Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:27 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (PATRICK LADD)
2. 04:50 AM - Aviation regressing (Edward Steuber)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (GeoR38@aol.com)
4. 07:28 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (Giovanni Day)
5. 09:47 AM - Re:water in fuel system after rain. (Frank Reynen)
6. 10:11 AM - Re: Re:water in fuel system after rain. (Charlie England)
7. 10:18 AM - Re: Re:water in fuel system after rain. (Edward Chmielewski)
8. 10:28 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (Charlie England)
9. 10:57 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (Charlie England)
10. 11:01 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (Charlie England)
11. 11:12 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em-- aka kilos vs pounds (Bob N.)
12. 11:34 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (PATRICK LADD)
13. 01:27 PM - Resevoir oil depletion (Tomsplane@aol.com)
14. 03:24 PM - Re: Resevoir oil depletion (John Hauck)
15. 04:56 PM - Re: Don't knock 'em-- aka kilos vs pounds (russkinne)
16. 11:45 PM - Dimensions Kolb MK3 ? (pollus)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
You may be correct for those who hold a pilot certificate. But AC103-7
outlines the USA
world of flying for the rest of us who for some reason haven't or can't
obtain a pilot
certificate.>>
Hi Jack
Being a Limey I am not familiar with that. Does that mean that you do not
have to be tested to get a pilots license or just that AC103-7 defines an
ultralight?
In either case I can only say `Lucky You`. We just do not have that room for
manouvre. In the early days we were totally unregulated but after a series
of crashes and a few fatalities, all rather much at the same time so that it
seemed from the newspapers that we were dying like flies, authority stepped
in.
Things could have been made much worse, but as it was we were allowed to set
up a self regulating body to administer the sport and a specification was
threshed out defining an ultralight. Mainly a weight and wing loading and
stalling speed. The object being to stop `lead sleds` being developed which
the decidedly amateur pilots could not handle. A limited pilots license was
introduced which entitled you to fly ultralights only. No regulations were
introduced about where ,how fast, how high you could fly. Ultra were treated
exactly as any other aircraft .
Over the years the spec. about what constitutes an ultralight has changed
and as we have integrated more with Europe the accepted weight has crept up
until it is now 480kilo including 2/90 kilo pilots and fuel. With 2/90 kilo
pilots plus a bit of gear there sometimes is not much weight left for fuel.
!!!!!!
Each a/c type has to be approved and must conform to specified noise levels.
This is a nuisance but noisy a/c were the main complaint used by the anti
flying lobby and without curtailing the noise we might have been put out of
business completely. The complaints were justified too. 2 strokes at full
throttle doing 35 mph at 800 ft could play hob with your Sunday siesta in
the garden. Now we fly higher faster and more quietly.
A Europe wide agreement about an ultrlight spec. has also allowed the
development of a healthy growth industry building aircraft which can be
exported Continent wide.
The downside has been the lack of individual experimentation because if you
changed something, prop, engine, exhaust etc., it probably invalidated the
`approval` or the noise certificate. So you see. Swings and roundabouts.
There are still a lot of pilots who would like the return of the
untrammelled early days but it aint going to happen.
Still, while people can still fly their Quicksilvers and Weedhoppers and get
that old kick thats great, but like driving vintage cars, its great fun but
you wouldnt want to go `sea to shining sea` in one. Yeah, alright I know
that you CAN and some people do but as Jimmy Buffet said `There are
fruitcakes in the ....`
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet.com
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Aviation regressing |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber@rochester.rr.com>
Ray,
I agree completely ...aircraft have been a circle for me, too. Started
with low and slow and kept inching up speed and horsepower . When I started ,ultralights
did not exist. But I think I found what I was originally looking for
in the true ultralights ...My modified Ultrastar with the Cuyuna is perfect
for my use, although I just picked up a wrecked 86 Cgs Hawk with a Cuyuna that
seized causing the wreck.....Rebuilding it for my Marine son ,now in Iraq outside
Fallujah....Is he safer there than flying a Cuyuna here?........lets take
a poll !
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 11/7/2004 6:27:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pj.ladd@btinternet.com writes:
Hi Jack
Being a Limey I am not familiar with that. Does that mean that you do not
have to be tested to get a pilots license or just that AC103-7 defines an
ultralight?
