
>
> I never measured thrust on any of my airplanes and engine combos. Don't
> have a clue what it is.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:39 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
>
>
> I posted my static thrust test numbers to the Kolb list a week or so ago.
> 250 pounds static thrust, measured on a new spring scale. 11 degrees pitch
> at the propeller tip. I also asked for as many static thrust measurements
> from other Kolbers as I could get. I only got a few replies with actual
> numbers. My static thrust is a little or a lot less than some of the other
> numbers that were posted on the Kolb list.
>
> I also agree 100% that I am not getting the full amount of thrust out of
> my engine/prop combination. I tried to fix theone thing on the airframe
> itself that COULD have been a big problem, and that turned out to NOT be
> the big problem.So I have to agree that I have a thrust probblem. But I do
> not think my problem is that the engine is worn out or sick or defective. I
> believe the engine is fairly healthy. I believe that the problem is in the
> gearbox/propeller combination, transferring that power into usable thrust..
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/19/18, John Hauck wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 2:58 PM
>
> Hauck"
>
> Apologize for what?
>
> Again....if it was me, I wouldn't just
> try increased propeller pitch to see what happens.....I'd
> try to concentrate on propping the aircraft correctly.
> Do it right and no matter what the results you will know it
> is propped correctly. After getting the prop pitch
> correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check that
> off your list and "really" discover and correct another
> problem. If not....burn it.
>
> Did you ever check static thrust to see
> how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
> Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you
> are getting normal power out of your rig.
> Anyhow...that's the way it looks from Gantt International
> Airport, Titus, Alabama.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
> Anyway, I apologize if I created abig
> mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers. I'm
> going to try one more flight with increased propeller pitch
> and see if that makes any significant difference. If that
> doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a larger
> propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I may
> think about burning it...
>
> Bill Berle
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
--
*The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of
others.*
*If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email
address before sending.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
I do not have an Ivoprop, I have an Arplast prop from France. I need the Arplast
because I need a large blade area (wide chord) to absorb 58HP within a diameter
and RPM restriction. I have a 3.47 to 1 gearbox on the engine. The prop RPM
is so slow that I need all the area I can get to absorb that power. If I had
the 2.58 gearbox I would be able to turn a 64 inch Ivo or Warp Drive prop at
higher RPM like most Kolbs.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/19/18, Pfatchantz wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 3:26 PM
Pfatchantz
Again Bill...do not recall whether you
have an Ivo prop...Likely you know the diff between ul
versions and medium ones...I tried to install a three blade
60 inch medium on a Firefly only to have it bog down at abt
4400 rpms...447 engine..Simply cannot remove enough pitch...
It could be that a ul prop might work with most of the pitch
dialed in...definitely would not be ideal however..Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Monday, November 19, 2018 4:58 PM,
John Hauck
wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: "John Hauck" jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com
>
> Apologize for what?
>
> Again....if it was me, I wouldn't
just try increased propeller pitch to see what
happens.....I'd try to concentrate on propping the aircraft
correctly. Do it right and no matter what the results you
will know it is propped correctly. After getting the prop
pitch correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check
that off your list and "really" discover and correct another
problem. If not....burn it.
>
> Did you ever check static thrust
to see how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you are
getting normal power out of your rig. Anyhow...that's the
way it looks from Gantt International Airport, Titus,
Alabama.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
> Anyway, I apologize if I created
abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers.
I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller
pitch and see if that makes any significant difference. If
that doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a
larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I
may think about burning it...
>
> Bill Berle
>
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Well Bill I hope your not looking for another Arplast propeller? Theyve apparently
been out of business for a couple of years. Their reputation seems to be somewhat
questionable.
George H
Firestar
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Bill Berle wrote:
>
>
> I do not have an Ivoprop, I have an Arplast prop from France. I need the Arplast
because I need a large blade area (wide chord) to absorb 58HP within a diameter
and RPM restriction. I have a 3.47 to 1 gearbox on the engine. The prop
RPM is so slow that I need all the area I can get to absorb that power. If I had
the 2.58 gearbox I would be able to turn a 64 inch Ivo or Warp Drive prop at
higher RPM like most Kolbs.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/19/18, Pfatchantz wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
> To: "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 3:26 PM
>
> Pfatchantz
>
> Again Bill...do not recall whether you
> have an Ivo prop...Likely you know the diff between ul
> versions and medium ones...I tried to install a three blade
> 60 inch medium on a Firefly only to have it bog down at abt
> 4400 rpms...447 engine..Simply cannot remove enough pitch...
> It could be that a ul prop might work with most of the pitch
> dialed in...definitely would not be ideal however..Herb
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> Original Message
>
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 4:58 PM,
> John Hauck
> wrote:
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted
> by: "John Hauck" jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com
>>
>> Apologize for what?
>>
>> Again....if it was me, I wouldn't
> just try increased propeller pitch to see what
> happens.....I'd try to concentrate on propping the aircraft
> correctly. Do it right and no matter what the results you
> will know it is propped correctly. After getting the prop
> pitch correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check
> that off your list and "really" discover and correct another
> problem. If not....burn it.
>>
>> Did you ever check static thrust
> to see how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
> Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you are
> getting normal power out of your rig. Anyhow...that's the
> way it looks from Gantt International Airport, Titus,
> Alabama.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>> Titus, Alabama
>>
>> Anyway, I apologize if I created
> abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers.
> I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller
> pitch and see if that makes any significant difference. If
> that doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a
> larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I
> may think about burning it...
>>
>> Bill Berle
>>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Well Bill I hope your not looking for another Arplast propeller? Theyve apparently
been out of
business for a couple of years. Their reputation seems to be somewhat questionable.
------------------
Perhaps some of the Kolb list can suggest the correct propeller, to meet THESE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:
1) My engine will only spin the propeller at 1675 RPM at max continuous power (gearbox
limit)
2) The propeller diameter has to be 65 inches or less (tail boom interference)
3) The propeller can have only two or three blades (wing fold interference)
I have taken these specific parameters and called the major prop manufacturers...
Ivo, Warp, Powerfin, Prince, Ultra-Prop, Whirlwind. Every one of them has said
that it will be very difficult to make a lot of thrust at that slow RPM with
a 65 inch diameter prop, and all of them said that their prop blades are not
wide enough (blade area) for those conditions. They said I would need some other
brand of propeller with a very wide blade chord.
So I looked and found that the Arplast company made one style of propeller with
very wide chord blades, to use with high gear reduction ratios, in order to make
thrust in a smaller diameter with less noise for European noise regulations.
I managed to find a used one and buy it,a nd that is the prop onmy airplane
now.
So if I am obviously not making enough thrust with this wide-chord Arplast propeller,
how am I going to make any more thrust with a propeller that is narrower
(less blade choord) in the same diameter? Tell me if I am thinking incorrectly
here. I think I need a larger diameter propeller to solve the thrust problem,
regardless of what brand of prop I am using.
But if I turn the gearbox around, I can remove the 65 inch diameter limitation,
and run a larger prop, then I can run ANY good prop... Ivo, Warp, Powerfin, and
probably make a lot more thrust than I am making now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Neilsen <neilsenrm(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Bill
Prop selection and reduction ratios are a tough one. When I installed my
redrive VW on my MKIIIC had PowerFin and the redrive manufacture willing to
work with me. The redrive guy sent me five different ratios at no cost to
me. PowerFin cut my wide cord three blade 72 inch prop down to 71 inch for
free. I also had the same engine turning a direct drive 60 inch prop. I got
more then twice the thrust and more speed going to a redrive VW. All my VWs
turn 3200 RPM at cruise and my redrive ratio is 1.61 giving app 2000 RPM at
the prop. What I think I have learned is that the larger the diameter prop
you have the more static thrust you will get (until the tips go supersonic)
but with the same HP you will have a limit of top speed. I cut my prop from
72" to 71" figuring could increase the pitch to get more climb and top
speed but it didn't work that way I think I lost both speed and climb. So
it is a tough issue.
Also if you flip your redrive your center of thrust rises but is it that
bad if the tips of you prop are the same distance or less from the boom
tube? In one configuration I had a 7"+ clearance for my 72" prop from the
boom tube and it was dangerous. Solo it wasn't too bad but with a passenger
I couldn't pitch up to get off the ground at full power, running out of
runway I pulled power and up I went. Once I got some more airspeed it was
OK, but landing was a bit of white knuckle. I got serious and designed
prototype for Kolb VW mount.
Not sure this helps but worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:37 PM George Helton wrote:
>
> Well Bill I hope your not looking for another Arplast propeller? They
=99ve
> apparently been out of business for a couple of years. Their reputation
> seems to be somewhat questionable.
> George H
> Firestar
> Mesick, Michigan
> gdhelton(at)gmail.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 19, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Bill Berle
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I do not have an Ivoprop, I have an Arplast prop from France. I need th
e
> Arplast because I need a large blade area (wide chord) to absorb 58HP
> within a diameter and RPM restriction. I have a 3.47 to 1 gearbox on the
> engine. The prop RPM is so slow that I need all the area I can get to
> absorb that power. If I had the 2.58 gearbox I would be able to turn a 64
> inch Ivo or Warp Drive prop at higher RPM like most Kolbs.
> >
> > Bill Berle
> > www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> > www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Mon, 11/19/18, Pfatchantz wrote:
> >
> > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
> > To: "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
> > Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 3:26 PM
> >
> > Pfatchantz
> >
> > Again Bill...do not recall whether you
> > have an Ivo prop...Likely you know the diff between ul
> > versions and medium ones...I tried to install a three blade
> > 60 inch medium on a Firefly only to have it bog down at abt
> > 4400 rpms...447 engine..Simply cannot remove enough pitch...
> > It could be that a ul prop might work with most of the pitch
> > dialed in...definitely would not be ideal however..Herb
> >
> >
> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> >
> > =90=90=90=90=90=90=90 Origina
l Message
> > =90=90=90=90=90=90=90
> > On Monday, November 19, 2018 4:58 PM,
> > John Hauck
> > wrote:
> >
> >> --> Kolb-List message posted
> > by: "John Hauck" jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com
> >>
> >> Apologize for what?
> >>
> >> Again....if it was me, I wouldn't
> > just try increased propeller pitch to see what
> > happens.....I'd try to concentrate on propping the aircraft
> > correctly. Do it right and no matter what the results you
> > will know it is propped correctly. After getting the prop
> > pitch correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check
> > that off your list and "really" discover and correct another
> > problem. If not....burn it.
> >>
> >> Did you ever check static thrust
> > to see how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
> > Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you are
> > getting normal power out of your rig. Anyhow...that's the
> > way it looks from Gantt International Airport, Titus,
> > Alabama.
> >>
> >> john h
> >> mkIII
> >> Titus, Alabama
> >>
> >> Anyway, I apologize if I created
> > abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers.
> > I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller
> > pitch and see if that makes any significant difference. If
> > that doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a
> > larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I
> > may think about burning it...
> >>
> >> Bill Berle
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Support Your Lists This Month --
> > (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> > Fund Raiser. Click on
> > to find out more about
> > Incentive Gifts provided
> > www.mypilotstore.com
> > support!
> >
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> > Navigator to browse
> > List Un/Subscription,
> > 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> > via the Web Forums!
> > - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> > Email List Wiki!
> > - List Contribution Web Site -
> > support!
> >
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Rick N/Kolbers:
Reminds me of my first take off after I repowered from an 80 to a 100 hp
912. Normally, I'd go full throttle, roll a short ways through 30 mph
and ease back on the stick. That is what I did with my brand new
engine, but the MKIII was stuck to the sod. Coming back further on the
stick didn't help. It was not going to fly. Instinctively, I slacked
off the power a tad and Miss P'fer lifted right off like she was
supposed to. Muscle memory from the 80 was working with the high thrust
line increase in pusher power. Took a little while to adjust to this
new behavior, but is a good example of what the big lever up top is
doing to the aircraft. I believe it takes more power in the pusher than
in the tractor configuration. The Ultrastar was more efficient because
it was a low pusher.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Neilsen
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
Bill
Prop selection and reduction ratios are a tough one. When I installed my
redrive VW on my MKIIIC had PowerFin and the redrive manufacture willing
to work with me. The redrive guy sent me five different ratios at no
cost to me. PowerFin cut my wide cord three blade 72 inch prop down to
71 inch for free. I also had the same engine turning a direct drive 60
inch prop. I got more then twice the thrust and more speed going to a
redrive VW. All my VWs turn 3200 RPM at cruise and my redrive ratio is
1.61 giving app 2000 RPM at the prop. What I think I have learned is
that the larger the diameter prop you have the more static thrust you
will get (until the tips go supersonic) but with the same HP you will
have a limit of top speed. I cut my prop from 72" to 71" figuring could
increase the pitch to get more climb and top speed but it didn't work
that way I think I lost both speed and climb. So it is a tough issue.
