---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 02/26/05: 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:39 AM - Kolb list CG (ElleryWeld@aol.com) 2. 05:41 AM - Ground looping tendencies (Mike Pierzina) 3. 06:12 AM - Re: Ground looping tendencies (John Hauck) 4. 06:29 AM - Re: Ground looping tendencies (robert bean) 5. 06:44 AM - Re: Ground looping tendencies (ul15rhb@juno.com) 6. 07:10 AM - Re: Ground looping tendencies (Richard & Martha Neilsen) 7. 07:47 AM - Fw: Ground looping tendencies (Bill Vincent) 8. 08:32 AM - No CG problem here (Mike Pierzina) 9. 11:24 AM - Re: No CG problem here (John Williamson) 10. 12:13 PM - Re: No CG problem here (Richard & Martha Neilsen) 11. 01:36 PM - antenna and swr (b young) 12. 01:36 PM - Precision Propellers (b young) 13. 02:21 PM - Re: Firestar Gear main spar,prop :( (Mike Matuszczak) 14. 02:41 PM - At Last.....BINGO !!! (Mike Pierzina) 15. 03:21 PM - Re: At Last.....BINGO !!! (Denny Rowe) 16. 03:21 PM - Re: Firestar Gear main spar,prop :( (snuffy@usol.com) 17. 03:38 PM - Re: At Last.....BINGO !!! (Jeremy Casey) 18. 04:38 PM - Re: Kolb list CG (Frank Reynen) 19. 06:22 PM - Re: At Last.....BINGO !!! (James and Cathy Tripp) 20. 06:52 PM - Re: Kolb list CG (N27SB@aol.com) 21. 07:00 PM - Re: Precision Propellers (Richard Swiderwski) 22. 07:01 PM - Taxi was the worry (Mike Pierzina) 23. 07:38 PM - Re: Taxi was the worry (Richard Pike) 24. 08:12 PM - Re: At Last.....BINGO !!! (John Hauck) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:36 AM PST US From: ElleryWeld@aol.com Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb list CG --> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com I have a Original Firestar that I purchased last summer and I am ready to get started on mounting a set of floats on it but I really need to know where the CG is supose to be Can anyone on the list give me the correct info? Do not Archive Ellery ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:41:12 AM PST US From: Mike Pierzina Subject: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina Hey Guys, Below is a message that I sent to Kolb.....I don't understand WHY they don't look into the problem of their planes ground looping tendencies......You guys come up with answers for the problem....Why can't they "adapt somebodys solution" and be done with it..... Maybe they could get Homer involved with the revision ? Why wouldn't they want to fix this MAJOR problem..... Gotta Fly... Mike in Do Not Archive SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, I'm ready to taxi test my Firestar II, The FAA wants me to have the weight in the front half of the CG...so I had to put 16 1/2 lbs in the nose..... I'm always hearing about people standing their plane on it's nose...and with this weight at the front of mine for the first flight (then I can take it out) really makes me worry that it could do that , So I'm going to make a "ground loop hoop" ( I don't know what you call them) Anyway, what my point is....Why....don't you guys RE-position the landing gear to get rid of this problem..... I've also heard that lenghtening the legs helps.... I think your dropping the ball by ignoring this MAJOR problem... Gotta Fly... Mike in MN FSII / N381PM My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:12:48 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > Below is a message that I sent to Kolb.....I don't understand WHY they don't look into the problem of their planes ground looping tendencies......You guys come up with answers for the problem....Why can't they "adapt somebodys solution" and be done with it..... > Mike Mike/All: Maybe have the terminology of your problem incorrectly stated. I think most of us will agree the Firestar does not have a "ground loop" problem. It may have a tendancy to nose over if adequate pilot input is not closely monitored. Homer designed his aircraft to be docile ground handlers rather than "true" tail draggers (which are prone to ground looping). He puts most of the weight on the main gear. This produces an aircraft that drives around on the ground like a fork lift. One must be sound asleep at the stick to ground loop a standard configured Kolb. On the other hand, increasing the amount of weight on the tailwheel by moving the main gear forward will produce a Kolb that does not have a tendancy to nose over, but produces a Kolb that has a tendancy to ground loop. It is a tradeoff. Can't have one without the other. Homer designed his aircraft with the low time pilot in mind. Foremost in his mind was to come up with an airplane that was safe as it could be for an inexperienced pilot. I think he did that. One of the reasons for short gear legs and a lot of incidence in the wings is to make the airplane gain additional airspeed to takeoff and land in a level attitude. This helps prevent stalls. I don't know of but one other Kolb that has modified main gear like the gear on my MKIII. We moved the main gear 8" forward, which increased tail wheel weight to aprx 100 lbs. This keeps the tail wheel on the ground under heavy braking, engine run up, off field landings, mud, tall grass, sand, etc. However, until one becomes proficient flying my MKIII, he will have his hands full staying ahead of the airplane on the