In either case I can only say `Lucky You`. We just do not have that room for
manouvre. In the early days we were totally unregulated but after a series
of crashes and a few fatalities, all rather much at the same time so that it
seemed from the newspapers that we were dying like flies, authority stepped
in.
Things could have been made much worse, but as it was we were allowed to set
up a self regulating body to administer the sport and a specification was
threshed out defining an ultralight. Mainly a weight and wing loading and
stalling speed. The object being to stop `lead sleds` being developed which
the decidedly amateur pilots could not handle. A limited pilots license was
introduced which entitled you to fly ultralights only. No regulations were
introduced about where ,how fast, how high you could fly. Ultra were treated
exactly as any other aircraft .
Over the years the spec. about what constitutes an ultralight has changed
and as we have integrated more with Europe the accepted weight has crept up
until it is now 480kilo including 2/90 kilo pilots and fuel. With 2/90 kilo
pilots plus a bit of gear there sometimes is not much weight left for fuel.
!!!!!!
Geeez PJ, at 2.2 lbs per kilo that means you can only have a plane that
weighs 218 lbs....is that right??!! I thought you guys were up in the 300's
somewhere for your "microlights"! And I was always feeling sorry for us at 254
Lbs + around 26 more for a parachute. I know we have an obesity epidemic over
here but you guys aren't THAT skinny are you? And what does 2/90 kilo pilot
and fuel mean?
now I gotta practice my Abiyoyo by pete Seeger
yer bud
George Randolph
Firestar driver from the villages, fl
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: "Giovanni Day" <gde01@bellsouth.net>
George,
I think your math is off a bit 480kg x 2.2lbs is 1056lbs. Sorry I just
had to point that out. :) I think he means with 2x90kg pilots, they have
300kg or 660lbs left for the plane. My MKIII comes in at 520lbs empty so
it would qualify and have room for fuel and cargo.
Giovanni
MKIII/912 80566
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GeoR38@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Don't knock 'em
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 11/7/2004 6:27:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pj.ladd@btinternet.com writes:
Hi Jack
Being a Limey I am not familiar with that. Does that mean that you do
not
have to be tested to get a pilots license or just that AC103-7 defines
an
ultralight?
In either case I can only say `Lucky You`. We just do not have that
room for
manouvre. In the early days we were totally unregulated but after a
series
of crashes and a few fatalities, all rather much at the same time so
that it
seemed from the newspapers that we were dying like flies, authority
stepped
in.
Things could have been made much worse, but as it was we were allowed
to set
up a self regulating body to administer the sport and a specification
was
threshed out defining an ultralight. Mainly a weight and wing loading
and
stalling speed. The object being to stop `lead sleds` being developed
which
the decidedly amateur pilots could not handle. A limited pilots license
was
introduced which entitled you to fly ultralights only. No regulations
were
introduced about where ,how fast, how high you could fly. Ultra were
treated
exactly as any other aircraft .
Over the years the spec. about what constitutes an ultralight has
changed
and as we have integrated more with Europe the accepted weight has
crept up
until it is now 480kilo including 2/90 kilo pilots and fuel. With 2/90
kilo
pilots plus a bit of gear there sometimes is not much weight left for
fuel.
!!!!!!
Geeez PJ, at 2.2 lbs per kilo that means you can only have a plane that
weighs 218 lbs....is that right??!! I thought you guys were up in the
300's
somewhere for your "microlights"! And I was always feeling sorry for us
at 254
Lbs + around 26 more for a parachute. I know we have an obesity epidemic
over
here but you guys aren't THAT skinny are you? And what does 2/90 kilo
pilot
and fuel mean?
now I gotta practice my Abiyoyo by pete Seeger
yer bud
George Randolph
Firestar driver from the villages, fl
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re:water in fuel system after rain. |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Frank Reynen" <frank_reynen@ix.netcom.com>
List,
It has rained a lot the last 3 weeks in this area (No Calif) and I have my
MKIII/912 still tied up outside.
My problems is that somehow water collects into the fuel system after a
rainstorm has passed through the area.
