Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:29 AM - John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain (skyrider2)
2. 07:04 AM - Re: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain (Clifford Dow)
3. 07:19 AM - Re: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain (John Hauck)
4. 07:28 AM - Re: Ultralight insurance (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
5. 07:32 AM - Re: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain (John Hauck)
6. 08:02 AM - Re: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain (Clifford Dow)
7. 08:02 AM - Re: Ultralight insurance (snuffy@usol.com)
8. 09:00 AM - Re: Ultralight insurance (John Williamson)
9. 09:03 AM - Re: Ultralight insurance (Richard Pike)
10. 12:36 PM - Re: Ultralight insurance (Denny Rowe)
11. 12:51 PM - Fabric (Silver Fern Microlights Ltd)
12. 01:07 PM - Re: Ultralight insurance (Kirk Smith)
13. 04:50 PM - Re: Ultralight insurance (Billie Futrell)
14. 05:00 PM - Re: Ultralight insurance (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
15. 05:11 PM - Could have been tragical but finally hllarious ;-) (Noel Bouchard)
16. 05:27 PM - Re: Ultralight insurance (N27SB@aol.com)
17. 05:56 PM - Maximum Gross Weight, Flight Loads and Flight Safety (Vince Nicely)
18. 06:49 PM - Alaska, History Channel (John Hauck)
19. 08:08 PM - Re: Maximum Gross Weight, Flight Loads and Flight Safety (ray anderson)
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: | John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "skyrider2" <skyrider2@earthlink.net>
John,
Thanks again for sharing your awesome photography of your Alaska flights !!!
I agree with Jerry, but I think I'd be a bit more than nervous. Like, you
could'nt drive a needle up my arse with a sledge hammer. But your pictures
do show us all sights that most of us can only dream of. Beautiful.
Are there easier (safer) routes to and around Alaska to the destinations you
chose or is it required to fly over that type of terrain? And were you able
to get "reliable" weather forecasts prior to commiting aviation over such
rough country?
Thanks again,
Doug Lawton
Matthews Field and Gliderport
Whitwell, Tn (and NE Georgia)
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: | Re: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
Imagine your Kolb Rotax seized up in such an area in alaska, the local bush pilot
flies you out to a hotel for $300, you still have your Kold in the middle
of no where - the rangers after a week decide to fine you $100/day until you get
it out of there, you wait for Rotax to send you a new $14,000 engine, the local
bush pilot flies you back out - you spend a week in a hotel $100/day ($1,000
totat) - you finally get the rotax flown out to your kolb for another $300
& the pilot helps you mount the new motor and charges another $300, then he flies
your old motor back into town & finally you are on your way - sounds like
a really bad day to me!!
If I ever go to Alaska - i'm going to make sure I have a good motor!
It sure would be nice if John would take that trip again and mount a $15,000 video
camera under that kolb so we can all experience some of what he experienced!!
One day I hope to be so brave. imagine that picture with an oil drilling rig in
the middle!! Dam I hope they stay out of Alaska with those drills! Use up the
Saudi oil first at least!!
cliff in Maine.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
skyrider2 <skyrider2@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "skyrider2"
John,
Thanks again for sharing your awesome photography of your Alaska flights !!!
I agree with Jerry, but I think I'd be a bit more than nervous. Like, you
could'nt drive a needle up my arse with a sledge hammer. But your pictures
do show us all sights that most of us can only dream of. Beautiful.
Are there easier (safer) routes to and around Alaska to the destinations you
chose or is it required to fly over that type of terrain? And were you able
to get "reliable" weather forecasts prior to commiting aviation over such
rough country?
Thanks again,
Doug Lawton
Matthews Field and Gliderport
Whitwell, Tn (and NE Georgia)
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: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
destinations you
| chose or is it required to fly over that type of terrain? And were
you able
| to get "reliable" weather forecasts prior to commiting aviation over
such
| rough country?
|
Morning Doug/Gang:
Having a hard time typing this morning. My brand new, to me, 1944
Case SC tractor, kicked me day before yesterday. Had successfully
hand cranked it when warm, so got this big idea to try and hand crank
when cold. Somehow, got the fingers of my left hand tangled up in the
crank and my right hand. Result, fat hand and stiff, sore fingers.