ground. I use a lot of differential braking in addition to rudder to maintain directional control on the ground. Once adjusted to this setup, it is a piece of cake. I really like mine. I think if you try to stay ahead of your Firestar on the ground, by keeping the stick full back, being gentle on throttle application, watching for high tailwind conditions, you will be successful in keeping your nose off the ground without "training wheels (skid)". john h ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:29:50 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean Mike, I think you are mixing up two different but inter-related symptoms. -As far as "ground looping" is concerned (believe me, I'm VERY qualified to describe this fun maneuver) ;) The Kolb is the least ground loopiest airplane I've ever flown. Any spam can driver could plunk one down and roll out uneventfully. -But since you can't have your cake and eat it too, the nicely balanced stance will tend to give you a noseover at full throttle in: a. wet snow, b. heavy alfalfa, c. mud. s'fine with me as I'm a fair weather flyer. If you move the gear legs forward ala J. Hauck's msPfer you will lose the noseover but gain a handful of busyness in rollout. The only thing I do miss with my light tail is the ease of doing a whipturn at the end of the runway. -BB do not archive On 26, Feb 2005, at 8:40 AM, Mike Pierzina wrote: > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina > > Hey Guys, > Below is a message that I sent to Kolb.....I don't > understand WHY they don't look into the problem of their planes ground > looping tendencies......You guys come up with answers for the > problem....Why can't they "adapt somebodys solution" and be done with > it..... > > Maybe they could get Homer involved with the revision ? > Why wouldn't they want to fix this MAJOR problem..... > > Gotta Fly... > Mike > in Do Not Archive > > > SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Hi, > I'm ready to taxi test my Firestar II, The FAA wants me to have > the weight in the front half of the CG...so I had to put 16 1/2 lbs in > the nose..... > I'm always hearing about people standing their plane on it's > nose...and with this weight at the front of mine for the first flight > (then I can take it out) really makes me worry that it could do that , > So I'm going to make a "ground loop hoop" ( I don't know what you call > them) > > Anyway, what my point is....Why....don't you guys RE-position the > landing gear to get rid of this problem..... I've also heard that > lenghtening the legs helps.... I think your dropping the ball by > ignoring this MAJOR problem... > > Gotta Fly... > Mike > in MN FSII / N381PM > > > My Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html > > > Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the > way down... > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:36 AM PST US From: "ul15rhb@juno.com" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies --> Kolb-List message posted by: "ul15rhb@juno.com" Mike, There is no problem with Homer's planes in ground looping once you are experienced with the plane. I tipped it on its nose a few times in the early days, but haven't done that in many years. It's taildragger with a light tail and best way to keep from nosing over is to remember to keep that tail on the ground as long as you can during a takeoff. I use the short takeoff procedure by putting the stick all the way back and then putting it forward as soon as the wheels break ground. Be careful here, as you could stall very quickly should you not put that stick forward fast enough. On landing in a crosswind, you want to get that tail on the ground as soon as you lose flying speed. It's all in the timing. Too soon, you balloon, and too late, and a crosswind will weathervane you off the runway and an over correction could cause a ground loop. Practice, practice. This is the only way you are going to keep from nosing it over. And if you think the late model Firestars have a problem with nosing over, try flying an Original. They are lighter yet on the tail with a straight landing gear leg. The new model legs are canted forward with less of a tendency to nose over. Once you've got the technique down, you wouldn't want to fly anything else. Why? The light weight on the tail is adapted better for rough fields and ski flying in the winter because there is no need for a tail ski. The tail simply floats over the ice and snow. This is what you want as there is less maintenance on the tailwheel assembly. I've had the same tailwheel and fiberglass tail rod for most of the 18 years flying this little engineering marvel. Ralph Original Firestar 18 years flying it -- Mike Pierzina wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina Hey Guys, Below is a message that I sent to Kolb.....I don't understand WHY they don't look into the problem of their planes ground looping tendencies......You guys come up with answers for the problem....Why can't they "adapt somebodys solution" and be done with it..... Maybe they could get Homer involved with the revision ? Why wouldn't they want to fix this MAJOR problem..... Gotta Fly... Mike in Do Not Archive SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, I'm ready to taxi test my Firestar II, The FAA wants me to have the weight in the front half of the CG...so I had to put 16 1/2 lbs in the nose..... I'm always hearing about people standing their plane on it's nose...and with this weight at the front of mine for the first flight (then I can take it out) really makes me worry that it could do that , So I'm going to make a "ground loop hoop" ( I don't know what you call them) Anyway, what my point is....Why....don't you guys RE-position the landing gear to get rid of this problem..... I've also heard that lenghtening the legs helps.... I think your dropping the ball by ignoring this MAJOR problem... Gotta Fly... Mike in MN FSII / N381PM My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- Now includes pop-up blocker! Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today! ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:10:23 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Mike I agree with everyone's responses. My question is why do you think the FAA wants you to put ALL THAT WEIGHT IN THE NOSE? Did you misunderstand their request or regulation? Are you sure you understand how to figure your weight and balance? I'm sorry if I'm a bit pointed but Kolb's don't have CG issues if the plane is built by the plans. If you built it tail heavy and have to add 16.5 lbs to the nose to get in the required CG range then it should fly and taxi like a regular plans built Kolb (maybe a bit heaver). Also keep the weight in the plane after the first flight Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Pierzina" Subject: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina > > Hey Guys, > Below is a message that I sent to Kolb.....I don't > understand WHY they don't look into the problem of their planes ground > looping tendencies......You guys come up with answers for the > problem....Why can't they "adapt somebodys solution" and be done with > it..... > > Maybe they could get Homer involved with the revision ? > Why wouldn't they want to fix this MAJOR problem..... > > Gotta Fly... > Mike in > Do Not Archive > > > SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Hi, > I'm ready to taxi test my Firestar II, The FAA wants me to have the > weight in the front half of the CG...so I had to put 16 1/2 lbs in the > nose..... > I'm always hearing about people standing their plane on it's > nose...and with this weight at the front of mine for the first flight > (then I can take it out) really makes me worry that it could do that , So > I'm going to make a "ground loop hoop" ( I don't know what you call them) > > Anyway, what my point is....Why....don't you guys RE-position the > landing gear to get rid of this problem..... I've also heard that > lenghtening the legs helps.... I think your dropping the ball by ignoring > this MAJOR problem... > > Gotta Fly... > Mike in > MN FSII / N381PM > > > My Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html > > > Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way > down... > > > --------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:47:50 AM PST US From: "Bill Vincent" Subject: Fw: Kolb-List: Ground looping tendencies --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bill Vincent" Ground looping tendencies?????? I have flown my Firestar II for over 360 hours and never had anything near a ground loop! I had to be careful when landing my old T-Bird because it had a tendency to ground loop and I once ground looped it into a swamp. As far as the Kolb nosing over I have never had a tendency to nose over except when flying on wet snow with skis. Bill Vincent Firestar II Upper Peninsula of Michigan Do Not Archive =============================================================== ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:04 AM PST US From: Mike Pierzina Subject: Kolb-List: No CG problem here --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina Guys/ Richard, Ok, I got the "ground loop" mixed up with the"nose over" ....I thought they were the same thing...I'll write Kolb and tell them "nevermind, I didn't know what I was talking about" As far as a CG problem , There is none.....BUT.....I'm on the back side of it ( which most other guys are too ) Full fuel, Pilot & passenger 18.29" or 29.98% CG ( Most Forward ) Full fuel, Pilot 21.16" or 34.68% CG ( Most AFT ) CG Limits - 12.2" ( 20%) thru 21.35" (35%) ........Never exceed 37% (so I'm told) Now to get the CG in the ....Forward half of the "CG RANGE".... ( 16.76" or 27.47% ) I need to EMPTY the rear tank, and put 16 lbs 48" forward of the datum line ( in the nose) My figures have already been approved by the FAA..... Now WHY would I want to KEEP the weight in the nose.....I made steel plates so that I could take them back out 1 1/2 lbs at a time..... But my CG range is fine.....FAA wants the first flight to be in the forward half of the CG range....what's not to understand??? I have elec start....that added alot of weight aft of the CG..... and I mounted my battery ( 17 lbs.)right behind my seat.........which would probly have been better in the nose.... Gotta Fly... Mike in MN PS. I'll FAX or SCAN my FAA forms to anybody that wants to see them ( or check them) Do not archive My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:24:04 