Also if you flip your redrive your center of thrust rises but is it that
bad if the tips of you prop are the same distance or less from the boom
tube? In one configuration I had a 7"+ clearance for my 72" prop from
the boom tube and it was dangerous. Solo it wasn't too bad but with a
passenger I couldn't pitch up to get off the ground at full power,
running out of runway I pulled power and up I went. Once I got some more
airspeed it was OK, but landing was a bit of white knuckle. I got
serious and designed prototype for Kolb VW mount.
Not sure this helps but worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:37 PM George Helton
wrote:
Well Bill I hope your not looking for another Arplast propeller?
They=99ve apparently been out of business for a couple of years.
Their reputation seems to be somewhat questionable.
George H
Firestar
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Bill Berle
wrote:
>
>
> I do not have an Ivoprop, I have an Arplast prop from France. I need
the Arplast because I need a large blade area (wide chord) to absorb
58HP within a diameter and RPM restriction. I have a 3.47 to 1 gearbox
on the engine. The prop RPM is so slow that I need all the area I can
get to absorb that power. If I had the 2.58 gearbox I would be able to
turn a 64 inch Ivo or Warp Drive prop at higher RPM like most Kolbs.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light
aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/19/18, Pfatchantz wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
> To: "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018, 3:26 PM
>
> Pfatchantz
>
> Again Bill...do not recall whether you
> have an Ivo prop...Likely you know the diff between ul
> versions and medium ones...I tried to install a three blade
> 60 inch medium on a Firefly only to have it bog down at abt
> 4400 rpms...447 engine..Simply cannot remove enough pitch...
> It could be that a ul prop might work with most of the pitch
> dialed in...definitely would not be ideal however..Herb
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> =90=90=90=90=90=90=90
Original Message
> =90=90=90=90=90=90=90
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 4:58 PM,
> John Hauck
> wrote:
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted
> by: "John Hauck" jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com
>>
>> Apologize for what?
>>
>> Again....if it was me, I wouldn't
> just try increased propeller pitch to see what
> happens.....I'd try to concentrate on propping the aircraft
> correctly. Do it right and no matter what the results you
> will know it is propped correctly. After getting the prop
> pitch correct, if that doesn't help, at least you can check
> that off your list and "really" discover and correct another
> problem. If not....burn it.
>>
>> Did you ever check static thrust
> to see how it compares with a Firestar that flies normally?
> Takes thrust to push an airplane. I don't think you are
> getting normal power out of your rig. Anyhow...that's the
> way it looks from Gantt International Airport, Titus,
> Alabama.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>> Titus, Alabama
>>
>> Anyway, I apologize if I created
> abig mystery that is annoying or perplexing to the Kolbers.
> I'm going to try one more flight with increased propeller
> pitch and see if that makes any significant difference. If
> that doesn't work I will flip the gearbox and borrow a
> larger propeller and try that. If that doesn't work THEN I
> may think about burning it...
>>
>> Bill Berle
>>
>
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
br> fts!)
r> > e.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mojavjoe <mojavjoe(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
BILL it's not much more difficult to remove the wings then it is to fold them and
I'm sure you could rig up a jig so you could do it quickly and by your self.
Then you could have the four blades your gear reduction was designed for.
Joe
> On November 19, 2018 at 9:00 PM Bill Berle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Well Bill I hope your not looking for another Arplast propeller? Theyve apparently
been out of
> business for a couple of years. Their reputation seems to be somewhat questionable.
> ------------------
>
> Perhaps some of the Kolb list can suggest the correct propeller, to meet THESE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:
>
> 1) My engine will only spin the propeller at 1675 RPM at max continuous power
(gearbox limit)
> 2) The propeller diameter has to be 65 inches or less (tail boom interference)
> 3) The propeller can have only two or three blades (wing fold interference)
>
> I have taken these specific parameters and called the major prop manufacturers...
Ivo, Warp, Powerfin, Prince, Ultra-Prop, Whirlwind. Every one of them has
said that it will be very difficult to make a lot of thrust at that slow RPM
with a 65 inch diameter prop, and all of them said that their prop blades are
not wide enough (blade area) for those conditions. They said I would need some
other brand of propeller with a very wide blade chord.
>
> So I looked and found that the Arplast company made one style of propeller with
very wide chord blades, to use with high gear reduction ratios, in order to
make thrust in a smaller diameter with less noise for European noise regulations.
I managed to find a used one and buy it,a nd that is the prop onmy airplane
now.
>
> So if I am obviously not making enough thrust with this wide-chord Arplast propeller,
how am I going to make any more thrust with a propeller that is narrower
(less blade choord) in the same diameter? Tell me if I am thinking incorrectly
here. I think I need a larger diameter propeller to solve the thrust problem,
regardless of what brand of prop I am using.
>
> But if I turn the gearbox around, I can remove the 65 inch diameter limitation,
and run a larger prop, then I can run ANY good prop... Ivo, Warp, Powerfin,
and probably make a lot more thrust than I am making now.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JC Gilpin <j.gilpin(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
My FireFly came with a 447 and C-box 3:1 ratio, so the prop was a big
three-blade job that wouldn't fit in the trailer. So I just removed the
prop each time. Socket in electric drill and torque wrench handy only took
a couple of minutes each time. Maybe you could consider a 4-blade used that
way....
I did that for quite awhile until I could find a B-box. With 2.58 ratio and
two-blade prop it went better but more vibration and noise....
Have you done a good 4-way GPS run to check the ASI?? GPS readings don't
have any real value unless you do a complete 360 circuit on a steady
day.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
Bill, have you verified ignition timing is correct? That could explain a lot
of things.
Also, you were concerned about getting your Firestar up on its nose. The Firestar's
main wheels are located well reward as compared to most other taildraggers.
I believe this makes the airplane less twitchy; however it can nose over
more easily. BUT, the only times I had this happen is when getting stuck in
tall grass or mud and trying to power out using the engine to unstick.
For lazy people like me nose bowls and nose art are temporary expendable items.
Jerry King
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485356#485356
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
The timing is electronically controlled by two black boxes, one for each ignition
system. No adjustment, no possibility of errors.
My aircraft has significantly longer gear legs than any other Firestar. So because
of the mounting angle, this puts the wheels a little further forward than
they wouuldotherwise be. It is controllable for someone with previous taildragger
experience, but probably not as easy and gentle as the stock Kolb.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 11/20/18, racerjerry wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2018, 10:24 AM
"racerjerry"
Bill, have you verified ignition timing
is correct? That could explain a lot of things.
Also, you were concerned about getting
your Firestar up on its nose. The Firestar's main
wheels are located well reward as compared to most other
taildraggers. I believe this makes the airplane less
twitchy; however it can nose over more easily. BUT,
the only times I had this happen is when getting stuck in
tall grass or mud and trying to power out using the engine
to unstick.
For lazy people like me nose bowls and
nose art are temporary expendable items.
Jerry King
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485356#485356
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar STATIC THRUST test |
Fuselages are welded in a jig. Be pretty difficult to get the tail boom
angle incorrect.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frankd
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:38 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: HKS / Firestar STATIC THRUST test
Hello Bill/ Kolbers
Seems like there is some progress on your thrust issue, your combo of
Gearbox and prop is an area to work on.
Do you still have your extended exhaust pipes and exhaust under the boom.
Maybe that is creating alot of drag to slow you down. It sounds like your
engine is running well so the exhaust may be working well and not robbing
power, but the added tubes and stuff out in the airstream must be a drag
source.
Maybe you can take the exhaust off for a test (No cost, just very noisy).
Also, your alignment of wings and Horizontal Stab is working, you have
proved that. One thing you did not confirm is the angle of the boom tube to
the ground in flying position. IF that was wrong and set too high at the
tail, your angles of wings and Horz will have to be adjusted to offset this
boom angle. And this is exactly how you have rigged your plane. You have
assumed the boom was set correctly at the factory but maybe something is off
and this is an incorrect assumption.
These are thoughts about your situation and as stated before worth what ya
paid for it.
FrankD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzimm(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS / Firestar FLIGHT TEST resumes |
Bill,
I have a 670 Rotax Rick engine with a 4/1 ratio C box on a Mark 3
Classic. It has a 3 blade 64=9D Ivo MEDIUM prop. I have derated my
670 by lowering the compression ratio to produce no more than 80hp @
6500 rpm. 6500rpm divided by 4 gives me 1625 prop rpm on climb out. I
cruise easy @ 4500-5200 engine rpm, 1125-1300 prop rpm @ 55-65 MPH
I believe you could get optimum performance from your engine and gear
box with an IVO medium prop.
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Bill Berle
wrote:
>
> I do not have an Ivoprop, I have an Arplast prop from France. I need
the Arplast because I need a large blade area (wide chord) to absorb
58HP within a diameter and RPM restriction. I have a 3.47 to 1 gearbox
on the engine. The prop RPM is so slow that I need all the area I can
get to absorb that power. If I had the 2.58 gearbox I would be able to
turn a 64 inch Ivo or Warp Drive prop at higher RPM like most Kolbs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | "haybail" <mralanhay(at)gmail.com> |
I just started to rebuild my barn find FS2 and the original plans show FS100 also,
You may need to sand the end of the tube lightly to bring up numbers mine
is marked F1002 with the latest revision 1993. I have been in touch with Kolb
and they are going to see if they have records from that time period.
If there numbering is as most manufacturers use the "F" is the model The "1" is
a control number and the last three Or four would designate build number.
I could be completely WRONG! I will update when I find out. :P
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485371#485371
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade
of these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying
Contribution too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Bill, Something got me thinking last night after I wrote to you about my
experience with props on a completely non prop notion. I went digging in my
HKS file and found what I was looking for.
Measure your exhaust from exhaust port to the join (collector) of the two
pipes. This distance should be 500 mm (~19.68"). If it's more or less than
that there's your problem. This distance was shared by the HKS importer
with a fellow on the HKS forum. Contact Mark Bierle at Earth Aircraft for
advice, too. He's done a lot of research into HKS exhaust pipes working
correctly. You could also try and find a mechanic with a tailpipe sniffer
to see what the compounds in your engine's exhaust pipe are. My guess is
that a lot of the engines intake charge is either being blocked by a
reflected wave or being over scavenged by that wave. With math calculations
that would make my head hurt you could also determine when that wave
arrives relative to the crankshaft rotation and valve timing.
Rick
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Here's the original post;
"We contacted HKS in Japan about exhaust system requirements and received a
reply back from an HKS engineer. He said the headers need to merge at 500mm
for proper scavenging and the length after the merge was not critical
though he noted that installations with excessively long pipes after the
merge had experienced rough idling issues. As far as individual headers
with no merge, there was an HKS on a Skyraider at OshKosh years ago that
had independent headers going to super trapp mufflers. They had a difficult
time getting the engine to run well and it was way off on power. Jim routed
my exhaust tubes to merge as close to 500mm as room would allow in the
cowling and my engine runs fantastic. Right after the merge he rolled a
simple muffler can with no baffles and its pretty quiet."
Rick
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:46 AM Richard Girard wrote:
> Bill, Something got me thinking last night after I wrote to you about my
> experience with props on a completely non prop notion. I went digging in
my
> HKS file and found what I was looking for.
> Measure your exhaust from exhaust port to the join (collector) of the two
> pipes. This distance should be 500 mm (~19.68"). If it's more or less tha
n
> that there's your problem. This distance was shared by the HKS importer
> with a fellow on the HKS forum. Contact Mark Bierle at Earth Aircraft for
> advice, too. He's done a lot of research into HKS exhaust pipes working
> correctly. You could also try and find a mechanic with a tailpipe sniffer
> to see what the compounds in your engine's exhaust pipe are. My guess is
> that a lot of the engines intake charge is either being blocked by a
> reflected wave or being over scavenged by that wave. With math calculatio
ns
> that would make my head hurt you could also determine when that wave
> arrives relative to the crankshaft rotation and valve timing.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
=9D Groucho Marx
> <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Well, now Rick we may be on to something. Jerry Olenik sent me an e-mail a coupld
of years ago that said he THOUGHT he remembered the distance should be 24 inches,
and that is what we built my exhaust to. I will measure it again today
to be sure that it is 24 inches.
