Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:33 AM - Re: Second Chantz (SR3SA2L1@aol.com)
2. 05:31 AM - Rambling on (Ed Steuber)
3. 06:26 AM - Re: gascolators (dixieshack@webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford))
4. 06:32 AM - Michigan trip (Jim)
5. 06:43 AM - Re: engines (Tiffany Pitra)
6. 07:44 AM - Re: Second Chantz (Christopher Armstrong)
7. 08:13 AM - Re: Re: gascolators message of Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:56:27 -0800 (Christopher Armstrong)
8. 08:23 AM - Re: Second Chantz (Christopher Armstrong)
9. 10:26 AM - covering (Clay Stuart)
10. 10:26 AM - Your Plane and Horsepower Requirements. (Jack & Louise Hart)
11. 11:03 AM - gascolator vs top-fed tanks (Jim Gerken)
12. 11:44 AM - Re: Second Chantz (ul15rhb@juno.com)
13. 12:12 PM - Re: covering (snuffy@usol.com)
14. 02:15 PM - Re: covering (John Hauck)
15. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: gascolators (Richard Pike)
16. 03:00 PM - Re: 912S Complete engine package for Kolb (DCBooth)
17. 04:12 PM - Re: Second Chantz (Gary robert voigt)
18. 04:58 PM - Re: Second Chantz (ul15rhb@juno.com)
19. 05:32 PM - Re: covering (John Hauck)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: SR3SA2L1@aol.com
Ralph,
Was there some kind of toggle or botton to set off the chutes with the
electronic detonation system or did it have a regular "T" type handle with a
safty pin like the percussion ignition ones? If they both look alike, how do
you tell which one you have? Hope that is not a stupid question but I have
only seen one type of these ( the one I own).
Steve
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ed Steuber" <esteuber@rochester.rr.com>
Kolbers,
There is a lot of money in Aviation...I know ...I put it there !
I have to agree with the thinking that changing to a different engine
is a monumental problem compared to something tried and true. Been there not
only with experimentals but standard category and restricted category types.
I salute you all but I have a theory that I never buy anything unless it's 5
years on the market with a good track record.....keeps me from being a "test"
pilot. If every body did what I believe we would all be waiting for the wheel
to be invented.
And that brings me to my project , the old Ultrastar relic { 18 years
old} I have begun rebuilding.....I will give you an update ..... I know some
of you are soured (understatement of the year} on the Cuyuna engines but I have
found a good engine ,reduction ,propellar combination for the US.... 2SI makes
a 2.5 to 1 cog belt drive {reasonably priced} that fits the old UL 202 as
well as the new 2SI engines... mate this with the 3 blade 50 inch diameter Warp
Drive ground adjustable and you get a good performing combo that eliminates
all the resonant vibes and gearbox clatter at lower rpm's. So far it has run
on a previously owned US about 100 hours with no problems.
I don't have any problems with making an airframe change as long as
it is well thought out and I don't use much SWAG ( scientific wild-ass guessing}.
The only thing I am changing is the landing gear and the fuselage forward
of the back of the seat. I already made a centerline stick with firefly type
front end that flew well. There is a picture in the archives if anybody is interested...it
was taken before the switch to the cog belt and 3 blade prop. I am
planning on changing the gear to fiberglass legs with steel sockets and getting
a bit more ground clearance although the last US was OK with the stock gear
but with 600x8 tires.
I hope to be flying by late spring with 2 other Ultrastars in the
area .A new guy to the list just contacted me and has a US that was delivered
by Homer...You out there AL ?
Ed in Western NY
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
message of Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:56:27 -0800
--> Kolb-List message posted by: dixieshack@webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford)
Isn't the best place for a gascolator in the lowest part (sump) of
your fuel tank? I would think if you located it in the fuel supply
line, a certain amount of water suspended in the fuel could get through.
Let's say you had a quantity of water laying in the bottom of your
tank......your gascolator is located in the line going to the
pump/carbs.....you drain the gascolator and check the sample....no
water.
Do your walk-around and fire up. Isn' that water accumulation in the
sump sooner or later going to be drawn into the fuel system due to
attitude or sheer volume? The gascolator had been drained and had shown
clean fuel, yet you have the possibility of carrying some in the tank
that could give you a slug of pure water at any time.