AM PST US From: "John Williamson" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: No CG problem here --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" Hi Mike and all, Having the CG in the middle of the recommended range is not a bad idea but the way you say "the FAA is making you do it" can give the wrong impression. Your inspector is not "the FAA" but rather just an employee that has the latitude to have you make the first flight with the CG in the middle of your CG range. These kinds of requirements vary drastically from region to region and inspector to inspector. I guess what I am trying to say is that your FAA inspector is having you do this and not "the FAA." During flight testing, I had as much as 32 pounds in the nose cone of the Kolbra to find what the forward CG limit really was. John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolb Kolbra, Rotax 912UL, 713 hours http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot do not archive ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:42 PM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: No CG problem here --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Mike I don't understand why they want you to move the CG so far forward. Also you may want to calculate you most forward CG with the fuel tanks empty (I assume in your plane the fuel tanks are near neutral CG) The CG ranges are established so that there are no adverse flight characteristics if you stay within those ranges. So why the concern of being in the forward half? Kolbs in general maintain good flight characteristics at and beyond the aft limits so again why is he asking you to do this? When my plane is near the forward limits I get less of a break when I stall but that's about it. Most general aviation airplanes have some pitch instability near the aft limits but Kolbs don't normally exhibit this. When I'm nearer the aft limits I get less tendency to nose over on the ground, have more up elevator power when I landing, and my stall speed is reduced slightly. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW Powered MKIIIc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Pierzina" Subject: Kolb-List: No CG problem here > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina > > Guys/ Richard, > Ok, I got the "ground loop" mixed up with the"nose > over" ....I thought they were the same thing...I'll write Kolb and tell > them "nevermind, I didn't know what I was talking about" > > > As far as a CG problem , There is none.....BUT.....I'm on the back side > of it ( which most other guys are too ) > > Full fuel, Pilot & passenger 18.29" or 29.98% CG ( Most > Forward ) > > Full fuel, Pilot 21.16" or 34.68% CG ( > Most AFT ) > > CG Limits - 12.2" ( 20%) thru 21.35" (35%) ........Never exceed 37% > (so I'm told) > > > Now to get the CG in the ....Forward half of the "CG RANGE".... ( 16.76" > or 27.47% ) > I need to EMPTY the rear tank, and put 16 lbs 48" forward of the datum > line ( in the nose) > > > My figures have already been approved by the FAA..... > > Now WHY would I want to KEEP the weight in the nose.....I made steel > plates so that I could take them back out 1 1/2 lbs at a time..... But my > CG range is fine.....FAA wants the first flight to be in the forward half > of the CG range....what's not to understand??? > > I have elec start....that added alot of weight aft of the CG..... > and I mounted my battery ( 17 lbs.)right behind my seat.........which > would probly have been better in the nose.... > > Gotta Fly... > Mike in MN > > PS. I'll FAX or SCAN my FAA forms to anybody that wants to see them ( or > check them) > > Do not archive > > > My Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html > > > Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way > down... > > > --------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:15 PM PST US From: "b young" Subject: Kolb-List: antenna and swr --> Kolb-List message posted by: "b young" The solution is very simple you could make a 1/4 wave antenna and mount it on your plane. They are very simple to construct I could send you a diagram and the proper length. ----------------- i have heard a lot of good responses to this question..... but one thing has not been mentioned...... in the coment " i will send you the legnth " needs to be added upon.... each piece of wire and each piece of coax has a different "velosity factor" unless you are working with the same piece of wire the antenna legnth would have to be cut diferenly.... to say i will send you the legnth would get you close,,,, and propably very close...... but the best way to cut the antenna to match the frequency is to make it long and then use a swr meter and cut small measurments untill it is corect. i am going from memory and if i am wrong i will gladly be corected. speed of light 300,000,000 meters per sec. devided by frequency of the center of the tx band... 127,500,000 gives you a full wave legnth.... devide by 4 to get a 1/4 wave legnth.... multiplied by the velosity factor. gives the antenna legnth... i hope i did that corectly. 300 / 127.5 / 4 * velosity factor will give you somewhere just short of .59 meters.... unless you know the vewlosity factor just cut long to start with and trim to best swr with a meter. boyd. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:16 PM PST US From: "b young" Subject: Kolb-List: Precision Propellers --> Kolb-List message posted by: "b young" I would like to know if anyone is still using Precision Propellers 3 blade wood prop. I think the old Kolb Co. used one for awhile on their prototype Mk II. Would there be a noticable overall improvement if Ichanged to a composite type? i used the Precision Propellers out of vernal ut when i first built my mkIII... i had the urilight leading edge protection..... and still had a problem when a forign object hit the prop tip about 6 inches from the tip.... it all came apart.... when i rebuilt i put on a warp drive prop and gained 4 to 5 mph.... in discussions with others at the local airport i was told that the new owners of Precision Propellers ( moved to airizona i think they said ) is not making them as well as the old company in utah did..... that is someones impression and i could not verify it. but i can verify the performance diverence between the old Precision Propellers and the warp dirve prop boyd ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:08 PM PST US From: "Mike Matuszczak" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar Gear main spar,prop :( --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Mike Matuszczak" Just uncovered the cage and rt wing. Cage is bent in front of the rt. gear socket. Rt. wing needs major help I'm going to have someone who rebuilds AC look at the damage and give me their opinion on reweld of the cage. I may need just a wing or it if more extensive i maybe interested in an FSII that is parted out. I would like more info on that bird in Cananda. I'll keep in mind that cage. The gear leg did go up into the socket about 5". Thanks for the input and the help!! MMatuszczak a broken FSII ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar Gear Leg ,Rt main spar,prop :( > --> Kolb-List message posted by: HShack@aol.com > > In a message dated 2/24/2005 5:33:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > mmatuszczak@cfl.rr.com writes: > MMatuszczak ,Was an FSII 400hrs > Palm Coast, FL. > > PS anyone have a few extra parts to spare. > I will soon have a professionally rebuilt cage available. > > I am at Trenton, SC. > > Howard Shackleford > FS II > SC > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:48 PM PST US From: Mike Pierzina Subject: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina OK , Richard, SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I'm nearer the aft limits I get less tendency to nose over on the ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... BINGO ! Whata ya think I've been talkin about..........What I've been concerned about is moving my CG FORWARD...... I've almost got my training wheel built...... Now , on to WHY the front half of the CG range for the "FIRST" flight..... First of all , I haven't gotten to the point where an inspector has looked at my plane..... I've still been getting my paperwork to pass FAA Remember when I said my FAA guy was a REAL #&%$@ Well, in the Advisory Circular - AC NO: 90-89A Page 34 , 4 (2) It saysThe aircraft's CG should be in the FORWARD HALF of the SAFE CG RANGE So when the "FAA GUY" tells ME that this HAS TO BE DONE..... What else can I do.....I don't like it.....But then again, I don't like any of this damn paperwork. Gotta go finish my training wheel, Mike in MN Anybody got a measurement on the distance from the bottom of the cage to the bottom of their hoop , Skid, whatever you wanna call it........ AZ Dave....I'll be sending you that FAX now... Do not archive My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:34 PM PST US From: "Denny Rowe" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" , > Mike in MN > asked > > Anybody got a measurement on the distance from the bottom of the cage > to the bottom of their hoop , Skid, whatever you wanna call it........ > > AZ Dave....I'll be sending you that FAX now... > > Do not archive > > > Mike, Mine is 7 inches Mk-3 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:54 PM PST US From: snuffy@usol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar Gear main spar,prop :( --> Kolb-List message posted by: snuffy@usol.com > I would like more info on that bird in Cananda. Was just informed today that the guy has sold it.....Kirk Do not archive ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:03 PM PST US From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" Mike, The only sensible reason (this being the FAA sensible is probably a stretch...) for wanting the first flights of a homebuilt with the CG in the forward half of the CG range is that they will be more stable in pitch there. Ignore the aircraft type, peculiar habits, etc... this is an FAA blanket rule. Most inspectors ignore it, but it looks like you found a "good" one. Now in defense of the FAA, if you go do some research, most first flight incidents that are not mechanical (fuel starve, something wasn't bolted right...) are related to some form of pilot unfamiliarity. This is an obvious reason and the reason that mortal pilots dread the first flight...they don't know what to expect. Also homebuilts are