The whole "exhaust thing" with me started because I could not install the stock
OEM system on my Kolb without it hitting the wings as they fold.Otherwise I would
have installed the OEM system and been done with it years ago.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/21/18, Richard Girard wrote:
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS Exhaust
To: "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2018, 8:00 AM
Here's
the original post;"We
contacted HKS in Japan about exhaust system requirements and
received a reply back from an HKS engineer. He said the
headers need to merge at 500mm for proper scavenging and the
length after the merge was not critical though he noted that
installations with excessively long pipes after the merge
had experienced rough idling issues. As far as individual
headers with no merge, there was an HKS on a Skyraider at
OshKosh years ago that had independent headers going to
super trapp mufflers. They had a difficult time getting the
engine to run well and it was way off on power. Jim routed
my exhaust tubes to merge as close to 500mm as room would
allow in the cowling and my engine runs fantastic. Right
after the merge he rolled a simple muffler can with no
baffles and its pretty quiet."
Rick
On Wed, Nov
21, 2018 at 7:46 AM Richard Girard
wrote:
Bill, Something got me thinking last night after I
wrote to you about my experience with props on a completely
non prop notion. I went digging in my HKS file and found
what I was looking for.Measure your exhaust from
exhaust port to the join (collector) of the two pipes. This
distance should be 500 mm (~19.68"). If it's more
or less than that there's your problem. This distance
was shared by the HKS importer with a fellow on the HKS
forum. Contact Mark Bierle at Earth Aircraft for advice,
too. He's done a lot of research into HKS exhaust pipes
working correctly. You could also try and find a mechanic
with a tailpipe sniffer to see what the compounds in your
engine's exhaust pipe are. My guess is that a lot of the
engines intake charge is either being blocked by a reflected
wave or being over scavenged by that wave. With math
calculations that would make my head hurt you could also
determine when that wave arrives relative to the crankshaft
rotation and valve timing.
Rick
--
Blessed are
the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho
Marx
--
Blessed are
the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho
Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
The exhaust thing is pretty important. When I modified the exhaust on the 277 for
the FF, I found a tapered cone from a hot rod shop that allowed me to approximate
the distance/taper described in an old LEAF catalog for the 277 exhaust.
So I made it to what I thought was the right length.
Makes good power, but it will not settle down at a constant throttle setting between
4700 and 5300 rpm. it will slowly speed up or slow down, but never constant.
David redid all the math and the taper was perfect but I had made it 9/8"
too long. Duh.
Another project. Be redoing it soon.
But yeah - I think you may have hit on something.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485495#485495
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I did another test flight today, and adjusting the pitch on the propeller 2 degrees
was making a difference. Same short takeoff roll, but the aircraft climbed
significantly better, now twice the angle/rate that it had done on the previous
flight.
I am now convinced that the propeller I have is not the correct prop for this installation.
I spoke to the people at Air-Creation trikes today, who have sold
and flown with this brand of propeller, and they told me that the Arplast propellers
were specifically designed for weight shift trikes as opposed to airplanes.
The trikes usually have a lower speed range, and so the twist ratios of
the propeller have probably been optimized for that. That would explain a LOT.
So just as I was starting to figure out that this airframe was good, and the engine
was not broken, and it may well be this strange French propeller behind most
of the problems... I ran into a problem that I cannot solve.
Today I flew during the time of day the control tower was operating, for the second
time. Even on a day that was not busy, my 50 MPH airplane was causing traffic
separation issues, making the control tower get other people out of the way,
and making me get out of other people's way. Several of the comments on the
radio by the tower and my fellow pilots made me realize that this slow airplane
is not going to be welcome at this airport for very long. If this had been
a busy Saturday the tower would have requested that I stop flying for air traffic
safety. I would not be able to blame them,a nd the FAA will stand behind
the tower controllers 100% on this type of issue.
So the primary reason for my having bought and worked on this airplane (having
a fun little bush plane that is based here in my existing hangar/airport) is now
not going to be do-able. I have put the Firestar and the HKS engine up for
sale separately, since I cannot legitimately claim that it has all the bugs worked
out as a finished flying airplane.
The Firestar has been set up as a single seat LSA sportplane, with extended "bush"
gear legs (from a Kolb Slingshot), hydraulic heel brakes, and the Kolb upgrade
tailwheel. The airframe has a 14 gallon fuel tank in the "rear seat" area,
but there have been no modifications to the airframe that would prevent it from
being taken back to being a two-seat Firestar. It has good fabric, and is
in above average condition. It has an Odyssey battery system with a custom built
electrical/switch panel, an aircraft gascolator/fuel strainer, and master fuel
shutoff valve. Vortex Generators on the wings and tail, stall speed in level
flight 2000 feet MSL indicated 29 MPH. Custom built wing folding stand, aluminum
center section cover. I had fabricated short extensions for the front stabilizer
mount as discussed on this list, but those exteenders will be removed
and the stabilizer returned to the original mounting position before sale. I
put it on Barnstormers if any Kolbers are interested.
HKS engine for sale separately, also on Barnstormers. Because of the difficulties
matching a propeller to the 3.47 gearbox on this airframe, it is my opinion
that this particular engine and this airframe "do not go together" well. This
would be an ideal engine if it had the 2.58 gearbox like Larry C has, but unfortunately
as we all have found out the 3.47 box causes a lot of problems with
the Kolb. This engine is ideal for an Airbike or Legal Eagle or something.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/21/18, Richard Girard wrote:
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS Exhaust
To: "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2018, 8:00 AM
Here's
the original post;"We
contacted HKS in Japan about exhaust system requirements and
received a reply back from an HKS engineer. He said the
headers need to merge at 500mm for proper scavenging and the
length after the merge was not critical though he noted that
installations with excessively long pipes after the merge
had experienced rough idling issues. As far as individual
headers with no merge, there was an HKS on a Skyraider at
OshKosh years ago that had independent headers going to
super trapp mufflers. They had a difficult time getting the
engine to run well and it was way off on power. Jim routed
my exhaust tubes to merge as close to 500mm as room would
allow in the cowling and my engine runs fantastic. Right
after the merge he rolled a simple muffler can with no
baffles and its pretty quiet."
Rick
On Wed, Nov
21, 2018 at 7:46 AM Richard Girard
wrote:
Bill, Something got me thinking last night after I
wrote to you about my experience with props on a completely
non prop notion. I went digging in my HKS file and found
what I was looking for.Measure your exhaust from
exhaust port to the join (collector) of the two pipes. This
distance should be 500 mm (~19.68"). If it's more
or less than that there's your problem. This distance
was shared by the HKS importer with a fellow on the HKS
forum. Contact Mark Bierle at Earth Aircraft for advice,
too. He's done a lot of research into HKS exhaust pipes
working correctly. You could also try and find a mechanic
with a tailpipe sniffer to see what the compounds in your
engine's exhaust pipe are. My guess is that a lot of the
engines intake charge is either being blocked by a reflected
wave or being over scavenged by that wave. With math
calculations that would make my head hurt you could also
determine when that wave arrives relative to the crankshaft
rotation and valve timing.
Rick
--
Blessed are
the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho
Marx
--
Blessed are
the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho
Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | "loctupdave" <loctupdave(at)att.net> |
Thank you for the information.
The root tube and the rest of the fuselage is clean of paint to the metal. There
is no numbers on the root tube front or back.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485502#485502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal. wrote:
>
>
> S N I P
>
> .......as we all have found out the 3.47 box causes a lot of problems with the
Kolb.
>
> Bill Berle
>
>
My Kolb Firestar II performs beautifully with the 3.47 ('C') gearbox with a Powerfin
3 Model F prop behind the Rotax 503 DCDI.
--------
George Alexander
FS II R503
E-LSA N709FS
http://www.oh2fly.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485504#485504
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nick Cassara <nickc(at)mtaonline.net> |
Hello Kolbers,
I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on their Kolb. I am
not finding any inexpensive way to meet this requirement. UAIONIX has a Wing
Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B Out unit for around fifteen hundred bucks. Since
I live on the edge of some very busy airspace, I will be following this requirement
and doing an installation on my Kolbra.
If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so important.
Nick Cassara
Palmer, Alaska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
I too am out in the country, definitely not desert. ;-)
Also sorry to say I have not read the first requirement for ADS-B, but have seen
it mentioned and advertised many times. Am I missing a requirement that I should
have installed on my MKIII?
BTW: Happy Thanksgiving to all my Kolb friends. Thanks for being there for the
past 34 years on this wonderful Kolb flight.
john h
hauck's holler, Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Cassara
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
Hello Kolbers,
I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on their Kolb. I am
not finding any inexpensive way to meet this requirement. UAIONIX has a Wing
Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B Out unit for around fifteen hundred bucks. Since
I live on the edge of some very busy airspace, I will be following this requirement
and doing an installation on my Kolbra.
If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so important.
Nick Cassara
Palmer, Alaska
?Kolb-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> |
John -
If you never (or very seldom) fly into ADS-B-designated airspace, then the
re is no requirement to equip.=C2- A number of my friends and I are not g
oing to install, because we don't fly in/through that airspace. AND because
you can request an authorized deviation from ATC if you are not equipped.
Check out Federal Regulation 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.225 and 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.227
for specific info.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
ArtySandy, Oregon
=C2-"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
ore.rr.com> wrote:
I too am out in the country, definitely not desert.=C2- ;-)
Also sorry to say I have not read the first requirement for ADS-B, but have
seen it mentioned and advertised many times.=C2- Am I missing a requirem
ent that I should have installed on my MKIII?
BTW:=C2- Happy Thanksgiving to all my Kolb friends.=C2- Thanks for bein
g there for the past 34 years on this wonderful Kolb flight.
john h
hauck's holler, Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Cassara
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
Hello Kolbers,
I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on their Kolb.
I am not finding any inexpensive way to meet this requirement. UAIONIX has
a Wing Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B Out unit for around fifteen hundred
bucks. Since I live on the edge of some very busy airspace, I will be follo
wing this requirement and doing an installation on my Kolbra.
If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so important.
Nick Cassara
Palmer, Alaska
?Kolb-List
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
John,
Short answer: If you currently need a mode C transponder to fly whe
re you intend to fly, you will need adsb-out=2E If you don't, you won't=2E
:-)
=81=A3Charlie=8B
On Nov 22, 2018, 1:25 PM, at 1:25 PM, John
Hauck wrote:
John Hauck"
>
>I too am out in the country, defi
nitely not desert=2E ;-)
>
>Also sorry to say I have not read the first re
quirement for ADS-B, but
>have seen it mentioned and advertised many times
=2E Am I missing a
>requirement that I should have installed on my MKIII?
>
>BTW: Happy Thanksgiving to all my Kolb friends=2E Thanks for being
>th
ere for the past 34 years on this wonderful Kolb flight=2E
>
>john h
>hauck
's holler, Titus, Alabama
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-
kolb-list-server@matronics=2Ecom
>[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics
=2Ecom] On Behalf Of Nick Cassara
>Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:54
AM
>To: kolb-list@matronics=2Ecom
>Subject: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
>
>--> Kol
b-List message posted by: Nick Cassara
>
>Hello Kol
bers,
>
>I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on the
ir
>Kolb=2E I am not finding any inexpensive way to meet this requirement
=2E
>UAIONIX has a Wing Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B Out unit for around
>fifteen hundred bucks=2E Since I live on the edge of some very busy
>airs
pace, I will be following this requirement and doing an
>installation on my
Kolbra=2E
>If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so import
ant=2E
>
>Nick Cassara
>Palmer, Alaska
>
>?Kolb-List
>
>
>_
-========================
r Lists This Month --
>
the Contribution link below to find out more about
errific Free Incentive Gifts provided
y Pilot Store www=2Emypilotstore=2Ecom
b Site:
-Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
===
atronics List Features Navigator to browse
uch as List Un/Subscription,
, Chat, FAQ,
p://www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/Navigator?Kolb-List
===
t content also available via the Web Forums!
ums=2Ematronics=2Ecom
====================
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
=====
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
ibution
=============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal. wrote:
>
>
> Today I flew during the time of day the control tower was operating, for the
second time. Even on a day that was not busy, my 50 MPH airplane was causing traffic
separation issues, making the control tower get other people out of the
way, and making me get out of other people's way. Several of the comments on
the radio by the tower and my fellow pilots made me realize that this slow airplane
is not going to be welcome at this airport for very long. If this had been
a busy Saturday the tower would have requested that I stop flying for air traffic
safety. I would not be able to blame them,and the FAA will stand behind
the tower controllers 100% on this type of issue.