My FS sits slightly tail low on the ground which puts the rear of
the tank low, which in turn, becomes a sump. With my top pickup and
fuel-line gascolator, I'm still gonna look in the top of the tank to
see if I can see any silver "marbles."
Fire away.....
Merry Christmas to all you guys
Mike in WV
do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim" <flykolb@carolina.rr.com>
I will be going to Oak Park, right outside of Detroit, over the holidays. Any Kolbs
nearby or interesting ultralight airports I could visit while there?
Jim
Mark III
Charlotte, NC
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Tiffany Pitra <tif_qtra@yahoo.com>
I live in minneasota and up here people run the piss out of these 2 stroks with
every kind of 2cycle oil you can think of in snowmobles.They maybe running them
rich .We can go from +50degs to -40degs they don't seem to have much hassel.Snowmobles
run higher rpm than the A/C type.Maybe we all be better of using
snowmoble rotax they are a whole lot cheaper .Used 503 rotax and major it compelete
$1000. Quentin Pitra tif_qtra@yahoo.com
John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com> wrote:--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck
> If Rotax would put a good fuel injection system on
> them you would probably never hear of engine seasures... Still dont know why
> they havven't done that.
> Topher
Topher/Gents:
The outboard motor industry went fuel injection on
their two strokes. Still have the same problems
we suffer with ours. Sticking rings, scored and
seized pistons, wrist pin bearings, crank shaft
bearings.
Brings up the old question to me: "Well, why does
my old 1965 Johson 18 hp outboard still run like
Hell everytime I asked it to, and my weed eater,
and hair dryer, powered tooth brush? They never
seize. Run cheap two stroke oil in them. No
maintenance."
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
I
---------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
Forgot to ask who manufactured your electric
system?
john h
that was the first thing that BRS came out with. Very quickly they went to
the mechanical system.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: gascolators message of Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:56:27 |
-0800
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
The gascolator actively removes the water and other junk from the fuel as it
goes past on the way to the carb. so it makes no differance where you draw
from, or even if the gascolator is the lowest part of the system, the
gascolator bowl is the low part of the gascolator and the water stops there.
if it is the low part of the system then the water can get there as it
settles out of the gas, which is a good idea and so that is how you should
build the system. if you have enough water in the fuel to completely fill
the gascolator bowl then the water will continue on to the carb, so a bigger
bowl is better. you drain the gascolator of contaminates and water before
each flight so you would have to have one big load of water to fill it up.
the new water separating filters also work extreamly well, and prevent any
possibility of water getting to the carb. they cost 150 and are probably
worth it if you leave your plane out in the rain.
Topher
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
SR3SA2L1@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Second Chantz
--> Kolb-List message posted by: SR3SA2L1@aol.com
Ralph,
Was there some kind of toggle or botton to set off the chutes with the
electronic detonation system or did it have a regular "T" type handle with a
safty pin like the percussion ignition ones? If they both look alike, how
do
you tell which one you have? Hope that is not a stupid question but I have
only seen one type of these ( the one I own).
Steve
on the BRS there was a little black box with batteries and some LEDs and a
button to press to test the system. the fire handle was a t-handle but it
simply pulled a mini headset type plug out of a jack, breaking a circuit
that fired the system.
The instructions said to treat it like a loaded gun at all times, and we
did, it scared the crap out of me to press the test button.
topher
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart@adelphia.net>
From Woody's quote:
"I did mine a bit different from the book. I attached the hinges
permanently first and then when I covered I put little slots in the fabric
where the hinge ears stick out. I think it looks a lot better than sticking
the hinges on the outside of the fabric. It is a fast and simple operation
to make those little slits as long as you have a new blade in your cutting
knife. You will probably change the fabric before the hinges "
This sounds good. Any problem with checking the security of the
rivets/hinges on your
pre-flight with this configuration?
Thanks,
Clay Stuart
Mark IIIXtra S/N21
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Your Plane and Horsepower Requirements. |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
Vince,
If you have a pitch adjustable propeller, the engine manufacturer's horsepower/rpm
curves can be used to determine how much horsepower is required to push your
plane through the air at various engine speeds. The thing to remember is that
the only place you can get an accurate indication of true horsepower out of
your engine is at the point where the propeller will not let the engine turn
any faster in level flight as you increase throttle opening. At this engine
rpm the propeller is absorbing all the power the engine output. At any slower
engine rpm with less throttle opening and with the propeller set at the same
pitch as before the propeller will absorb less engine horsepower than shown on
the horsepower/rpm curve.