typically more pitch sensitive, especially compared to GA trainers. So requesting the first flight be done with the CG set in the forward end of the range is a way of at least making it as pitch stable as possible for the first flight. Once some familiarity is achieved, you start moving the CG back till it feels squirrely and back off... If you want to get a scare, go search the NTSB archives for KR2 incidents. The VAST majority are pilot induced oscillations on either the first landing or first takeoff that caused a hard landing or worse. It is generally recognized that a KR2 should not be flown in the rear 2" of the CG range until the pilot has a fair amount of familiarity with the plane. Good luck...try not to tick off the inspector...he could make things tough ;-) Jeremy Casey -----Original Message----- From: Mike Pierzina [mailto:planecrazzzy@yahoo.com] Subject: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina OK , Richard, SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I'm nearer the aft limits I get less tendency to nose over on the ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... BINGO ! Whata ya think I've been talkin about..........What I've been concerned about is moving my CG FORWARD...... I've almost got my training wheel built...... Now , on to WHY the front half of the CG range for the "FIRST" flight..... First of all , I haven't gotten to the point where an inspector has looked at my plane..... I've still been getting my paperwork to pass FAA Remember when I said my FAA guy was a REAL #&%$@ Well, in the Advisory Circular - AC NO: 90-89A Page 34 , 4 (2) It saysThe aircraft's CG should be in the FORWARD HALF of the SAFE CG RANGE So when the "FAA GUY" tells ME that this HAS TO BE DONE..... What else can I do.....I don't like it.....But then again, I don't like any of this damn paperwork. Gotta go finish my training wheel, Mike in MN Anybody got a measurement on the distance from the bottom of the cage to the bottom of their hoop , Skid, whatever you wanna call it........ AZ Dave....I'll be sending you that FAX now... Do not archive My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:08 PM PST US From: "Frank Reynen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb list CG --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Frank Reynen" Ellery, When I rigged my MKIII for floats,I used the middle of the range as the CG point to configure the placements of the floats. Frank Reynen do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb list CG > --> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com > > > I have a Original Firestar that I purchased last summer and I am ready to get > started on mounting a set of floats on it but I really need to know where the > CG is supose to be Can anyone on the list give me the correct info? > > Do not Archive > Ellery > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:22:10 PM PST US From: " James and Cathy Tripp" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: " James and Cathy Tripp" Mike, I've put 80 hours on my FSII since the first flight this past August and my CG has always been in the back half of the CG range. My gear legs are on the longer side so I've never had a tendency to nose over. The thing about advisories and regulations is the exact wording. The term "should" means just that. It's just advise to help you get off on the right foot, but not mandatory for compliance. Your DAR or FAA representative will not be hounding you after he signs the AWC and leaves you with his advise. If your numbers are as you say, I don't see where you'll have any problems on the first flight without adding all that weight. Give your DAR or FAA representative everything he asks for as far as paperwork to get the inspection done but after he signs off on the AWC, you're on your own. You must however operate within the operating limitations you'll get with the AWC but I'm sure it won't be dictating your CG range. Good luck buddy, you're almost there. James Tripp, FSII, 80 Hours DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Pierzina Subject: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina OK , Richard, SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I'm nearer the aft limits I get less tendency to nose over on the ground >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... BINGO ! Whata ya think I've been talkin about..........What I've been concerned about is moving my CG FORWARD...... I've almost got my training wheel built...... Now , on to WHY the front half of the CG range for the "FIRST" flight..... First of all , I haven't gotten to the point where an inspector has looked at my plane..... I've still been getting my paperwork to pass FAA Remember when I said my FAA guy was a REAL #&%$@ Well, in the Advisory Circular - AC NO: 90-89A Page 34 , 4 (2) It saysThe aircraft's CG should be in the FORWARD HALF of the SAFE CG RANGE So when the "FAA GUY" tells ME that this HAS TO BE DONE..... What else can I do.....I don't like it.....But then again, I don't like any of this damn paperwork. Gotta go finish my training wheel, Mike in MN Anybody got a measurement on the distance from the bottom of the cage to the bottom of their hoop , Skid, whatever you wanna call it........ AZ Dave....I'll be sending you that FAX now... Do not archive My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:23 PM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb list CG --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com In a message dated 2/26/2005 8:40:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, ElleryWeld@aol.com writes: > I have a Original Firestar that I purchased last summer and I am ready to > get > started on mounting a set of floats on it but I really need to know where > the > CG is supose to be Can anyone on the list give me the correct info? > > Do not Archive > Ellery > > Hi Ellery, On theFireFly #007 We placed the step of the float on about the middle of the desired cg. Because the tail is large on the Kolbs and the moment is long I think that the position is more forgiving than on other aircraft. Hope someone with an original Firestar can help you with the CG. Steve do not archive ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 07:00:49 PM PST US From: "Richard Swiderwski" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Precision Propellers --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderwski" Hey Boyd, What was your "foreign object"? Do you recall the model prop you had? And was your urethane leading edge the earlier hard material or the later soft material? The original company did a lot of R&D & their props were constantly evolving. His later props were significantly more advanced. The old man was working on a symitar constant speed version just before he died & his son took over. I guess the son sold the business. My last Precision prop was the MT version & its leading edge was very soft. You could dent it in with your finger nail & it would return to normal after a few minutes. The soft material absorbs the shock & keeps the prop from shattering. I left a 7/16" socket on the engine & it stuck the prop at full run up, left a dent in the prop that was easily repaired. Rain & grass did not hurt it. ...Richard Swiderski -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of b young Subject: Kolb-List: Precision Propellers --> Kolb-List message posted by: "b young" I would like to know if anyone is still using Precision Propellers 3 blade wood prop. I think the old Kolb Co. used one for awhile on their prototype Mk II. Would there be a noticable overall improvement if Ichanged to a composite type? i used the Precision Propellers out of vernal ut when i first built my mkIII... i had the urilight leading edge protection..... and still had a problem when a forign object hit the prop tip about 6 inches from the tip.... it all came apart.... when i rebuilt i put on a warp drive prop and gained 4 to 5 mph.... in discussions with others at the local airport i was told that the new owners of Precision Propellers ( moved to airizona i think they said ) is not making them as well as the old company in utah did..... that is someones impression and i could not verify it. but i can verify the performance diverence between the old Precision Propellers and the warp dirve prop boyd ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:53 PM PST US From: Mike Pierzina Subject: Kolb-List: Taxi was the worry --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina Hi Jeremy/Guys, I said I had to put 16 lbs in the nose for the first flight and from then on I'm having to explain that my plane ISN"T tailheavy..... I'm in the Aft range of the CG , but from what I've read on "the list" so are alot of Kolb owners...Nothing wrong with it... I've got NO PROBLEM with flying the thing with the CG in the forward half of the CG... by the way their reason for this is: "This will reduce the possibility of instability during approach to a stall and enhance recovery from one" ( right out of the advisory circular ) This has all been a concern about TAXI with the added nose weight , when (some) people already have had trouble with NOSING OVER in a aft CG range That's when I started thinking ....why don't they fix this problem......Which John Haulk Explained VERY WELL (Thanks John ! ) Denny, You wrote that your skid hoop is 7" from the bottom of the cage.... Holy Cow, I just measured the one that I made today....it's 13 1/2 " from the bottom of the cage..... Earlier I pulled a string from the bottom of the tire , to the bottom of the nose cone, and the hoop will (would) hit with the nose 8" from the ground.... I figured I wanted to catch it before it got too far out of control and gained leverage.... I hope I didn't make it too big....? Gotta Fly... Mike in MN SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike, The only sensible reason (this being the FAA sensible is probably a stretch...) for wanting the first flights of a homebuilt with the CG in the forward half of the CG range is that they will be more stable in pitch there. Ignore the aircraft type, peculiar habits, etc... this is an FAA blanket rule. Most inspectors ignore it, but it looks like you found a "good" one. Now in defense of the FAA, if you go do some research, most first flight incidents that are not mechanical (fuel starve, something wasn't bolted right...) are related to some form of pilot unfamiliarity. This is an obvious reason and the reason that mortal pilots