>
> Bill Berle
>
I understand where you are coming from, and you are sort of right, and sort of
wrong. I am an old man, and old men like to tell stories, so I'll tell mine. Besides,
today is Thanksgiving, and we all have much to be thankful for, hopefully
some of you will find this amusing.
I am a retired air traffic controller, transferred into TriCities Regional (TRI)
in 1981.
In 1983 I built a Maxair Hummer as a legal Part 103 ultralight. Got a radio for
it, because my airstrip (3TN0) is just inside the Class D airspace. (Used to
be called the Airport Traffic Area/Control Zone)
Depending on which supervisor was working that day, I had several different ways
to get in and out of my airstrip to go fly. Or come home from flying:
Milt: Call on the phone and ask - you have a ten minute window to take off and
get out of the ATA. Same thing if you want to come back; call ahead and give a
projected ETA within ten minutes. (This was my Sup - he was a real joy to work
for)
Toby or Joe; Use the radio - that's what it's for.
Shub: Just do it and don't bother us. We don't care.
After several months of this, I had had enough chicken hockey to last me for several
years, so I licensed the Hummer as an Experimental Amateur Built, put N
numbers on it, and told them to that I expected to be treated as any other General
Aviation aircraft. My Tower Chief (who should have known better, or at least
known the regs) said it was still an ultralight, so nothing had changed. Consequently
the next day (I was off) I flew it in and landed, tied it down, and
went to lunch. After lunch I flew it back to my strip. When I came back to work
a couple days later, he called me into his office and advised me that he had
been in touch with the Airport Manager and was planning to take action against
me. I told him that before he went much further he better call GADO and FSDO
and ask a few questions. Apparently they straightened him out. Never heard
a peep.
So then things escalated - (are you surprised?) I would go fly and if I was in
the Class D, I would call for traffic advisories and request TRSA services. Depending
on which controller was on the other end, sometimes I was asked to do
a few identifying turns for radar identification, and then given "Radar Contact,
etc." And given the appropriate legally required services.
In other cases, (depending on who was working the other end) I was told that ultralight-type
aircraft were unidentifiable, have a nice day, frequency change
approved.
By this time I was getting to the point of obsession, (not to mention being totally
PO'd) so I went on ebay and bought a transponder. Wired it in, got it working
and 90% of my workmates were cool with it. But there is always that 10%...
Who were unable to properly identify me and provide TRSA services for whatever
reasons. So Ed in his Hummer & I flew down to Knoxville, called TYS Approach
Control, flight of two, squawk, etc, landing Downtown Island, and got perfect
service. Went back to work a couple days later, bragged about the great service
we got from Knoxville Approach Control, and the local FAA (my co-workers
and staff) caved and started behaving.
But not entirely.
The Tower Chief cornered me in the Break Room and and asked me "What would you
do if you were in the pattern and you had to deal with a Southern 737 on downwind,
and you were told to follow him?"
I said I would follow him in such a way that I could stay out of his wake turbulence.
"But what if you were told to tighten it up for traffic?"
I told him that I was the Pilot in Command of the aircraft, I was solely responsible
for my own safety, and I would do as necessary to stay out of his wake turbulence.
"So you would not be conforming to ATC instructions?"
I love it when a plan comes together... I told him - "You know; my wife used to
work for Miami GADO, she has written up a lot of accident and incident reports,
she knows the regs almost as well as I do, and I will be telling her about
this conversation. So if any problems ever come up in the local area that turn
out poorly for me, she will know what to do."
Checkmate. End of BS.
So Bill - the point of all this is that I know where you are coming from, however
the FAA is required to provide services to any and all legal users, and they
CANNOT deny you services. They can delay you, they can have you do several 360's,
they can re sequence you as necessary. But they CANNOT refuse you service
or tell you to go away. Or tell you that you cannot play with the Big Boys.
It is their responsibility to sequence you with faster traffic. That's why they
get the Big Bucks. But if they try and tell you "You don't fit: go away!" Study
the regs, hold their feet to the fire, and (as we used to say in South Georgia)
"Be prepared to kick ass and take names!"
Because the FAA does not back the tower controllers; they back the regs. If the
regs are on your side - you win.
I understand why you did what you thought was appropriate. Good luck and God Bless
with your next build.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485515#485515
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Thanks, Arty.
This FAA Pub spells it out pretty well, well enough for me to grasp and
understand.
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/research/
I've been able to fly all over the US, Canada, and Alaska, without
having to enter airspace where ADS-B would be required. Don't think
I'll have a requirement for it in the future.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
TheWanderingWench
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
John -
If you never (or very seldom) fly into ADS-B-designated airspace, then
there is no requirement to equip. A number of my friends and I are not
going to install, because we don't fly in/through that airspace. AND
because you can request an authorized deviation from ATC if you are not
equipped. Check out Federal Regulation 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.225
<http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1225
> and 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.227
<http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1227
> for specific info.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Arty
Sandy, Oregon
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
wrote:
I too am out in the country, definitely not desert. ;-)
Also sorry to say I have not read the first requirement for ADS-B, but
have seen it mentioned and advertised many times. Am I missing a
requirement that I should have installed on my MKIII?
BTW: Happy Thanksgiving to all my Kolb friends. Thanks for being there
for the past 34 years on this wonderful Kolb flight.
john h
hauck's holler, Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Cassara
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
Hello Kolbers,
I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on their
Kolb. I am not finding any inexpensive way to meet this requirement.
UAIONIX has a Wing Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B Out unit for around
fifteen hundred bucks. Since I live on the edge of some very busy
airspace, I will be following this requirement and doing an installation
on my Kolbra.
If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so
important.
Nick Cassara
Palmer, Alaska
?Kolb-List
httpbsp;
==================
http://www.matronics.com/Navi - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://wiki.m
&nbsnbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
=81=A3Charlie=8B
On Nov 22, 2018, 7:07 PM, at 7:07 PM, Richard
Pike wrote:
"Richard Pike"
>
>
>
>victorbravo(at)sbcglobal
=2E wrote:
>>
>>
>> Today I flew during the time of day the control tower
was operating,
>for the second time=2E Even on a day that was not busy, my
50 MPH
>airplane was causing traffic separation issues, making the control
>tower get other people out of the way, and making me get out of other
>pe
ople's way=2E Several of the comments on the radio by the tower and my
>fel
low pilots made me realize that this slow airplane is not going to
>be welc
ome at this airport for very long=2E If this had been a busy
>Saturday the
tower would have requested that I stop flying for air
>traffic safety=2E I
would not be able to blame them,and the FAA will
>stand behind the tower co
ntrollers 100% on this type of issue=2E
>>
>> Bill Berle
>>
>
>
>I unders
tand where you are coming from, and you are sort of right, and
>sort of wro
ng=2E I am an old man, and old men like to tell stories, so
>I'll tell mine
=2E Besides, today is Thanksgiving, and we all have much to
>be thankful fo
r, hopefully some of you will find this amusing=2E
>
>I am a retired air tr
affic controller, transferred into TriCities
>Regional (TRI) in 1981=2E
>I
n 1983 I built a Maxair Hummer as a legal Part 103 ultralight=2E Got a
>rad
io for it, because my airstrip (3TN0) is just inside the Class D
>airspace
=2E (Used to be called the Airport Traffic Area/Control Zone)
>Depending
on which supervisor was working that day, I had several
>different ways to
get in and out of my airstrip to go fly=2E Or come home
>from flying:
>Milt
: Call on the phone and ask - you have a ten minute window to take
>off and
get out of the ATA=2E Same thing if you want to come back; call
>ahead and
give a projected ETA within ten minutes=2E (This was my Sup -
>he was a re
al joy to work for)
>Toby or Joe; Use the radio - that's what it's for=2E
>
Shub: Just do it and don't bother us=2E We don't care=2E
>
>After several m
onths of this, I had had enough chicken hockey to last
>me for several year
s, so I licensed the Hummer as an Experimental
>Amateur Built, put N number
s on it, and told them to that I expected to
>be treated as any other Gener
al Aviation aircraft=2E My Tower Chief (who
>should have known better, or a
t least known the regs) said it was still
>an ultralight, so nothing had ch
anged=2E Consequently the next day (I was
>off) I flew it in and landed, ti
ed it down, and went to lunch=2E After
>lunch I flew it back to my strip=2E
When I came back to work a couple
>days later, he called me into his offic
e and advised me that he had
>been in touch with the Airport Manager and wa
s planning to take action
>against me=2E I told him that before he went muc
h further he better call
>GADO and FSDO and ask a few questions=2E Apparen
tly they straightened
>him out=2E Never heard a peep=2E
>
>So then things e
scalated - (are you surprised?) I would go fly and if I
>was in the Class D
, I would call for traffic advisories and request
>TRSA services=2E Dependi
ng on which controller was on the other end,
>sometimes I was asked to do a
few identifying turns for radar
>identification, and then given "Radar Con
tact, etc=2E" And given the
>appropriate legally required services=2E
>In o
ther cases, (depending on who was working the other end) I was told
>that u
ltralight-type aircraft were unidentifiable, have a nice day,
>frequency ch
ange approved=2E
>
>By this time I was getting to the point of obsession, (
not to mention
>being totally PO'd) so I went on ebay and bought a transpon
der=2E Wired
>it in, got it working and 90% of my workmates were cool wit
h it=2E But
>there is always that 10%=2E=2E=2E Who were unable to properly
identify me
>and provide TRSA services for whatever reasons=2E So Ed in hi
s Hummer & I
>flew down to Knoxville, called TYS Approach Control, flight o
f two,
>squawk, etc, landing Downtown Island, and got perfect service=2E We
nt
>back to work a couple days later, bragged about the great service we
>g
ot from Knoxville Approach Control, and the local FAA (my co-workers
>and s
taff) caved and started behaving=2E
>
>But not entirely=2E
>
>The Tower Chi
ef cornered me in the Break Room and and asked me "What
>would you do if yo
u were in the pattern and you had to deal with a
>Southern 737 on downwind,
and you were told to follow him?"
>I said I would follow him in such a way
that I could stay out of his
>wake turbulence=2E
>"But what if you were to
ld to tighten it up for traffic?"
>I told him that I was the Pilot in Comma
nd of the aircraft, I was
>solely responsible for my own safety, and I woul
d do as necessary to
>stay out of his wake turbulence=2E
>"So you would not
be conforming to ATC instructions?"
>
>I love it when a plan comes togethe
r=2E=2E=2E I told him - "You know; my wife
>used to work for Miami GADO, sh
e has written up a lot of accident and
>incident reports, she knows the reg
s almost as well as I do, and I will
>be telling her about this conversatio
n=2E So if any problems ever come up
>in the local area that turn out poorl
y for me, she will know what to
>do=2E"
>
>Checkmate=2E End of BS=2E
>
>So
Bill - the point of all this is that I know where you are coming
>from, ho
wever the FAA is required to provide services to any and all
>legal users,
and they CANNOT deny you services=2E They can delay you,
>they can have you
do several 360's, they can re sequence you as
>necessary=2E But they CANN
OT refuse you service or tell you to go away=2E
>Or tell you that you canno
t play with the Big Boys=2E It is their
>responsibility to sequence you wit
h faster traffic=2E That's why they get
>the Big Bucks=2E But if they try a
nd tell you "You don't fit: go away!"
>Study the regs, hold their feet to t
he fire, and (as we used to say in
>South Georgia) "Be prepared to kick ass
and take names!"