Once I get a cup of coffee down, in the morning, and get things
limbered up a bit, the fingers start working again.
Answer to your first question: Yes, there are much easier routes of
flight to and around Alaska. There is no requirement to fly over
mountains, glaciers, snowfields, and water. Primary route to Alaska
is the Alcan Highway. The Canadian Sectional depicts the preferred
VFR route with a line of blue diamonds. It pretty much follows the
highway, occassionally taking the shortest route through bends in the
rivers and road.
Reliable weather reports are based solely on where stations are
located. The land is so big, terrain vast and varying, that weather
systems change quite frequently between stations. Most small airports
along the Alcan have a weather person to give weather, open and close
flight plans. However, these people are quickly disappearing. Canada
and Alaska are quickly going automatic and remote. The controler at
Barrow Airport, Alaska, told me there was a current study to close the
FSS at Deadhorse. Most of the small airports in Alaska are already
without FSS's.
The flight from the Glen Highway at Eureka Lodge, up Tazlina Glacier,
over the Columbia Ice Field, and into Valdez, was about 54 miles. I
had originally planned to fly the highway from Palmer to Gulkana, then
turn south and follow the highway to Valdez. After I departed Skelton
Field at Eureka Lodge, did some in air flight planning and decided to
go over the mountains and save about 100 miles on the flight to
Valdez. I am glad I did now. Was a beautiful, exciting flight. I
had crytal clear weather all the way across, until I got about 10
miles or so from Valdez. At that point I could see Valdez was solid
overcast. Thought I was going to have to turn around and head back to
Eureka Lodge. Near the edge of the mountains, a gap in the clouds
over a valley opened up. I could see down through it all the way to
the bay at Valdez. I knew then I could make it into Valdez airport.
Reminded me of the flight with John Williamson last May. We made it
to within a few miles of Leadville, Colorado, but were turned around
when the pass was closed. That time we didn't find a hole.
Here is a shot towards Valdez when I discovered they were socked in.
You can see the cloud layer just past the last ridge of mountains:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Burwash%20to%20Valdez/2004a%20285.jpg
A break in the clouds just as I arrived over the end of the valley.
You can see Valdez and the water way down through the valley:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Burwash%20to%20Valdez/2004a%20286.jpg
What a relief. I am now down in the valley and under the cloud cover.
Valdez is located on near side of bay, and the terminus of the Alaska
Pipeline is easily seen on the other:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Burwash%20to%20Valdez/2004a%20287.jpg
Popping out the end of the valley, right over Valdez:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Burwash%20to%20Valdez/2004a%20288.jpg
Left turn and short final for Valdez Airport:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Burwash%20to%20Valdez/2004a%20289.jpg
Waiting for fuel at Valdez. Had I been 15 minutes later, I would have
missed the fuel man who also doubles as the pilot for the helicopter
outfit based here:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Valdez%20to%20Helmericks/2004b%20001.jpg
My favorite Alaska flower, Fireweed, at the foot of Worthington
Glacier, along the highway north of Valdez. There is a gravel
airstrip here:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Valdez%20to%20Helmericks/2004b%20026.jpg
My current screen saver, Miss P'fer at the foot of Worthington
Glacier:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Alaska%202004%20(reduced)/Valdez%20to%20Helmericks/2004b%20024.jpg
Take care,
john h
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
Steve/Guys
I bought their insurance last year, but not this year. The reason is
that the MK III in rated at 1,000 lbs gross and their limit is 992 lbs.
Therefore, they won't insure me unless I lie about the gross weight. Of
course, by doing that I really don't have any insurance since, by lying,
I've falsified my application and they can refuse any claim. I've talked to
Dawn Faye at First Flight Insurance a number of times and she is supposed to
be talking to the underwriters about raising the weight limit because she
has a number of applications (MK III's?) in the same category. Only problem
is, she's always "talking to the underwriters and haven't got an answer
yet." I don't have a lot of hope.