dread the first flight...they don't know what to expect. Also homebuilts are typically more pitch sensitive, especially compared to GA trainers. So requesting the first flight be done with the CG set in the forward end of the range is a way of at least making it as pitch stable as possible for the first flight. Once some familiarity is achieved, you start moving the CG back till it feels squirrely and back off... My Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way down... --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:57 PM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Taxi was the worry --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike Don't worry about your hoop being a bit on the large size. When I first built my MKIII, I was a bit concerned about my ability to keep from standing it on it's nose, so I made a nose wheel that bolted on in place of the skid hoop, and was braced to a couple attachment screws at the rear lower corners of the nose fairing. It was locked in the straight ahead position and used a go-kart wheel/tire. One of the things I could do with it was get at the end of the runway, lock the brakes, and ease the throttle in until the tail came up and the aircraft rotated up into the tri gear position. Then release the brakes while holding a tad of forward stick, and it was like taking off in a Cessna. The extra weight of the wheel, and structure kept the CG well into the forward range, but it still felt tailheavy in flight until I got the ailerons adjusted correctly. After a month or two I took it off. (useless drag, plus it was embarrassing, people make snide comments if your taildragger has a training wheel on the nose...) It is currently an ornament on the side of the hangar wall. If you want a picture, I'll send you one. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) do not archive At 07:01 PM 2/26/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina > >Hi Jeremy/Guys, > > I said I had to put 16 lbs in the nose for the > first flight and from then on I'm having to explain that my plane ISN"T > tailheavy..... I'm in the Aft range of the CG , but from what I've read > on "the list" so are alot of Kolb owners...Nothing wrong with it... > > I've got NO PROBLEM with flying the thing with the CG in the forward > half of the CG... > by the way their reason for this is: > "This will reduce the possibility of instability during > approach to a stall and enhance recovery from one" ( right out of the > advisory circular ) > > > This has all been a concern about TAXI with the added nose weight , > when (some) people already have had trouble with NOSING OVER in a aft CG range > > That's when I started thinking ....why don't they fix this > problem......Which John Haulk Explained VERY WELL (Thanks John ! ) > > > Denny, You wrote that your skid hoop is 7" from the bottom of the > cage.... > > Holy Cow, I just measured the one that I made today....it's 13 > 1/2 " from the bottom of the cage..... > Earlier I pulled a string from the bottom of the tire , to the > bottom of the nose cone, and the hoop will (would) hit with the nose 8" > from the ground.... I figured I wanted to catch it before it got too far > out of control and gained leverage.... > > I hope I didn't make it too big....? > > Gotta Fly... > >Mike in MN > >SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Mike, > >The only sensible reason (this being the FAA sensible is probably a >stretch...) for wanting the first flights of a homebuilt with the CG in >the forward half of the CG range is that they will be more stable in >pitch there. Ignore the aircraft type, peculiar habits, etc... this is >an FAA blanket rule. Most inspectors ignore it, but it looks like you >found a "good" one. Now in defense of the FAA, if you go do some >research, most first flight incidents that are not mechanical (fuel >starve, something wasn't bolted right...) are related to some form of >pilot unfamiliarity. This is an obvious reason and the reason that >mortal pilots dread the first flight...they don't know what to expect. >Also homebuilts are typically more pitch sensitive, especially compared >to GA trainers. So requesting the first flight be done with the CG set >in the forward end of the range is a way of at least making it as pitch >stable as possible for the first flight. Once some familiarity is >achieved, you start moving the CG back till it feels squirrely and back >off... > > >My Web Site: >http://www.geocities.com/planecrazzzy/Planecrazzzy.html > > >Sometimes you just have to take the leap and build your wings on the way >down... > > >--------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 08:12:32 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: At Last.....BINGO !!! --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > stable as possible for the first flight. Once some familiarity is > achieved, you start moving the CG back till it feels squirrely and back > off... > Jeremy Casey Jeremey/Gents: Don't think you can make a Kolb squirrely with aft cg, or fwd cg, for that matter. Not the nature of the beast. Sometimes blanket regulation is not too cool. No comparison between a KR2 and any of the Kolb model aircraft. john h PS: Just my humble opinion. ;-) DO NOT ARCHIVE