>
>Because the FAA does not back the tower controllers; t
hey back the
>regs=2E If the regs are on your side - you win=2E
>
>I unders
tand why you did what you thought was appropriate=2E Good luck
>and God Ble
ss with your next build=2E
>
>--------
>Richard Pike
>Kolb MKIII N420P (420
ldPoops)
>Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
>Kin
gsport, TN 3TN0
>
>Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God
's grace really
>is amazing=2E
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>htt
p://forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom/viewtopic=2Ephp?p=485515#485515
>
>
r Lists This Month --
>
the Contribution link below to find out more about
errific Free Incentive Gifts provided
y Pilot Store www=2Emypilotstore=2Ecom
b Site:
-Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
===
atronics List Features Navigator to browse
uch as List Un/Subscription,
, Chat, FAQ,
p://www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/Navigator?Kolb-List
===
t content also available via the Web Forums!
ums=2Ematronics=2Ecom
====================
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
=====
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
ibution
=============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. If you've been
putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose
from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser. Let's make this a "Black Friday" for the Lists!
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nick Cassara <nickc(at)mtaonline.net> |
| Subject: | ADSB one other reason.... |
Kolbers,
There is one good reason to consider ADSB out.The flat panel cockpit! I am probably
a little paranoid, but with a lot of pilots retrofitting their cockpit with
flat screen technology, which all the new planes now have, and the next generation
of pilots have been raised with a flat screen, of some type, in front
of their face. Once airborne, I want my little plane to show up on their screen,
if but chance they are distracted from looking OUT of the cockpit.
For what its worth,
Nick Cassara
Palmer, Alaska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Neilsen <neilsenrm(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADSB one other reason.... |
Nick
Good point if you fly in an area where there are those kinds of planes.
I fly in a remote area. Our airport sees maybe one airplane every two weeks
that has a flat panel. I saw a flat panel on a airplane once, one I rented
ten years ago and I looked outside. When I took my plane to Florida one
winter I was based at an airport with alot of jet traffic and no tower. If
I'm ever based at a similar airport again I would get ADSB -IN/OUT and the
biggest double/triple+ flash strobes I can find. I could see my Kolb like a
bug on one those windshields.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:24 PM Nick Cassara wrote:
>
> Kolbers,
>
> There is one good reason to consider ADSB out.The flat panel coc
kpit! I
> am probably a little paranoid, but with a lot of pilots retrofitting thei
r
> cockpit with flat screen technology, which all the new planes now have, a
nd
> the next generation of pilots have been raised with a flat screen, of som
e
> type, in front of their face. Once airborne, I want my little pl
ane to
> show up on their screen, if but chance they are distracted from looking O
UT
> of the cockpit.
>
> For what it=99s worth,
>
> Nick Cassara
> Palmer, Alaska
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADSB one other reason.... |
I live in the Houston area, so ADS-B in and out is simply a good safety
option to have, here. I self-installed (in my non-Kolb experimental) a
uAvionix echoUAT (both in and out) and managed to get it done in just a few
hours. Granted, I already had a Mode C xponder, so that made it a lot
easier. So far it's worked quite well and I am (and esp. my wife is) glad
to have the additional information and level of safety.
-- Robert
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:23 PM Nick Cassara wrote:
>
> Kolbers,
>
> There is one good reason to consider ADSB out.The flat panel coc
kpit! I
> am probably a little paranoid, but with a lot of pilots retrofitting thei
r
> cockpit with flat screen technology, which all the new planes now have, a
nd
> the next generation of pilots have been raised with a flat screen, of som
e
> type, in front of their face. Once airborne, I want my little pl
ane to
> show up on their screen, if but chance they are distracted from looking O
UT
> of the cockpit.
>
> For what it=99s worth,
>
> Nick Cassara
> Palmer, Alaska
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ADSB one other reason.... |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
All good points, but I refuse the expense of adding very expensive equipment that
I do not need.
My one concession to the ADS-B crowd is that I will keep my transponder turned
ON, so that the fools with their heads down will likely see me on their screen.
Also, I resent the STEALING of airspace from general aviation pilots who choose
not to equip. I can possibly understand the prohibition over class C airspace
or on top of class B; but stealing the area outside of Class B to 30 miles is
inexcusable.
Jerry King
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485611#485611
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | "loctupdave" <loctupdave(at)att.net> |
I have the engine apart. The cylinder walls look great and the pistons have carbon
deposits. I will sand blast the complete engine exterior, I will do the pistons
and heads also. The crank looks and feels great, no clicking or other strange
noises from the bearings and they seem to be tight. The crank and the lower
case is in solvent, so they will not be seen in the pic.
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/engine%20parts_zpsyoxl4dqo.jpg.html)
We had a warm day, so the fuselage frame was painted.
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/Painted_zps64dh069o.jpg.html)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485623#485623
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield |
| From: | "west1m" <west1m(at)hotmail.com> |
I am installing the "Kolb Full Canopy" right now and I plan on using your latch
mechanism . In the latch picture of the rear, How is the back half of the latch
and aluminum piece attached to the Cro-Molly tube ? Do those screws thread
into the tube?
--------
West1m
Hastings, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485627#485627
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/latch_307.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution |
Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists. Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List
of Contributors (LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years,
the List seems at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your
typical magazine subscription!
Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the
Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your
Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have
helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield |
No, I custom cut the screws and install them with a drop of blue locktite. T
he small piece of aluminum channel is attached with two 1/8X1/4=9Dpull
rivets. See pictures attached. Note that latch has been bent 90 degrees.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 25, 2018, at 11:02 AM, west1m wrote:
>
>
> I am installing the "Kolb Full Canopy" right now and I plan on using your l
atch mechanism . In the latch picture of the rear, How is the back half of t
he latch and aluminum piece attached to the Cro-Molly tube ? Do those screws
thread into the tube?
>
> --------
> West1m
> Hastings, MN
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485627#485627
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/latch_307.jpg
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Nick, Have you looked at Dynon's new portable ADSB? in their Avweb
announcement the price right now is $395.
http://dynonavionics.com/drx-portable-adsb.php
Rick
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 6:28 PM John Hauck wrote:
> Thanks, Arty.
>
>
> This FAA Pub spells it out pretty well, well enough for me to grasp and
> understand.
>
>
> https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/research/
>
>
> I've been able to fly all over the US, Canada, and Alaska, without having
> to enter airspace where ADS-B would be required. Don't think I'll have a
> requirement for it in the future.
>
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
> *From:* owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *TheWanderingWench
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:43 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
>
>
> John -
>
>
> If you never (or very seldom) fly into ADS-B-designated airspace, then
> there is no requirement to equip. A number of my friends and I are not
> going to install, because we don't fly in/through that airspace. AND
> because you can request an authorized deviation from ATC if you are not
> equipped. Check out Federal Regulation 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.225
> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1225
>
> and 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.227
> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1227
>
> for specific info.
>
>
> Have a great Thanksgiving.
>
>
> Arty
>
> Sandy, Oregon
>
>
> "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
>
>
> jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> I too am out in the country, definitely not desert. ;-)
>
>
> Also sorry to say I have not read the first requirement for ADS-B, but
> have seen it mentioned and advertised many times. Am I missing a
> requirement that I should have installed on my MKIII?
>
>
> BTW: Happy Thanksgiving to all my Kolb friends. Thanks for being there
> for the past 34 years on this wonderful Kolb flight.
>
>
> john h
>
> hauck's holler, Titus, Alabama
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Cassara
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:54 AM
>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
>
>
> Hello Kolbers,
>
>
> I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on their Kolb
.
> I am not finding any inexpensive way to meet this requirement. UAIONIX ha
s
> a Wing Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B Out unit for around fifteen hundre
d
> bucks. Since I live on the edge of some very busy airspace, I will be
> following this requirement and doing an installation on my Kolbra.
>
> If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so important
.
>
>
> Nick Cassara
>
> Palmer, Alaska
>
>
> ?Kolb-List
>
>
> httpbsp; ==============
====
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navi - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> http://wiki.m &nbsnbsp; -->
> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ================
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Or, for a little more than half that,
https://www.amazon.com/Stratux-Receiver-Aviation-Weather-Traffic/dp/B071HMQY19
and you get an included AHARS for those inadvertent excursions into IMC
in your Kolb.
;-)
Charlie
On 11/25/2018 8:03 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Nick, Have you looked at Dynon's new portable ADSB? in their Avweb
> announcement the price right now is $395.
>
> http://dynonavionics.com/drx-portable-adsb.php
>
> Rick
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 6:28 PM John Hauck > wrote:
>
> Thanks, Arty.
>
> This FAA Pub spells it out pretty well, well enough for me to
> grasp and understand.
>
> https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/research/
>
> I've been able to fly all over the US, Canada, and Alaska, without
> having to enter airspace where ADS-B would be required. Don't
> think I'll have a requirement for it in the future.
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
> *From:*owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] *On Behalf Of
> *TheWanderingWench
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:43 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
>
> John -
>
> If you never (or very seldom) fly into ADS-B-designated airspace,
> then there is no requirement to equip. A number of my friends and
> I are not going to install, because we don't fly in/through that
> airspace. AND because you can request an authorized deviation from
> ATC if you are not equipped. Check out Federal Regulation 14 CFR
> 91.225
> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1225>
> and 14 CFR 91.227
> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1227>
> for specific info.
>
> Have a great Thanksgiving.
>
> Arty
>
> Sandy, Oregon
>
> "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I too am out in the country, definitely not desert. ;-)
>
> Also sorry to say I have not read the first requirement for ADS-B,
> but have seen it mentioned and advertised many times. Am I
> missing a requirement that I should have installed on my MKIII?
>
> BTW: Happy Thanksgiving to all my Kolb friends. Thanks for being
> there for the past 34 years on this wonderful Kolb flight.
>
> john h
>
> hauck's holler, Titus, Alabama
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Nick
> Cassara
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:54 AM
>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: ADS-B out
>
> >
>
> Hello Kolbers,
>
> I am wondering if anyone has tackled ADS-B Out installation on
> their Kolb. I am not finding any inexpensive way to meet this
> requirement. UAIONIX has a Wing Tip, or Tail Light Strobe ADS-B
> Out unit for around fifteen hundred bucks. Since I live on the
> edge of some very busy airspace, I will be following this
> requirement and doing an installation on my Kolbra.
>
> If I lived out in the desert somewhere; might not be so important.
>
> Nick Cassara
>
> Palmer, Alaska
>
> ?Kolb-List
>
>
> httpbsp; ==================
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navi - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> http://wiki.m &nbsnbsp; -->
> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ================
>
>
> --
>
>
> Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho
> Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nick Cassara <nickc(at)mtaonline.net> |
| Subject: | ADSB In / ADSB Out.... |
Kolbers,
The ADSB business is a little confusing. There are a number of venders who will
sell you ADSB receiver for a couple hundreds, but that is all they are, a receiver.
In order to have a unit that transmits a ADSB signal the price is much
higher, as are the combo in/out units.
Nick Cassara
Palmer, Alaska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B out and in |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield |
| From: | "west1m" <west1m(at)hotmail.com> |
Looks good, thanks for the pictures and info.
--------
West1m
Hastings, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485739#485739
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What's My Contribution Used For? |
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question.
Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides
for the very expensive, commercial-grade Internet connection used on the
List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List
services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling
the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine,
List Browser, and Forums. It pays for narly 30 years (yeah, I really said
*30* years) worth of online archive data available for instant random search
and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining
the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List
Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your
peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation,
censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places
on the Internet can you make all those statements these days? It is YOUR
CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable List
services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the
best investments you can make in your Sport...
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B out and in |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
Pfatchantz(at)protonmail. wrote:
> The only thing I wanted was the weather radar... Will need a power supply adapter
when flying...... Herb --
If all you wanted was the weather radar, I have the Raindar app on my phone that
seems to work really well. Or maybe the ADSB is that much better? Have not seen
it so I don't know. I do know that I have used Raindar when motorcycle riding
to take the roads that keep me dry.
Here are the cell phone mounts on the MKIII and the FF. The MKIII has a charging
usb adapter hard wired in, the FF has a little shelf as part of the bracket
so that an external cell phone battery can be attached. Then it slips into the
top of the control stick, a rivet in the stick keeps it aligned.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485843#485843
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070058_medium_404.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070053_medium_153.jpeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B out and in |
Richard
I did not say but I have the parts already...Nice tablet,Raspberry PiII+ and
access to the power requirements...
I wanted the FAA radar...mainly...and also the adsb out reporting from other
aircraft...as a minor benefit..