The way to determine how well your plane will fly on reduced horsepower it to increase
the pitch of the propeller a little and then fly it again to see what
rpm the engine tops out, what speed you are flying and then check the engine horsepower/rpm
curve to find out how much horsepower was required. I cranked all
the pitch I could into a 60 inch IVO two blade prop on the 447, and I discovered
I could cruise at 60+ mph, and maximum engine rpm was 5400. At this speed
the engine can only put out 34 horsepower.
With propeller set at 5400 rpm max, the FireFly could maintain level flight at
4000 rpm, which means that the FireFly was flying with an engine output of less
than 17 horsepower.
One note of warning. If you are going to try this, be prepared for reduced climb
out rates. With the propeller pitched to hold the Rotax 447 to 5400 rpm maximum
gave a FireFly climb rate of about 300 fpm.
A slow day, except for the wind.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
do not archive
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | gascolator vs top-fed tanks |
12/18/2002 01:02:31 PM
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Gerken" <gerken@us.ibm.com>
>Time: 04:39:18 PM PST US
>From: tom sabean <sabean@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Kolb-List: Gascolator
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: tom sabean <sabean@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Followed the gascolator thread from last week with interest as I am in
>the process of installing the fuel system on my Mk111Xtra. Was wondering
>how effective it would be when using a top fed system as per the Kolb
>plans.
>Any comments?
>Thanks
>Tom Sabean
Tom, if you are talking about the stock Kolb top fed solution as I built it
per the plans, with the fuel fittings drilled thru holes in the TOP OF THE
TANKS, and dip tubes running down into the fuel, I will give you an
opinion. The above stock solution routes the dip tibes to within 1/2 to
3/4 inch from the bottom of the tanks, giving you a water trap of about a
half gallon total in the bottom of the two tanks. This initially works
quite well (higher capacity for water than any gascolator) to keep the fuel
to the carbs free of the seperated water. However, sooner or later you
will want to get the suspected water off the bottom of the tanks. To clean
the tank bottoms of the inevitable water and crud, make yourself a "vacuum"
from a squeeze primer, some 6-8 feet of fuel hose, and a 2 foot pc of
copper tube or similar on the suction end. When the tanks are low anyway
(for visibility reasons), stick the copper dip tube into the tank thru the
fill cap hole and pump the squeeze primer till fuel flows out, routing it
to a gas can. If you can see down into the tank, look in there and steer
the copper dip tube around to each corner, collecting the crud and
sediment, all the while you will be collecting water even if you can't see
it. Do both tanks, taking out a gallon or so. Now you are water free. Do
this every few fill-ups. Use the fuel you remove in your car or lawn
mower.
If you had also installed a gascolator, water removal from the gascolator
would be easy and quick, simply open the valve and examine the contents.
BUT you would still have some unknown quantity of water possibly collecting
in the bottom of your tanks, unless you use the dangling pickup screens on
the ends of your dip tubes. Using these danglers or any tank pickup which
comes off the bottom of the tank instead of the top practically ensures you
will be able to pick up the water off the bottom of the tanks, so it
requires a gascolator. Your choice.
I don't run a seperate gascolator, I use the tanks as described above,
top mounted pickup tubes 3/4 inch from bottom, vacuum clean every few
tanks. I fly in Minnesota, very high humidity. Have not had any problems.
Jim Gerken
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ul15rhb@juno.com
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:31:50 EST SR3SA2L1@aol.com writes:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: SR3SA2L1@aol.com
>
> Ralph,
>
> Was there some kind of toggle or botton to set off the chutes with
> the
> electronic detonation system or did it have a regular "T" type
> handle with a
> safty pin like the percussion ignition ones? If they both look
> alike, how do
> you tell which one you have? Hope that is not a stupid question but
> I have
> only seen one type of these ( the one I own).
>
> Steve
Steve,
I'm almost positive the electronic firing parachutes had the T-handle.
I'm not an expert on this so you might ask the BRS people about it.