AzDave
----- Original Message -----
From: <N27SB@aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
>
> To All,
> Just got done tracking liability insurance for ultralights. Seems like the
> only option I could find was through USUA. www.usua.org They require
> that your
> ul be registered with an entity like EAA or others, you have an
> endorsement
> from a BFI (even if you have a private ticket) and you are a member of
> USUA.
> Cost for a Firefly is $375.00 This was a question posed last year but was
> not
> resolved. This is for true ultralights
> without an N number.
> Hope this helps someone.
>
> Steve Boetto
> FireFly 007
>
>
>
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: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
a $15,000 video camera under that kolb so we can all experience some
of what he experienced!!
| One day I hope to be so brave. imagine that picture with an oil
drilling rig in the middle!! Dam I hope they stay out of Alaska with
those drills! Use up the Saudi oil first at least!!
| cliff in Maine.
Morning Cliff/Gang:
Would have been nice to have had that $15,000.00 video camera mounted
on the aircraft and rolling for the entire 180 hour flight. However,
making an unsponsored flight like this is very costly, even when
scrimping and saving at every corner by sleeping out with the
aircraft, staying out of motels, eating less than normal, and staying
with friends along the way. Fuel for this flight was right at
$3,000.00. Bill for the 48 day flight was near $5,000.00. That
knocks a big chunk out of my Army retirement pay. Thanks goodness I
made it long enough to start collecting a little Social Security.
Another reason for no video camera is reducing my work load as much as
possible. When you do flights like this solo, there is no one to
share the load. Everything, 24 hours a day, comes down to me to make
the final decision during the flight. At times there were very poor
decisions made because of fatigue and not having another to help make
those judgements. Hopefully, you can get an idea of what I
experienced through my photos. No matter what kind of stills and
movies one brings back from Alaska and Northern Canada, the only way
to really experience it is to be there. The pictures don't do the
country justice.
I've made four trips to the North Slope now. Three by MKIII and one
by road. The oil fields up there are not that intrusive to most.
There is very little population on the North Slope, except for about
8,000 eskimos. My friends, Jim and Teena Helmericks, have been living
on their island in the Colville River, 48 miles northwest of Deadhorse
since the 1950's. I was surprised to see a new well site across the
river and about 5 miles from their lodge. Despite the encroachment on
their isolated world, the oil field makes them an ice road in the
winter so they now have the capability to drive out to civilization,
something they would have never dreamed of. Prior to that, it was fly
out or cross country by snow machine in the winter.
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: John H and Flying Over Hostile Terrain |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
John
I bet you could pay for your next trip if you burned a CD with all those pictures
you took with details of each - I'd buy one for $20.
Then I'd like to take that exact same trip some day - if you put it all together
in a booklet - with advice based on your experience & pictures of each spot
where you landed - I'll buy a copy - say $40 for that. It wouldn't take long
before you've got enough money coming in to finance the next trip!
I just sent those pictures out to a bunch of people i know and they all love them
and want to see more!
thanks
cliff
DO NOT ARCHIVE
John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck"
| It sure would be nice if John would take that trip again and mount
a $15,000 video camera under that kolb so we can all experience some
of what he experienced!!
| One day I hope to be so brave. imagine that picture with an oil
drilling rig in the middle!! Dam I hope they stay out of Alaska with
those drills! Use up the Saudi oil first at least!!
| cliff in Maine.
Morning Cliff/Gang:
Would have been nice to have had that $15,000.00 video camera mounted
on the aircraft and rolling for the entire 180 hour flight. However,
making an unsponsored flight like this is very costly, even when
scrimping and saving at every corner by sleeping out with the
aircraft, staying out of motels, eating less than normal, and staying
with friends along the way. Fuel for this flight was right at
$3,000.00. Bill for the 48 day flight was near $5,000.00. That
knocks a big chunk out of my Army retirement pay. Thanks goodness I
made it long enough to start collecting a little Social Security.