I experimented with it two or so years ago...Two years older and the brain will
need a whole lot of stimulation from the net to get it going again...I have
a nice 8 inch lg tablet and will use it... Pretty much need to be in the air
to get the weather...since it is ground station sent while aircraft can be seen
at home...Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:07 AM, Richard Pike
wrote:
>
> Pfatchantz(at)protonmail. wrote:
>
> > The only thing I wanted was the weather radar... Will need a power supply adapter
when flying...... Herb --
>
> If all you wanted was the weather radar, I have the Raindar app on my phone that
seems to work really well. Or maybe the ADSB is that much better? Have not
seen it so I don't know. I do know that I have used Raindar when motorcycle riding
to take the roads that keep me dry.
> Here are the cell phone mounts on the MKIII and the FF. The MKIII has a charging
usb adapter hard wired in, the FF has a little shelf as part of the bracket
so that an external cell phone battery can be attached. Then it slips into the
top of the control stick, a rivet in the stick keeps it aligned.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Richard Pike
> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
> Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>
> Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485843#485843
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070058_medium_404.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070053_medium_153.jpeg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B out and in |
Guessing that the FAA weather could be satellite forwarded...? Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:06 PM, Pfatchantz
wrote:
>
> Richard
>
> I did not say but I have the parts already...Nice tablet,Raspberry PiII+ and
access to the power requirements...
>
> I wanted the FAA radar...mainly...and also the adsb out reporting from other
aircraft...as a minor benefit..
> I experimented with it two or so years ago...Two years older and the brain will
need a whole lot of stimulation from the net to get it going again...I have
a nice 8 inch lg tablet and will use it... Pretty much need to be in the air
to get the weather...since it is ground station sent while aircraft can be seen
at home...Herb
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> Original Message
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:07 AM, Richard Pike thegreybaron(at)charter.net
wrote:
>
> > Pfatchantz(at)protonmail. wrote:
> >
> > > The only thing I wanted was the weather radar... Will need a power supply
adapter when flying...... Herb --
> >
> > If all you wanted was the weather radar, I have the Raindar app on my phone
that seems to work really well. Or maybe the ADSB is that much better? Have not
seen it so I don't know. I do know that I have used Raindar when motorcycle
riding to take the roads that keep me dry.
> > Here are the cell phone mounts on the MKIII and the FF. The MKIII has a charging
usb adapter hard wired in, the FF has a little shelf as part of the bracket
so that an external cell phone battery can be attached. Then it slips into
the top of the control stick, a rivet in the stick keeps it aligned.
> >
> > Richard Pike
> > Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> > Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
> > Kingsport, TN 3TN0
> > Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is
amazing.
> > Read this topic online here:
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=485843#485843
> > Attachments:
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070058_medium_404.jpeg
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070053_medium_153.jpeg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a Two days left for this year's List Fund Raiser! If you've been
putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose
from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser. Let's make this a "Black Friday" for the Lists!
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
It's November 30th and that always means a couple of things. Its my birthday again
- 55! :-) But it also means that it's that last official day of the Matronics
Email List Fund Raiser! If you been thinking about picking up one of those
really nice incentive gifts now is the time to jump on it!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting
it off for some reason, NOW is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists!
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in
support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running
and I don't ever forget it.
The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
| From: | "loctupdave" <loctupdave(at)att.net> |
Could you show a inside view of the brakes:
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486066#486066
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
I=99m not sure who you=99re asking? Here are mine.
George H.
Firestar, FS100, 2702 Hirth
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 1, 2018, at 9:49 AM, loctupdave wrote:
>
>
> Could you show a inside view of the brakes:
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486066#486066
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
Here are the ones for the Firefly:
Start with a set of cheap bicycle brakes, something like these: https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-AVID-BB5-Mountain-Bike-Bicycle-Mechanical-Disc-Brake-caliper-Front-Rear/183557470162?hash=item2abce0b7d2:g:124AAOSwa3lb3K5l
Then you have to fabricate a way to attach them to the wheel. These were not too
hard, and they fit on the wheels from an original Firestar, which is what our
FF uses.
The you weld a couple of bracket tabs to the lower landing gear leg fitting that
the calipers will float around in. Works really well.
And if you put a little loop in the end of the handle, a small bungee cord works
for a parking brake.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486091#486091
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050692_medium_734.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050687_medium_879.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050551_medium_158.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070060_medium_197.jpeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
| From: | "west1m" <west1m(at)hotmail.com> |
Full Enclosure, I went the ridiculous rout and ordered one from Kolb.
Not a stitch of information on how to install, Ont of the hoops was too long but
I did not figure that out until I had the rivete in the brackets. But all is
well now.
I was surprised at how small my space became. Down right claustrophobic.
It has been to windy and snowy to try out so far.
I thought it might be easier to get in and out of as the plastic by the dash board
comes up giving a bit of clearance for my feet but the bar by my shoulder
makes it harder than it was. seems like you need to be a nine year old gymnast
to get in now.
I would love to see a video of how to do it gracefully with the full enclosure
on a Firefly...
--------
West1m
Hastings, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486092#486092
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/firefly_windshield_140.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
You think it=99s tight on a Firefly? You ought to try it on a original
Firestar. I think it=99s 20 inches wide at the rear of my windshield.
It doesn=99t take long to get use it.
At almost 72, I considered it yoga trying to get in and out. I don=99t
have the rear hoop that you have. I built my own enclosure.
Works great, you=99ll enjoy it.
George H.
Firestar
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 2, 2018, at 4:36 PM, west1m wrote:
>
>
> Full Enclosure, I went the ridiculous rout and ordered one from Kolb.
> Not a stitch of information on how to install, Ont of the hoops was too lo
ng but I did not figure that out until I had the rivete in the brackets. But
all is well now.
> I was surprised at how small my space became. Down right claustrophobic.
> It has been to windy and snowy to try out so far.
> I thought it might be easier to get in and out of as the plastic by the da
sh board comes up giving a bit of clearance for my feet but the bar by my sh
oulder makes it harder than it was. seems like you need to be a nine year ol
d gymnast to get in now.
> I would love to see a video of how to do it gracefully with the full enclo
sure on a Firefly...
>
> --------
> West1m
> Hastings, MN
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486092#486092
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/firefly_windshield_140.jpg
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
No wonder it takes yoga to get in and out of it.
If my airplane was upside down, it would take more than yoga for me to deal with
it...
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486095#486095
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
| From: | "west1m" <west1m(at)hotmail.com> |
Your enclosure without the surround tubing looks great. Just before I went to the
full enclosure I made a taller windshield , about 6 inches taller. The top
wanted to buckle down when up to speed , I had to add an aluminum strap around
the back edge and ran two from that down to the dash. That extra six inches of
windshield alone made a huge difference in the wind. I'm looking forward to
trying out this full enclosure.
--------
West1m
Hastings, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486097#486097
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build/choke tab../enclosure |
Im in process of doing a redesign of my windshield. It works great inflight, but
it shakes around to much when Im taxiing on rough grass strips. Basically the
same, but a canopy design that flips open to the side.
George H
Firestar
Mesick, Michigan
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 3, 2018, at 12:23 AM, west1m wrote:
>
>
> Your enclosure without the surround tubing looks great. Just before I went to
the full enclosure I made a taller windshield , about 6 inches taller. The top
wanted to buckle down when up to speed , I had to add an aluminum strap around
the back edge and ran two from that down to the dash. That extra six inches
of windshield alone made a huge difference in the wind. I'm looking forward to
trying out this full enclosure.
>
> --------
> West1m
> Hastings, MN
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486097#486097
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Jones <planecrazy2020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Camera Video |
Alan, Love your videos and look and listen to Surreal Flight 51 almost
every evening.
Is it possible for you to send Firefly 8 5 18 directly to my email? I
don't understand why you tube removed it from the Kolb List.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
David
Hernando, MS.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:03 AM snowman wrote:
>
> Got a new camera (Sony) , mounted it on the nose . Here's video from
> Saturday's Flight around my Home area in Western Washington ! Enjoy ..
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXdWGjAk6Mw&feature=youtu.be
>
> Alan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482144#482144
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: New Camera Video |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | New Camera Video |
David J/Kolbers:
Didn't know David Jones was still around. Can't be but one DJ in
Hernando, MS. I landed there on my way to Point Barrow, Alaska, at
Olive Branch Airport, MS, on my way north. Bought my lunch at Cracker
Barrel and topped off Miss P'fer with 100LL. Think that was 2000 or 2001
flight. I still think about that and appreciate your kind and generous
gesture. Hope you still have your FS and are flying often.
Come see me. Porch light is on and the door is unlocked.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Jones
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New Camera Video
Alan, Love your videos and look and listen to Surreal Flight 51 almost
every evening.
Is it possible for you to send Firefly 8 5 18 directly to my email? I
don't understand why you tube removed it from the Kolb List.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
David
Hernando, MS.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:03 AM snowman wrote:
Got a new camera (Sony) , mounted it on the nose . Here's video from
Saturday's Flight around my Home area in Western Washington ! Enjoy ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXdWGjAk6Mw
&feature=youtu.be
Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482144#482144
-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrell1020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Camera Video |
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:46 PM David Jones
wrote:
> Alan, Love your videos and look and listen to Surreal Flight 51 almost
> every evening.
>
> Is it possible for you to send Firefly 8 5 18 directly to my email? I
> don't understand why you tube removed it from the Kolb List.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
You tube will not allow you to use any music on their site. I ran into that
problem when I was using You tube, I stopped and began uploading my videos
on Vimeo so that people could see them. As you can plainly see the sound
track can either make or break the video, so it is rather sad that they
have to be so unbending about music. As I understand it, if you bought the
music and are not using it to make money then the copy write laws do not
apply. You tube got burned on it and have a zero tolerance policy about it
now.
Any of you making videos should check Vimeo out. They have a fairly liberal
"free membership", and it is about as hassle free as anything I have seen.
Larry
>
>
>>
>> *The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of
others.*
*If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email
address before sending.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Camera Video |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
The thing to remember is that while you don't monetize your videos, many pe
ople do=2E And regardless of whether anyone else does, youtube monetizes *e
verybody's* videos that get uploaded=2E So the copyright holders of the mus
ic expect their cut when money is made on their music=2E
Example: a frien
d of mine is a singer/ songwriter=2E Another guy (unknown to him) has a you
tube channel where he streams his video game play (not a joke)=2E People *p
ay* (a lot)=C2- to watch him play=2E Early in this guy's career, he start
ed using one of my friend's songs as his intro music=2E So many people watc
h this guy that my friend now gets several grand a month in royalties for t
he 'airtime' of that one song=2E (Think about how much the gamer is making,
to justify paying several grand a month just for intro music=2E=2E=2E)
So
youtube is highly motivated to avoid paying musicians so we can publish th
eir music on our videos=2E :-)
=81=A3Charlie=8B
On Dec 10, 2018,
7:25 PM, at 7:25 PM, Larry Cottrell wrote:
>On
Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:46 PM David Jones
>wro
te:
>
>> Alan, Love your videos and look and listen to Surreal Flight 51
>
almost
>> every evening=2E
>>
>> Is it possible for you to send Firefly 8 5
18 directly to my email?
>I
>> don't understand why you tube removed it f
rom the Kolb List=2E
>>
>>
>-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>>
>
>You tube will not allow you to use any music o
n their site=2E I ran into
>that
>problem when I was using You tube, I stop
ped and began uploading my
>videos
>on Vimeo so that people could see them
=2E As you can plainly see the
>sound
>track can either make or break the v
ideo, so it is rather sad that they
>have to be so unbending about music=2E
As I understand it, if you bought
>the
>music and are not using it to make
money then the copy write laws do
>not
>apply=2E You tube got burned on it
and have a zero tolerance policy about
>it
>now=2E
>
>Any of you making vi
deos should check Vimeo out=2E They have a fairly
>liberal
>"free membershi
p", and it is about as hassle free as anything I have
>seen=2E
>Larry
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intole
rant
>of
>others=2E*
>
>*If you forward this email, or any part of it, plea
se remove my email
>address before sending=2E*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Jones <planecrazy2020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Camera Video |
John,
It's good to hear from you. What a memory you have after 18 years. I liked
my Firestar, but sold it to a friend after a couple of years. I now have a
Kitfox and a Legal Eagle XL. I have a hanger at the North Panola County
Airport which is 40 miles south of Hernando and limits my time to fly.
Thanks for the kind words and I was glad I could help you on your long
trip. If you're ever in our area be sure to stop by and visit the wife and
I.