Ralph
Original Firestar
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: snuffy@usol.com
> -- Kolb-List message posted by: "Clay Stuart"
tcstuart@adelphia.net
>
> From Woody's quote:
>
> "I did mine a bit different from the book. I attached the hinges
> permanently first and then when I covered I put little slots in the
fabric
> where the hinge ears stick out. I think it looks a lot better than
sticking
> the hinges on the outside of the fabric. It is a fast and simple
operation
> to make those little slits as long as you have a new blade in your
cutting
> knife. You will probably change the fabric before the hinges "
>
Sounds like a good idea. I would think that it would also re-enforce
the hinges and give the rivets a bit more protection from the
elements.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> Sounds like a good idea. I would think that it would also re-enforce
> the hinges and give the rivets a bit more protection from the
> elements. Snuffy
Snuffy/Gang/
Have you ever covered the wing and attached hinges
per the instructions? If not, you ought to try
it. Personally, I think that is the way I do it.
As for fabric reinforcing the hinges and giving
the rivets more protection? I don't think so.
For some reason, maybe just my airplanes, but
occassionally a pop rivet head will seperate on
the hinges, sometimes I get them on the upper
vertical stabilizer attachments too. If the rivet
is conveniently covered up, you won't know it.
Maybe that is no big deal for some, but I just as
soon drill them out and replace.
I also know from practical experience on a lot of
Kolb wings, mine, that I have covered and
recovered, it is extremely difficult to get slit
fits to look anywhere neat enough (for me anyhow)
or for most aircraft judges. The slit fit I am
talking about is the one around the lift strut
tang. Might be even harder to do correctly on all
those hinges.
To each his own,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@preferred.com>
Tim (Timandjan@aol.com) brought up a similar thought in a separate post and
you are right.
When the gascolator is fed from a tube running out the lowest part of the
tank, the water ought to slowly migrate down into the gascolator and get
separated out, should show up on preflight. But when the pickup tube runs
out the top of the tank, then the water has to separate out while the
engine/fuel pump is running, and the fuel/water is flowing. If your
gascolator is not very big and you have a lot of water, you are still going
to be in trouble.
Also, your pickup needs to go all the way down to the lowest bottom corner
of the tank, or else there will always be a layer of water that never gets
sucked out. Before I went to my present system, I used a pickup of a bent
metal tube brazed to a big flat washer (would just barely fit through the
gas cap opening), one end attached to the flex tube, and on out the top,
the other end was short and had a finger strainer on it, the big heavy flat
washer keeping it in position there, the finger strainer laying right on
the bottom of the tank.
A buddy of mine has a similar thing on his Drifter, except he just uses a
couple big lug nuts or similar on the end of his fuel pickup line, just
above the strainer, anything to keep the pickup on the tank bottom..
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 09:25 AM 12/18/02 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: dixieshack@webtv.net (Mike and Dixie
>Shackelford)
>
> Isn't the best place for a gascolator in the lowest part (sump) of
>your fuel tank? I would think if you located it in the fuel supply
>line, a certain amount of water suspended in the fuel could get through.
>Let's say you had a quantity of water laying in the bottom of your
>tank......your gascolator is located in the line going to the
>pump/carbs.....you drain the gascolator and check the sample....no
>water.
>Do your walk-around and fire up. Isn' that water accumulation in the
>sump sooner or later going to be drawn into the fuel system due to
>attitude or sheer volume? The gascolator had been drained and had shown
>clean fuel, yet you have the possibility of carrying some in the tank
>that could give you a slug of pure water at any time.
> My FS sits slightly tail low on the ground which puts the rear of
>the tank low, which in turn, becomes a sump. With my top pickup and
>fuel-line gascolator, I'm still gonna look in the top of the tank to
>see if I can see any silver "marbles."
>
>Fire away.....
>
>Merry Christmas to all you guys
>Mike in WV
>
>do not archive
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912S Complete engine package for Kolb |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: DCBooth <JetDr2@attglobal.net>
John Russell wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Russell" <jr@rometool.com>
>
> I have a Kolb SlingShot that I have considered parting out in units.
>
> Engine package would include-912S with 126 hours, Titan stainless exhaust,
> 4" custom prop
> extention with 3 blade 72" warp prop and spinner, rotax oil cooler and
> coolant radiater, all throttle and choke cables, EIS with harness with
> remote switches, basically everything needed in an installation on a Kolb.