Another reason for no video camera is reducing my work load as much as
possible. When you do flights like this solo, there is no one to
share the load. Everything, 24 hours a day, comes down to me to make
the final decision during the flight. At times there were very poor
decisions made because of fatigue and not having another to help make
those judgements. Hopefully, you can get an idea of what I
experienced through my photos. No matter what kind of stills and
movies one brings back from Alaska and Northern Canada, the only way
to really experience it is to be there. The pictures don't do the
country justice.
I've made four trips to the North Slope now. Three by MKIII and one
by road. The oil fields up there are not that intrusive to most.
There is very little population on the North Slope, except for about
8,000 eskimos. My friends, Jim and Teena Helmericks, have been living
on their island in the Colville River, 48 miles northwest of Deadhorse
since the 1950's. I was surprised to see a new well site across the
river and about 5 miles from their lodge. Despite the encroachment on
their isolated world, the oil field makes them an ice road in the
winter so they now have the capability to drive out to civilization,
something they would have never dreamed of. Prior to that, it was fly
out or cross country by snow machine in the winter.
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
---------------------------------
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: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: snuffy@usol.com
. The reason is
> that the MK III in rated at 1,000 lbs gross and their limit is 992 lbs.
Dave,
The Mark 3 Classic is now rated at 850 lbs on TNK website. Kirk
Do not archive
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: | Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot@comcast.net>
Kirk and all,
You can't go by what is on the TNK website. The website has so many errors
on it that it is ridiculous. The specification page for the MarkIII Classic
is confused with the MarkIII Extra.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra,
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot
do not archive
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: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
Are the weights on the Kolb website a bit unrealistic, or are they trying
to outflank the lawyers, or am I just missing something?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 10:58 AM 3/10/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: snuffy@usol.com
>
>. The reason is
> > that the MK III in rated at 1,000 lbs gross and their limit is 992 lbs.
>
>
>Dave,
> The Mark 3 Classic is now rated at 850 lbs on TNK website. Kirk
>
>Do not archive
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: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" <rowedl@highstream.net>
Richard, others,
Your Gross weight is whatever you said it was when you filled out your
paperwork for your registration. Kolb has always listed both 850 and 1000
for the Mk-3 gross weight in their brochures even since Homer owned the
company. John H and others have listed their gross weight as 1200, as the
manufacturer, it is your prerogative.
Denny Rowe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> Are the weights on the Kolb website a bit unrealistic, or are they trying
> to outflank the lawyers, or am I just missing something?
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> At 10:58 AM 3/10/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> Kolb-List message posted by: snuffy@usol.com
>>
>>. The reason is
>> > that the MK III in rated at 1,000 lbs gross and their limit is 992 lbs.
>>
>>
>>Dave,
>> The Mark 3 Classic is now rated at 850 lbs on TNK website. Kirk
>>
>>Do not archive
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Silver Fern Microlights Ltd" <kiwimick@sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk>
Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone has covered a Mk III or Xtra in light grade fabric opposed
to the usual medium that is normally supplied?.
Mike
G-CDFA
Xtra/Jabiru
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: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
> Kirk and all,
>
> You can't go by what is on the TNK website.
Maybe the insurance companies can though......;o)
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: | Re: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: " Billie Futrell" <bill_joe@bellsouth.net>
Hey Dave,
I just got off the phone with dawn today about the ins. She called me
last week to let me know that they have increased the max. gross weight to
1156, if I remember correctly. So that will cover a lot of us, and many
others. So give her a call and she will send you out an application. The web
site has not been up dated to show the weight increase yet so just give her
a call and you can tell her I gave you the inf.. if you want.
Take care....... Bill Futrell MK111Xtra 912 Brooksville Fla
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier"
<pelletier@cableone.net>
>
> Steve/Guys
>
> I bought their insurance last year, but not this year. The reason is
> that the MK III in rated at 1,000 lbs gross and their limit is 992 lbs.