DJ
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM John Hauck wrote:
> David J/Kolbers:
>
>
> Didn't know David Jones was still around. Can't be but one DJ in
> Hernando, MS. I landed there on my way to Point Barrow, Alaska, at Olive
> Branch Airport, MS, on my way north. Bought my lunch at Cracker Barrel and
> topped off Miss P'fer with 100LL. Think that was 2000 or 2001 flight. I
> still think about that and appreciate your kind and generous gesture. Hope
> you still have your FS and are flying often.
>
>
> Come see me. Porch light is on and the door is unlocked.
>
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
> *From:* owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *David Jones
> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2018 2:43 PM
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: New Camera Video
>
>
> Alan, Love your videos and look and listen to Surreal Flight 51 almost
> every evening.
>
>
> Is it possible for you to send Firefly 8 5 18 directly to my email? I
> don't understand why you tube removed it from the Kolb List.
>
>
> Thanks and keep up the good work.
>
> David
>
> Hernando, MS.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:03 AM snowman wrote:
>
>
> Got a new camera (Sony) , mounted it on the nose . Here's video from
> Saturday's Flight around my Home area in Western Washington ! Enjoy ..
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXdWGjAk6Mw&feature=youtu.be
>
> Alan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482144#482144
>
>
> ==========
> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Firestar 2 Build |
| From: | "loctupdave" <loctupdave(at)att.net> |
Another pic of engine parts.
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/crank_zpso3xafeb9.jpg.html)
Before and after sandblasting
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/before%20sandblast_zps4ymxoij3.jpg.html)
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/after%20sandblast_zpsf4yroomn.jpg.html)
engine partially assembled
(http://s275.photobucket.com/user/dngspot/media/assembled_zpsn1nx3klu.jpg.html)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486242#486242
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2018 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
The 2018 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of
weeks ago and it's time that I published this year's List of Contributors.
It is the people on this list that directly make these Email Lists and Forums
possible! Their generous Contributions keep the servers and Internet connection
up and running!
You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same
time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
And finally, I'm proud to present The 2018 Fund Raiser List of Contributors:
http://www.matronics.com/loc
Thank you again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List & Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Camera Video |
| From: | "snowman" <alredmon(at)centurytel.net> |
Hello David ,
Glad you like my video , If I had your email I could send you a link or you could
go to my Utube channel and see all my Video's , here is the link !
regards Alan
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE5XgW-7J2LYKaOvgk1hJAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486462#486462
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
| From: | "japowell" <japnmjp(at)twc.com> |
To all forum members,
I wish you all a 'VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!!
I have enjoyed reading all of your comments, suggestions, videos and experiences
both in aviation and in your personnel life. I wish you all fair skies and
tail winds thru out the new year. This year has been a bad year for me in health
issues as well as family. To all of you that I spoke with and met, a special
thank you. I have truly been blessed. I hope 2019 brings everyone a blessed
new year.
--------
Jim P
WAR EAGLE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486521#486521
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to my friends on the Kolb List! May 2019 be
filled with flying adventures for us all :)
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 12/23/18, japowell wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, December 23, 2018, 5:11 PM
"japowell"
To all forum members,
I wish you all a 'VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS
AND A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!!
I have enjoyed reading all of your
comments, suggestions, videos and experiences both in
aviation and in your personnel life. I wish you all
fair skies and tail winds thru out the new year. This year
has been a bad year for me in health issues as well as
family. To all of you that I spoke with and met, a
special thank you. I have truly been blessed. I hope 2019
brings everyone a blessed new year.
--------
Jim P
WAR EAGLE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486521#486521
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
| From: | Gary Aman <zeprep251(at)aol.com> |
Merry Christmas Jim,I hope the coming year is much better for you and Mona.Let
us know how youre doing.
> On Dec 23, 2018, at 8:11 PM, japowell wrote:
>
>
> To all forum members,
>
> I wish you all a 'VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!!
>
> I have enjoyed reading all of your comments, suggestions, videos and experiences
both in aviation and in your personnel life. I wish you all fair skies and
tail winds thru out the new year. This year has been a bad year for me in health
issues as well as family. To all of you that I spoke with and met, a special
thank you. I have truly been blessed. I hope 2019 brings everyone a blessed
new year.
>
> --------
> Jim P
> WAR EAGLE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486521#486521
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
Wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas and a safe flying New Year.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
| From: | "west1m" <west1m(at)hotmail.com> |
Merry Christmas to everyone!
Have a wonderful new year.
--------
West1m
Hastings, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486532#486532
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Sidebottom <cloudancer52(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
Thanks John and a Merry Christmas to you and yours!
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 9:05 AM John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas and a safe flying New Year.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!! |
Thank you, John! Have a great Christmas and 2019.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 24, 2018, at 9:03 AM, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
>
> Wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas and a safe flying New Year.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sptom" <Tjweeks(at)cox.net> |
Im considering purchasing a Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N number.
Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but Im doubtful even with the added
weight allowance for a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can be
registered as experimental light sport if I have documentation by the manufacturer
that it meets the 51 percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this doable
or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat ultralight? Thanks in
advance for any advice you can give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1 will be
very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build a Firestar that
genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reason to develop the
Firefly.
The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they really try
to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one of them sees
the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to do something.
They can't look the other way with the number of seats like they can with just
being "fat". With more than one seat they have to treat it like there could be
a passenger injured or killed, flying with an un-licensed "pilot". They just
cannot look the other way when thee "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
Im considering purchasing a
Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have
documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1 will be
very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build a Firestar that
genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reason to develop the
Firefly.
The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they really try
to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one of them sees
the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to do something.
They can't look the other way with the number of seats like they can with just
being "fat". With more than one seat they have to treat it like there could be
a passenger injured or killed, flying with an un-licensed "pilot". They just
cannot look the other way when thee "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
Im considering purchasing a
Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have
documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/2/2019 7:54 PM, Sptom wrote:
>
> Im considering purchasing a Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N number.
Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but Im doubtful even with the added
weight allowance for a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have documentation by the manufacturer
that it meets the 51 percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this doable
or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat ultralight? Thanks in
advance for any advice you can give.
>
No option for registering as light sport; that option for 'fat
ultralites' ended years ago. You *MIGHT* get away with registering as
experimental amateur built, if you can convince an inspector that it
wasn't factory built, and the actual builder built it for 'education and
recreation', without any build logs. (Good luck...)
The one legal path that *might* work (depends on how knowledgeable your
inspector is) is experimental exhibition. No option for a 'repairman's
certificate', but any a&p can sign off the annuals, and you can still do
your own maintenance.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
I dug out the w/b for the James A. Tripp FSII...445 lbs empty... It is likely
a bit heavy(quite a bit??) ...I suspect that the std FSII should come in under
390...long way from 254 however... Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 8:08 PM, Bill Berle wrote:
>
> No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1 will be
very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build a Firestar
that genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reason to develop the
Firefly.
>
> The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they really
try to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one of them sees
the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to do something.
They can't look the other way with the number of seats like they can with just
being "fat". With more than one seat they have to treat it like there could
be a passenger injured or killed, flying with an un-licensed "pilot". They just
cannot look the other way when thee "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom Tjweeks(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
>
> Tjweeks(at)cox.net
>
> Im considering purchasing a
> Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
> number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
> Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
> a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
> be registered as experimental light sport if I have
> documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
> percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
> doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
> ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
> give.
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pfatchantz <Pfatchantz(at)protonmail.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
obviously one can buy paper work from a wrecked plane.. Not sure about the legality
but it is done from time to time..Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 8:51 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> On 1/2/2019 7:54 PM, Sptom wrote:
>
> > Im considering purchasing a Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N number.
Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but Im doubtful even with the added
weight allowance for a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have documentation by the manufacturer
that it meets the 51 percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this doable
or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat ultralight? Thanks in advance
for any advice you can give.
>
> No option for registering as light sport; that option for 'fat
> ultralites' ended years ago. You MIGHT get away with registering as
> experimental amateur built, if you can convince an inspector that it
> wasn't factory built, and the actual builder built it for 'education and
> recreation', without any build logs. (Good luck...)
>
> The one legal path that might work (depends on how knowledgeable your
> inspector is) is experimental exhibition. No option for a 'repairman's
> certificate', but any a&p can sign off the annuals, and you can still do
> your own maintenance.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
| From: | "Sptom" <Tjweeks(at)cox.net> |
Thanks guys! So it must be flown as an ultralight unless one wants to jump through
a bunch of FAA hoops to get a N number which seems like a long shot. I
appreciate you input.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486676#486676
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
Tom do you have any information that this Firestar was built by the Kolb factory?
Or was it built by a customer who bought the kit from Kolb? There may be hope
for you... read on...
The Kolb Firestar KITS sold by the factory have been shown to meet the FAA definition
of an Amateur Built Experimental. So a Kolb built from one of the factory
kits MEETS the FAA's "51%" rule.
If the Kolb factory will furnish you with a letter saying that your Kolb, serial
number XYZ, was sold as a KIT that meets the FAA's guidelines, then that aircraft
will meet the FAA requirements for an amateur built aircraft. The FAA would
very very likely be willing to issue an airworthiness certificate as an E-AB
(Experimental - Amateur Built).
The only added advantage that you would get by proving that YOU built it form that
kit is that you could apply for the "Repairman's Certificate" and do your
own annual Condition Inspection.
However, even if you do not have that repairman certificate, your airplane would
still qualify as an E-AB, get an N number, etc. But you would have to hire an
A&P Mechanic to do the condition inspection.
Now here's the big sand trap you would have to avoid: DO NOT present this to the
FAAA as a flying "Fat Ultralight" that you want to SWITCH over to an E-AB. That
window of opportunity closed many years ago, and trying to do THAT will put
you in regulatory quicksand.
What you need to do is present the situation to the FAA that you bought a Kolb
Firestar 2 project that had been halfway built by one person, and then another
person did some work on it, and then someone else, and then finally you bought
it when it was almost done and you finished it. THEN you basically say to the
FAA that you can NOT honestly claim that you built 51% of it, but that the Kolb
factory has verified that it was originally a 51% kit, so it was in fact "amateur
built". Just not by you. DO NOT EVER say that it flew at any time.
Under this circumstance, the FAA will allow an E-AB certificate of airworthiness
to be issued, and a new N number for it, but they will not allow you to apply
for the repairman certificate.
Without any doubt, the best way to do this is to use an FAA DAR (Designated Airworthiness
Representative) to do the inspections and issue the approval for the
AW certificate. It is well worth the $800-1500 to have a professional DAR do
this.
Once you have applied for an N number with the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch
in Oklahoma City, contact a local FAA-DAR that specializes in new E-AB certificates,
tell them the story about how you bought a project airplane, show them
the letter from Kolb verifying that this was not a factory built airplane, and
have them swim through all the FAA paperwork.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
Im considering purchasing a
Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have
documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
The only option for registration open to you is Experimental Exhibition
which is a lot more restrictive than Experimental Amateur Built. Unless
the Kolb factory creates a Firestar II SLSA and sells a kit the way RV has
done with their model 12 there is no way you can register it as
Experimental Light Sport. That ship sailed in 2008.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:12 PM Bill Berle wrote
:
>
> No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1
> will be very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build
a
> Firestar that genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reaso
n
> to develop the Firefly.
>
> The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they
> really try to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one
of
> them sees the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to
> do something. They can't look the other way with the number of seats like
> they can with just being "fat". With more than one seat they have to trea
t
> it like there could be a passenger injured or killed, flying with an
> un-licensed "pilot". They just cannot look the other way when thee
> "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
>
>
>
> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m considering purchasing a
> Firestar II with a 503. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have an N
> number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m doubtful even with the added weight allowance
for
> a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
> be registered as experimental light sport if I have
> documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
> percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
> doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
> ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
> give.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
Hi Rick,
The FAA liberalized the E E rules a number of years ago, removing the 300nm
radius 'proficiency area' and home airport restrictions. The only practical
distinction from EAB now is that there's no 51% rule for EE (!!) and
there's no 'repairmans' certificate' for annual inspections, but that's
offset by the fact that there's no type certificate, so only an A&P ticket
is needed for annual signoffs (IA ticket not required).
Functionally, at the beginning of each year, you fax the FAA a list of all
the 'events' you (might) plan to attend during the year (compiled from
published calendars). All other flying is for 'proficiency', with only
EAB-style restrictions on where you fly (avoid densely populated areas,
etc).