The tanks have sealed caps with remote vents but were not topped off when it
rained.The fuel pick-up is about 1/2" above tank bottoms.
No sign of water was found in the tank bottoms during preflight.
After about a half hour in flight the 912 engine began to lose several
hundred RPM for a second or so and this continued every few minutes just
like it did
last week.
When I got back home I found again several CC's of water in both carb bowls
right up to the level were the fuel jet projects into the bowl.
After cleaning out the bowls continued flying did not cause further
problems.
I use premium autogas and ALWAYS use a Mr funnel and never find water in the
funnel after filling the tanks.
I visually check the tanks through the fill hole and empty the carb bowls
and they look clean (meaning no water present) during preflight.
I do not have a drain valve installed.
The second time this happened I had also flushed the fuel lines by running
the booster pump without the bowls installed.
Somehow water collects in the fuel not visible to the eye and slowly
collects in the carb bowls untill the level gets high enough to get ingested
a little at a time causing the drops in rpm.
I intend to install a fuel drain during this winter's lay-up but has
anybody else seen this behavior?
Anything I have overlooked?
In 870 hrs and thirteen years of flying this plane I have never experienced
this as normally the plane goes into the garage for the winter
before big rainstorms hit the area.
Frank Reynen MKIIIc/912/full Lotus floats.
www.webcom.com/reynen/mkiii
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re:water in fuel system after rain. |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Frank Reynen wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Frank Reynen" <frank_reynen@ix.netcom.com>
>
>List,
>It has rained a lot the last 3 weeks in this area (No Calif) and I have my
>MKIII/912 still tied up outside.
>My problems is that somehow water collects into the fuel system after a
>rainstorm has passed through the area.
>The tanks have sealed caps with remote vents but were not topped off when it
>rained.The fuel pick-up is about 1/2" above tank bottoms.
>No sign of water was found in the tank bottoms during preflight.
>After about a half hour in flight the 912 engine began to lose several
>hundred RPM for a second or so and this continued every few minutes just
>like it did
>last week.
>When I got back home I found again several CC's of water in both carb bowls
>right up to the level were the fuel jet projects into the bowl.
>After cleaning out the bowls continued flying did not cause further
>problems.
>
>I use premium autogas and ALWAYS use a Mr funnel and never find water in the
>funnel after filling the tanks.
>I visually check the tanks through the fill hole and empty the carb bowls
>and they look clean (meaning no water present) during preflight.
>I do not have a drain valve installed.
>The second time this happened I had also flushed the fuel lines by running
>the booster pump without the bowls installed.
>Somehow water collects in the fuel not visible to the eye and slowly
>collects in the carb bowls untill the level gets high enough to get ingested
> a little at a time causing the drops in rpm.
>I intend to install a fuel drain during this winter's lay-up but has
>anybody else seen this behavior?
>Anything I have overlooked?
>In 870 hrs and thirteen years of flying this plane I have never experienced
>this as normally the plane goes into the garage for the winter
>before big rainstorms hit the area.
>
>Frank Reynen MKIIIc/912/full Lotus floats.
>
>www.webcom.com/reynen/mkiii
>
Gasohol can hide water content in fuel (alcohol absorbs the water).
Do you check your fuel for alcohol content?
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:water in fuel system after rain. |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Edward Chmielewski" <edchmiel@mindspring.com>
Hi Frank/Kolbers,
To have this happen is entirely normal. The water is forming after the
airplane is hangared. The three
elements working to induce water are the temperature change, high humidity, and
partially-filled tanks. Condensation
forms in the tanks from the temp/humidity changes. The best preventive is to keep
the tanks filled, as even the normal
day/night temperature variations can cause condensation. On small aircraft, after
I sump the drains I also shake each
wing if the craft hasn't been flown for a week or so. Many production aircraft
have baffles in the tanks that act as
water reservoirs, the shaking at least redistributes some of the trapped water
and resuspends it in the gas.
Most prudent thing is to fill the tank when hangaring, which allows very
little condensation to occur.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reynen" <frank_reynen@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re:water in fuel system after rain.
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Frank Reynen" <frank_reynen@ix.netcom.com>
<Snip>
> My problems is that somehow water collects into the fuel system after a
> rainstorm has passed through the area.