> Therefore, they won't insure me unless I lie about the gross weight. Of
> course, by doing that I really don't have any insurance since, by lying,
> I've falsified my application and they can refuse any claim. I've talked
to
> Dawn Faye at First Flight Insurance a number of times and she is supposed
to
> be talking to the underwriters about raising the weight limit because she
> has a number of applications (MK III's?) in the same category. Only
problem
> is, she's always "talking to the underwriters and haven't got an answer
> yet." I don't have a lot of hope.
>
> AzDave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <N27SB@aol.com>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
> >
> > To All,
> > Just got done tracking liability insurance for ultralights. Seems like
the
> > only option I could find was through USUA. www.usua.org They require
> > that your
> > ul be registered with an entity like EAA or others, you have an
> > endorsement
> > from a BFI (even if you have a private ticket) and you are a member of
> > USUA.
> > Cost for a Firefly is $375.00 This was a question posed last year but
was
> > not
> > resolved. This is for true ultralights
> > without an N number.
> > Hope this helps someone.
> >
> > Steve Boetto
> > FireFly 007
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
Bill,
Great!...Thanks a lot for the info. I'll call her next week and will report
the results. Can't say much for her "dedication" or whatever you call it.
I've called her at least 3 times and she's never called back. Just can't
get good help these days I guess.
Thanks again.
AzDave
(Geez, but I love this list!!!)
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: " Billie Futrell" <bill_joe@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: " Billie Futrell"
> <bill_joe@bellsouth.net>
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> I just got off the phone with dawn today about the ins. She called me
> last week to let me know that they have increased the max. gross weight
> to
> 1156, if I remember correctly. So that will cover a lot of us, and many
> others. So give her a call and she will send you out an application. The
> web
> site has not been up dated to show the weight increase yet so just give
> her
> a call and you can tell her I gave you the inf.. if you want.
> Take care....... Bill Futrell MK111Xtra 912 Brooksville Fla
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier"
> <pelletier@cableone.net>
>>
>> Steve/Guys
>>
>> I bought their insurance last year, but not this year. The reason is
>> that the MK III in rated at 1,000 lbs gross and their limit is 992 lbs.
>> Therefore, they won't insure me unless I lie about the gross weight. Of
>> course, by doing that I really don't have any insurance since, by lying,
>> I've falsified my application and they can refuse any claim. I've talked
> to
>> Dawn Faye at First Flight Insurance a number of times and she is supposed
> to
>> be talking to the underwriters about raising the weight limit because she
>> has a number of applications (MK III's?) in the same category. Only
> problem
>> is, she's always "talking to the underwriters and haven't got an answer
>> yet." I don't have a lot of hope.
>>
>> AzDave
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <N27SB@aol.com>
>> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Kolb-List: Ultralight insurance
>>
>>
>> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
>> >
>> > To All,
>> > Just got done tracking liability insurance for ultralights. Seems like
> the
>> > only option I could find was through USUA. www.usua.org They require
>> > that your
>> > ul be registered with an entity like EAA or others, you have an
>> > endorsement
>> > from a BFI (even if you have a private ticket) and you are a member of
>> > USUA.
>> > Cost for a Firefly is $375.00 This was a question posed last year but
> was
>> > not
>> > resolved. This is for true ultralights
>> > without an N number.
>> > Hope this helps someone.
>> >
>> > Steve Boetto
>> > FireFly 007
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Could have been tragical but finally hllarious ;-) |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Noel Bouchard <noelbou@cam.org>
Hello Kolbers !
Sorry about beeing off topic but i tough you guys might enjoy this !
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/hangglidefall.html
Absolutely hilarious ! ;-)
Abosolutely Do Not Archive.
Nol Bouchard
Kolb Twinstar MKII
Montreal, Canada
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Ultralight insurance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
Hello to all,
When I started this thread I may not have been specific enough. My research
was about insurance for Ultralights. FAR PART 103. I found several
underwriters willing to sell coverage for FAA registered Aircraft including
Experimental. USUA working with First Flight was the only coverage that I could
find
for Part 103.