Charlie
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:32 PM Richard Girard wrote:
> The only option for registration open to you is Experimental Exhibition
> which is a lot more restrictive than Experimental Amateur Built. Unless
> the Kolb factory creates a Firestar II SLSA and sells a kit the way RV ha
s
> done with their model 12 there is no way you can register it as
> Experimental Light Sport. That ship sailed in 2008.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:12 PM Bill Berle
> wrote:
>
>>
>> No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1
>> will be very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build
a
>> Firestar that genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reas
on
>> to develop the Firefly.
>>
>> The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they
>> really try to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one
of
>> them sees the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have t
o
>> do something. They can't look the other way with the number of seats lik
e
>> they can with just being "fat". With more than one seat they have to tre
at
>> it like there could be a passenger injured or killed, flying with an
>> un-licensed "pilot". They just cannot look the other way when thee
>> "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
>>
>> Bill Berle
>> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
>> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
>> for-profit entities
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
>> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m considering purchasing a
>> Firestar II with a 503. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have an N
>> number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
>> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m doubtful even with the added weight allowanc
e for
>> a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
>> be registered as experimental light sport if I have
>> documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
>> percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
>> doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
>> ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
>> give.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Support Your Lists This Month --
>> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>> Fund Raiser. Click on
>> to find out more about
>> Incentive Gifts provided
>> www.mypilotstore.com
>> support!
>>
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
>> Navigator to browse
>> List Un/Subscription,
>> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> via the Web Forums!
>> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
>> Email List Wiki!
>> - List Contribution Web Site -
>> support!
>>
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > e.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.
=9D Groucho Marx
> <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
>
>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around? |
| From: | "13brv3" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
Greetings,
With the rising hangar rent, and eventual hopes for retirement, I'm thinking of
trading my RV-3B in for another SlingShot. Kolb still seems to have the best
folding wing solution, and I prefer the SS to anything else they've made, so
it's a shame they stopped making them.
There's no real hurry, and I'd like to find a damaged or neglected airframe to
restore as a project. The fuselage cage is what I need the most, since the wings
and tail are detailed in the plans. If there were drawings for the fuselage
cage, it would be tempting to make that from scratch also, but there are no
details for the steel weldments.
If anyone happens to know of a cage laying around, let me know. Extra credit points
if it's near East TN :-)
Thanks,
Rusty
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486684#486684
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Neilsen <neilsenrm(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around? |
Have you talked to Brian at Kolb? Are you sure Kolb wouldn't build you a SS.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:45 AM 13brv3 <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> With the rising hangar rent, and eventual hopes for retirement, I'm
> thinking of trading my RV-3B in for another SlingShot. Kolb still seems to
> have the best folding wing solution, and I prefer the SS to anything else
> they've made, so it's a shame they stopped making them.
>
> There's no real hurry, and I'd like to find a damaged or neglected
> airframe to restore as a project. The fuselage cage is what I need the
> most, since the wings and tail are detailed in the plans. If there were
> drawings for the fuselage cage, it would be tempting to make that from
> scratch also, but there are no details for the steel weldments.
>
> If anyone happens to know of a cage laying around, let me know. Extra
> credit points if it's near East TN :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486684#486684
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around? |
| From: | "13brv3" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
neilsenrm(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Have you talked to Brian at Kolb? Are you sure Kolb wouldn't build you a SS.
>
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
>
>
>
Hi Rick,
I didn't specifically ask, but they did confirm that the plans don't show welding
details. I have read that they will sometimes produce out of production parts
at shop rates, but there were also comments that led me to believe that would
be considerably higher than what they used to cost. If that becomes my only
option, I'll ask, but I've got time to look around.
Thanks,
Rusty
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486689#486689
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around? |
Rusty you will NEVER forgive yourself if you sell an RV-3. Trust me, I have never
forgiven myself :)
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 1/3/19, 13brv3 <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around?
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Thursday, January 3, 2019, 6:43 AM
<13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net>
Greetings,
With the rising hangar rent, and
eventual hopes for retirement, I'm thinking of trading my
RV-3B in for another SlingShot. Kolb still seems to
have the best folding wing solution, and I prefer the SS to
anything else they've made, so it's a shame they stopped
making them.
There's no real hurry, and I'd like to
find a damaged or neglected airframe to restore as a
project. The fuselage cage is what I need the most,
since the wings and tail are detailed in the plans. If
there were drawings for the fuselage cage, it would be
tempting to make that from scratch also, but there are no
details for the steel weldments.
If anyone happens to know of a cage
laying around, let me know. Extra credit points if
it's near East TN :-)
Thanks,
Rusty
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486684#486684
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around? |
HA!
If he forgave himself the 1st time....
Charlie
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:33 PM Bill Berle wrote:
>
> Rusty you will NEVER forgive yourself if you sell an RV-3. Trust me, I
> have never forgiven myself :)
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 1/3/19, 13brv3 <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around?
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, January 3, 2019, 6:43 AM
>
> <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Greetings,
>
> With the rising hangar rent, and
> eventual hopes for retirement, I'm thinking of trading my
> RV-3B in for another SlingShot. Kolb still seems to
> have the best folding wing solution, and I prefer the SS to
> anything else they've made, so it's a shame they stopped
> making them.
>
> There's no real hurry, and I'd like to
> find a damaged or neglected airframe to restore as a
> project. The fuselage cage is what I need the most,
> since the wings and tail are detailed in the plans. If
> there were drawings for the fuselage cage, it would be
> tempting to make that from scratch also, but there are no
> details for the steel weldments.
>
> If anyone happens to know of a cage
> laying around, let me know. Extra credit points if
> it's near East TN :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486684#486684
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: anyone know of a SlingShot frame laying around? |
| From: | "13brv3" <13brv3c(at)bellsouth.net> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> HA!
> If he forgave himself the 1st time....
>
>
> Charlie
LOL Probably best not to talk about all the dumb things I've done. It would take
up too much bandwidth :-)
Rusty
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486696#486696
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JOSEPH WRIGHT <mojavjoe(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Guys
If a plane is only used to fly IFR are nav lights required?
joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "3benny3" <the3benny3(at)gmail.com> |
I think you mean VFR, in which case no as long as it is day time vfr.
--------
912ul King Kolbra ;fun plane
O300 Cessna 172B ;travel plane
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486778#486778
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Helton <gdhelton(at)gmail.com> |
I=99m not real sure but I think it just standard nav. lights? I think w
ing tip,tail strobes and top bottom anti-collision lights are recommended? I
=99m sure if you lookup FAA, IFR required equipment regulations it wil
l be there.
I=99ve never of anyone flying a Kolb IFR. Doesn=99t mean it has
n=99t been done though.
George H
Firestar
Mesick, Michigan
14GDH
gdhelton@ gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 1:04 PM, JOSEPH WRIGHT wrote:
>
> Hi Guys
>
>
>
> If a plane is only used to fly IFR are nav lights required?
>
>
>
> joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "west1m" <west1m(at)hotmail.com> |
IFR - I fly Roads?
--------
West1m
Hastings, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486782#486782
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield |
| From: | "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> |
It's done! And now that it's done, I would like to thank the guys on this list
for all their good ideas. I especially like John Hauck's windshield shape and
size, and tried to get as close to it as possible but still use just one piece
of Lexan.
I especially liked Gene Zimmerman's folding arrangement, because I too was having
a terrible time getting in and out w/o bashing the windshield with my feet.
OTOH, Gene's has a full frame and we are trying to keep the weight down and keep
it Part 103 legal. With no frame, it was way too flexible.
So here is the result, pivots in the front, uses minimal hardware, just enough
to keep it in shape. When you pull it down into flight position, a pin fits through
the aft original windshield mounting tab on the fuselage frame, one on each
side.
Once the pins are in place, the lever swings down to keep them from pulling back
out. Locks everything in place.
Had to modify the fairing with big mounting pads to make the windshield pivot points
parallel with the side of the fairing, otherwise the windshield bulged out
with a big gap along the sides.
Now I just need the weather to warm up and calm down, and we can try out the new
windshield and the new engine - we also swapped out the free air 277 for a fan
cooled one. Assuming that everything works OK, then we modify the 277 to dual
ignition.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486857#486857
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070061_medium_316.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070067_medium_192.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070080_medium_182.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070077_medium_996.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070076_medium_142.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070078_medium_210.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070079_medium_178.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070075_medium_446.jpeg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070070_medium_429.jpeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrell1020(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield |
It looks pretty good, and I congratulate you on your design thinking. I had
a version of that type of wind screen when I first got my plane. It might
have been a bit shorter but the wind always hit me just about on my upper
lip. If a fella was wearing a helmet it was no problem, but when I
installed a radio I was too cheap to buy a helmet with sound, so I did
without. You had to stick ear plugs in each nostril to keep the snot from
running up my glasses. :-) A bit hard to clean.
Larry
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:06 PM Richard Pike
wrote:
>
> It's done! And now that it's done, I would like to thank the guys on this
> list for all their good ideas. I especially like John Hauck's windshield
> shape and size, and tried to get as close to it as possible but still use
> just one piece of Lexan.
>
> I especially liked Gene Zimmerman's folding arrangement, because I too was
> having a terrible time getting in and out w/o bashing the windshield with
> my feet. OTOH, Gene's has a full frame and we are trying to keep the weight
> down and keep it Part 103 legal. With no frame, it was way too flexible.
>
> So here is the result, pivots in the front, uses minimal hardware, just
> enough to keep it in shape. When you pull it down into flight position, a
> pin fits through the aft original windshield mounting tab on the fuselage
> frame, one on each side.
>
> Once the pins are in place, the lever swings down to keep them from
> pulling back out. Locks everything in place.
>
> Had to modify the fairing with big mounting pads to make the windshield
> pivot points parallel with the side of the fairing, otherwise the
> windshield bulged out with a big gap along the sides.
>
> Now I just need the weather to warm up and calm down, and we can try out
> the new windshield and the new engine - we also swapped out the free air
> 277 for a fan cooled one. Assuming that everything works OK, then we modify
> the 277 to dual ignition.
>
> --------
> Richard Pike
> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal (Redoing the Firefly windshield)
> Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>
> Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is
> amazing.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486857#486857
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070061_medium_316.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070067_medium_192.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070080_medium_182.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070077_medium_996.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070076_medium_142.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070078_medium_210.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070079_medium_178.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070075_medium_446.jpeg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1070070_medium_429.jpeg
>
>
--
*The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of
others.*
*If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email
address before sending.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield |
How gross! ;-)
I did design mine a little different. There's 4130 bow with tabs to
mount the instrument panel and fairing. The new brace moved the
instrument panel rearward about 18 inches or more closer to the pilot.
That full bow was necessary to keep the air stream from trying to
flatten the windshield. I kept the same angle as the nose pod to make
it a little more aerodynamic. The small 5" fairing came after a flight
to the Flight Farm in Monterey, NY, 1988. I had to wear a David Clark
cloth helmet and wear goggles because the wind stream hit me right in
the face. I eventually lost all the hide off my nose and between the
top of the goggles and the bottom rim of the helmet from sun and wind
burn. In 1989, I flew the FS back to the Flight Farm and OSH with the
fairing. No sweat on losing hide. I wore a baseball cap and my sun
glasses. Much nicer and got a couple more mph cruise speed out of the
447. The new fairing kicked the wind right over the top of the wing.
I also included a photo of Homer's windshield on the 1985 Oshkosh Grand
Champion UL he rebuilt after many years. Dick Rahill crashed it at OSH
1989. Stalled making a tight steep descending turn on final. I have a
snap shot of him crashing. I took it while sitting in the cockpit of my
FS at the approach end of the airstrip.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Cottrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Firefly / Firestar windshield
It looks pretty good, and I congratulate you on your design thinking. I
had a version of that type of wind screen when I first got my plane. It
might have been a bit shorter but the wind always hit me just about on
my upper lip. If a fella was wearing a helmet it was no problem, but
when I installed a radio I was too cheap to buy a helmet with sound, so
I did without. You had to stick ear plugs in each nostril to keep the
snot from running up my glasses. :-) A bit hard to clean.
Larry
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:06 PM Richard Pike
wrote:
It's done! And now that it's done, I would like to thank the guys on
this list for all their good ideas. I especially like John Hauck's
windshield shape and size, and tried to get as close to it as possible
but still use just one piece of Lexan.
I especially liked Gene Zimmerman's folding arrangement, because I too
was having a terrible time getting in and out w/o bashing the windshield
November 11, 2018 - January 19, 2019
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-pf