> The tanks have sealed caps with remote vents but were not topped off when it
> rained.
<Snip>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
For those on a budget:
A couple of weeks ago, I saw my 1st Legal Eagle ultralite. Scratch built
with a 1/2 VW, the builder said it cost something like $3-4K to build.
The engine sounded like a miniature Harley at idle, & an underworked
riding lawn mower at full throttle. Effortless looking liftoff in about
150` (heading across the ramp toward the runway) & almost floating
around the airport. Word from builders is they fly about like a Piper
Cub (an ok flying plane for its day).
If I weren't in the middle of building an RV-7, I'd start one tomorrow.
Charlie
ray anderson wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
>
>Too many seem to feel that every one with aspirations to fly in something they
have built with their own hands, have $20,000 - $35,000 to plunk down for the
pleasure and privilege. Not so. !! There is still a place out there for the beginner
to get started in a low priced ultralight; yes, the simple bare bones
tube and rag covering. Many who have built and flown ultralights since the beginning,
just for fun, still can't afford the 100hp. $10,000 engines some of you
richer folks buy and trade at the drop of a hat. More power to you if you have
that kind of money. Most of the beginners don't. Most scrape and save to get
started with a 25-40 hp. 2 cycle, and are just as thrilled and excited when
it gets them into the air at a mighty 25-55 m.p.h., as some of you feel when your
100hp rockets you into the air for your thousand mile trips. I think some
of you are forgetting your own humble beginnings, and the thrill and satisfaction
knowing you can putter around not too far from hom
> e on
> 1-1/2 gals. of fuel and don't care whether you are 1 mile or 25 miles from home.
You are in the air flying with something you built with your hands. That's
the ultimate thrill. I've built and flown 7 homebuilts, and after many, many
years, am now content with my 35 hp. Cuyuna and the 1984 UltraStar. I had my
fun earlier with a variety of "store boughts", including my retractable gear Mooney,
with coast to coast flights, but the restrictions of retirement (and old
age) make me content with the "obsolete" 35 h.p. UltraStar. The bottom line
is this. There is and always will be a market and place for the beginner ( and
the guy who lives on a "WalMarket" salary), and his affordable true ultralight.
Don't knock 'em.
>
>PATRICK LADD <pj.ladd@btinternet.com> wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted by:
"PATRICK LADD"
>
>
>no one would now buy a Quicksilverany more than they would buy a Model T
>Ford. Expectations have moved onPat I'm sure there are more than a handful
>of people over on the Quicksilver list>>
>
>Hi,
>I just knew I would get into trouble with that remark. Sorry any Quicksilver
>lovers out there.
>I agree, they were fun. I solo`d on one and thought it the bees knees but
>aspirations HAVE changed. Once it was enough to get airborne and wallow
>around the cow pasture at 35 mph.If the engine ran that long. Now we expect
>to do long cross countries without mortgaging our entire holiday. We no
>longer expect engines to stop. They sometimes still do of course but its
>fairly unusual.
>In theory everyone hankers for the `good ole days` but they still go out and
>buy the best bang for the buck.
>In the good ole days` we couldn`t get off the ground with the equipment
>which we now consider essential. Thats evolution, man!
>
>Cheers
>
>Pat
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
PATRICK LADD wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
>You may be correct for those who hold a pilot certificate. But AC103-7
>outlines the USA
>world of flying for the rest of us who for some reason haven't or can't
>obtain a pilot
>certificate.>>
>
>Hi Jack
>Being a Limey I am not familiar with that. Does that mean that you do not
>have to be tested to get a pilots license or just that AC103-7 defines an
>ultralight?
>
>In either case I can only say `Lucky You`. We just do not have that room for
>manouvre. In the early days we were totally unregulated but after a series
>of crashes and a few fatalities, all rather much at the same time so that it
>seemed from the newspapers that we were dying like flies, authority stepped
>in.