>
> BRS top mount cannister, I will need to check on ratings, 2 years old.
>
> Complete airframe, beautifully built and never damaged, aerothane finish,
> tundra tired, matco brakes, 6" swivel tail wheel.
>
> Every thing is in excellent shape and well maintained.
>
> If by chance there is an interest you can contact me off list at
> jr@rometool.com
>
Tell me more about the airframe and send some pics if possible..........
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Gary robert voigt" <johndeereantique@qwest.net>
When i went to BRS about a year ago i had a system that needed a repack, update
to
the new model 5 and a repack... i asked them if i could use the old rocket and
just go
with the repack and update but they said the rocket might not work being it was
out of
date and old.... they told me when they design rocket fuel they can manufacture
it to
become stable or unstable for x number of years....if you want a rocket to last
25 years
or so you just add a certain ingredient to do so....although they mentioned it
would
cost thousands more so it would not be practical to do so in this market. yes
i was in
sales too and they get you one way or another.... they got me for $1469.00 for
the
repack,update and new rocket....and a little piece of mind...and i would pay anything
for
that.
Gary r. voigt
p.s. the lakes were frozen and now are melting and the grass greened up a little
today because of the rain.
Richard Swiderski wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> > > John & gang. The unit I am using and have questions about has a
> > > solid fuel rocket
> > > Bob Griffin
> >
> > Bob/Gents:
> >
> > Yep, I also have one, solid fuel, manufactured in
> > 1992. It is on the sun porch in a box gathering
> > dust.
> >
> > No way to do a "go/no go" test on them. Not much
> > comfort in that.
> >
> > john h
> >
> > I was told by a vendor that tha rocket motors have a virtually 100% fire
> rate even after sitting for years past the expiration date on a barn shelf.
> Personally, I can not verify a single motor mafunctionaing. They were built
> by the military to operate in to scenarios. Anyone elses hear this talk?
>
> Richard Swiderski
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ul15rhb@juno.com
Gary,
I did 9 takeoffs and landings out on Cooks Bay this year so far. The ice
will be good in January, don't worry. Winter is not over yet.
Ralph
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:08:38 -0600 "Gary robert voigt"
<johndeereantique@qwest.net> writes:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Gary robert voigt"
> <johndeereantique@qwest.net>
>
> When i went to BRS about a year ago i had a system that needed
> a repack, update to
> the new model 5 and a repack... i asked them if i could use the old
> rocket and just go
> with the repack and update but they said the rocket might not work
> being it was out of
> date and old.... they told me when they design rocket fuel they can
> manufacture it to
> become stable or unstable for x number of years....if you want a
> rocket to last 25 years
> or so you just add a certain ingredient to do so....although they
> mentioned it would
> cost thousands more so it would not be practical to do so in this
> market. yes i was in
> sales too and they get you one way or another.... they got me for
> $1469.00 for the
> repack,update and new rocket....and a little piece of mind...and i
> would pay anything for
> that.
>
> Gary r. voigt
> p.s. the lakes were frozen and now are melting and the grass
> greened up a little
> today because of the rain.
>
> Richard Swiderski wrote:
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
> <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> > > > John & gang. The unit I am using and have questions
> about has a
> > > > solid fuel rocket
> > > > Bob Griffin
> > >
> > > Bob/Gents:
> > >
> > > Yep, I also have one, solid fuel, manufactured in
> > > 1992. It is on the sun porch in a box gathering
> > > dust.
> > >
> > > No way to do a "go/no go" test on them. Not much
> > > comfort in that.
> > >
> > > john h
> > >
> > > I was told by a vendor that tha rocket motors have a virtually
> 100% fire
> > rate even after sitting for years past the expiration date on a
> barn shelf.
> > Personally, I can not verify a single motor mafunctionaing. They
> were built
> > by the military to operate in to scenarios. Anyone elses hear this
> talk?
> >
> > Richard Swiderski
> >
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> Have you ever covered the wing and attached hinges
> per the instructions? If not, you ought to try
> it. Personally, I think that is the way I do it.
Hi Ya'll:
Got to start proofreading. The last sentence
above should have read: "Personally, that is the
way I do it."
Now............That sounds better. :-)
john h
Do Not Archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|