>Things could have been made much worse, but as it was we were allowed to set
>up a self regulating body to administer the sport and a specification was
>threshed out defining an ultralight. Mainly a weight and wing loading and
>stalling speed. The object being to stop `lead sleds` being developed which
>the decidedly amateur pilots could not handle. A limited pilots license was
>introduced which entitled you to fly ultralights only. No regulations were
>introduced about where ,how fast, how high you could fly. Ultra were treated
>exactly as any other aircraft .
>Over the years the spec. about what constitutes an ultralight has changed
>and as we have integrated more with Europe the accepted weight has crept up
>until it is now 480kilo including 2/90 kilo pilots and fuel. With 2/90 kilo
>pilots plus a bit of gear there sometimes is not much weight left for fuel.
>!!!!!!
>Each a/c type has to be approved and must conform to specified noise levels.
>This is a nuisance but noisy a/c were the main complaint used by the anti
>flying lobby and without curtailing the noise we might have been put out of
>business completely. The complaints were justified too. 2 strokes at full
>throttle doing 35 mph at 800 ft could play hob with your Sunday siesta in
>the garden. Now we fly higher faster and more quietly.
>A Europe wide agreement about an ultrlight spec. has also allowed the
>development of a healthy growth industry building aircraft which can be
>exported Continent wide.
>The downside has been the lack of individual experimentation because if you
>changed something, prop, engine, exhaust etc., it probably invalidated the
>`approval` or the noise certificate. So you see. Swings and roundabouts.
>There are still a lot of pilots who would like the return of the
>untrammelled early days but it aint going to happen.
>Still, while people can still fly their Quicksilvers and Weedhoppers and get
>that old kick thats great, but like driving vintage cars, its great fun but
>you wouldnt want to go `sea to shining sea` in one. Yeah, alright I know
>that you CAN and some people do but as Jimmy Buffet said `There are
>fruitcakes in the ....`
>
>Cheers
>
>Pat
>
>pj.ladd@btinternet.com
>
>Do not archive
>
Hi Pat,
Over here, part 103 ultralites don't require a pilot's license. (most
'ultralites' don't actually meet 103 definitions of 1 seat, max empty
weight ~254 lbs, 5 gal fuel, stall around 30 mph & max speed around 63
mph) Our new sport pilot regs are probably close to your ultralite
rules. We are better off than most, but rights/freedoms are always at
risk in any society.
Charlie
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: | Re: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
GeoR38@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 11/7/2004 6:27:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>pj.ladd@btinternet.com writes:
>
>Hi Jack
>Being a Limey I am not familiar with that. Does that mean that you do not
>have to be tested to get a pilots license or just that AC103-7 defines an
>ultralight?
>
>In either case I can only say `Lucky You`. We just do not have that room for
>manouvre. In the early days we were totally unregulated but after a series
>of crashes and a few fatalities, all rather much at the same time so that it
>seemed from the newspapers that we were dying like flies, authority stepped
>in.
>Things could have been made much worse, but as it was we were allowed to set
>up a self regulating body to administer the sport and a specification was
>threshed out defining an ultralight. Mainly a weight and wing loading and
>stalling speed. The object being to stop `lead sleds` being developed which
>the decidedly amateur pilots could not handle. A limited pilots license was
>introduced which entitled you to fly ultralights only. No regulations were
>introduced about where ,how fast, how high you could fly. Ultra were treated
>exactly as any other aircraft .
>Over the years the spec. about what constitutes an ultralight has changed
>and as we have integrated more with Europe the accepted weight has crept up
>until it is now 480kilo including 2/90 kilo pilots and fuel. With 2/90 kilo
>pilots plus a bit of gear there sometimes is not much weight left for fuel.
>!!!!!!
>
>
>Geeez PJ, at 2.2 lbs per kilo that means you can only have a plane that
>weighs 218 lbs....is that right??!! I thought you guys were up in the 300's
>somewhere for your "microlights"! And I was always feeling sorry for us at 254
>Lbs + around 26 more for a parachute. I know we have an obesity epidemic over
>here but you guys aren't THAT skinny are you? And what does 2/90 kilo pilot
>and fuel mean?
>
>now I gotta practice my Abiyoyo by pete Seeger
>
>yer bud
>George Randolph
>Firestar driver from the villages, fl
>
I read that as 480 kilo gross weight, -180 kilo for pilots, leaving 300
kilo for empty weight & fuel. That's 660 lbs for plane & fuel in US numbers.
Charlie
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: | Re: Don't knock 'em-- aka kilos vs pounds |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bob N." <ronoy@shentel.net>
geo.,
MULTIPLY, not divide! 480 kilo=approx. 1060#
Bob N.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy
do not archive
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: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
<<I read that as 480 kilo gross weight, -180 kilo for pilots, leaving 300
kilo for empty weight & fuel. That's 660 lbs for plane & fuel in US
numbers.>>
Hi Charlie,
you got it. You see what I meant about `not much left for fuel`.
If the plane is overbuilt then with 2 heavy pilots you cannot fly legally.
People do take off illegally with full tanks but one day there is going to
be a crunch, the insurance company is going to do the sums and conclude that
it was an illegal flight and they wont pay out. Some people fly illegally,
don`t bother to insure at all and hope for the best. That will soon stop as
it will become illegal to fly without at least minimum cover in the near
future.
We don`t have the same problem with obesity that you have, but with alittle
help form our friends down at MacDonalds we are working on it.
The weight problem was one of the reason that I and my partner in the
Eurostar went our separate ways. Together with a full tank we were over the
top. He and his wife fly happilyand legally together with a full tank.
Sure makes you watch the weight if you are building. Of course all sorts of
things get taken off when the annual inspection comes round, wheel spats and
such.
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet.com
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Resevoir oil depletion |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Tomsplane@aol.com
Hi Guys,
Just got back on the list after vacations all summer. I flew to a fly-in in
Reserve La. and on the return flight over large lakes and marsh land, my red
low oil light came on. After I landed I found my tail feathers coated in oil
and my fuel oil reservoir almost empty. While checking my fuel and oil lines,
I noticed the small oil tank that lubricates something, was over full and
leaking thru the vent hole in the cap.
Has anyone experienced this problem? I have about 200 hrs. on the Rotax 582
. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Tom Guidroz 259TG Mark III
Houma La.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Resevoir oil depletion |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Rotax 582
| . Any suggestions would be appreciated.
|
| Tom Guidroz 259TG Mark III
Hi Tom/Gang:
Welcome back.
Yes, had a similar experience at Oshkosh 1993. Brand new, probably
100 hrs, on 582. Coolant was being pumped back out the rotary valve
reservoir (the little oil tank). There is a seal or a couple seals
between water pump impeller and rotary valve pump. Both systems share
the same shaft. If that seal goes, coolant will be forced into the
rotary valve oil system and out the little tank.
As for the loss of oil from the Fuel/Oil tank, I don't know.
Take care,
john h
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don't knock 'em-- aka kilos vs pounds |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: russkinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
on 11/7/04 2:12 PM, Bob N. at ronoy@shentel.net wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bob N." <ronoy@shentel.net>
>
> geo.,
>
> MULTIPLY, not divide! 480 kilo=approx. 1060#
>
> Bob N.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy
>
> do not archive
>
>
Friend Bob;
Thanx for your email. And I, as an ex USN swabbie, know
thread/strand/rope/hawser/cable/etc?
You and I are some sympatico -- I agree (mostly, so far) with SO much that
you relate (aka, blabber, rant on, etc)
Anyway. We mostly agree.
I never shocked wheat & don't think I wanna -- but have done my share of
grungy stuff,
Never got along well with that Mexican, Manuel Labor --
Fair winds, happy days, full bumrottles --
Russ Kinne
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: | Dimensions Kolb MK3 ? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: pollus <pollus@fornerod.nl>
Dear Kolbers,
I am preparing to trailer the Kolb MK3 to my home airport, and now I am
in the process of selecting the right means of transportation. A large
trailer, a small truck...
So, does anyone have a sort of drawing with the right dimensions of the
(folded) kolb?
I presume the width is determined by the wheels, the height by the 3
blade prop (or, is it easily detachable?)
The locations of the wheels are of intrest: maybe I can let the nose
stick out, the wheels must be inside the trailer.
Any help apriciated! (And yes, stupid me, I did not take some
measurements when I visited the plane 2 weeks ago...)
Regards,
Pollus
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! --
|