Steve Boetto
FireFly 007
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: | Maximum Gross Weight, Flight Loads and Flight Safety |
0.85 DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours after Received: date
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Vince Nicely" <vincenic@xtn.net>
Hi Gang,
I changed the title line to more nearly cover what I see coming up for
discussion from time to time. For example, a recent post said:
> Your Gross weight is whatever you said it was when you filled out your
> paperwork for your registration. Kolb has always listed both 850 and 1000
> for the Mk-3 gross weight in their brochures even since Homer owned the
> company. ...as the
> manufacturer, it is your prerogative.
Perhaps everyone knows the trade-offs this changed gross weight limit
requires, but I think it worth mentioning just in case someone with less
experience might need reminding.
What is a reasonable maximum gross weight limit to set and why? Why does
the designer make recommendations on maximum gross weight, limit load
factors and ultimate load factors? For example, my Firestar II
specifications on the order form from many years ago gives:
Gross Weight 725 pounds
Load Factor: +4,-2 Limit Load
Load Factor: +6,-2 Ultimate Load
among other things. What is the designer trying to tell me? Is it OK to
set the specifications on my airplane to some other number? If I do, what
else do I need to change?
What will break my airplane? How likely am I to get conditions that will
break my airplane?
The designer is saying that at a flight load of +4*725 = 2900 pounds load,
he thinks a Firestar II airplane will bend and recover completely with out
breaking, and at +6 *725 =4350 pounds load it will have permanently bent
parts but will not break and above that it is anybody's guess what will
happen. So, that leaves a lot of room for expanding the limits - right?
The limit and ultimate loads are set by the design, materials and
construction's quality? Changing the maximum gross weight I choose does not
change them. So if I change the gross weight, perhaps I will want to change
the load factors I allow to protect the airplane's structure.
Consider, for example, that I are flying along at 70 mph in my Firestar II
airplane that stalls (1g stall) at 35 mph. Today, there is a little wind
and some wind gusts. My airplane gets a good updraft! What limits the
load? The wing at speed of 70 stalls at 4 g's, so that good updraft can
make my Firestar II loaded to gross weight of 725 pounds have a flight load
(almost instantly) of 2900 pounds on the wings - it is at the design limit
set by the conditions and the way I am flying it. At 86 mph, that same good
updraft can load the wings to 4350 pounds before they stall and I now have
a bent airplane and may need that parachute that helped push up the actual
weight. It can be even worse because even when I am flying at less than 70
mph a gust from the both below and the front direction can get to the 4 g
load limit.
So, if you change the gross weight you plan to carry but do not change the
design of the airplane, you will likely want to change your flying to
accommodate the designed load limits of the airplane.
Comments and discussion are welcome. We all want to fly safely and need to
know the tradeoff's we make as we change things so that we can continue to
operate safely. I have used the Firestar II as an example, but the same
considerations with different numbers apply to them all, IMHO.
Vince Nicely
Firestar II
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: | Alaska, History Channel |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Folks:
Alaska is on the History Channel now. After this commercial is a
segment on Bush Pilots. Should be interesting.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Gross Weight, Flight Loads and Flight Safety |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Vince,
The best post I've seen lately and one every one should read and
take to heart. Especilly beginners and inexperienced. I'm glad to be reminded
of the formulas.
Vince Nicely <vincenic@xtn.net> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Vince Nicely"
Hi Gang,
I changed the title line to more nearly cover what I see coming up for
discussion from time to time. For example, a recent post said:
> Your Gross weight is whatever you said it was when you filled out your
> paperwork for your registration. Kolb has always listed both 850 and 1000
> for the Mk-3 gross weight in their brochures even since Homer owned the
> company. ...as the
> manufacturer, it is your prerogative.
Perhaps everyone knows the trade-offs this changed gross weight limit
requires, but I think it worth mentioning just in case someone with less
experience might need reminding.
What is a reasonable maximum gross weight limit to set and why? Why does
the designer make recommendations on maximum gross weight, limit load
factors and ultimate load factors? For example, my Firestar II
specifications on the order form from many years ago gives:
Gross Weight 725 pounds
Load Factor: +4,-2 Limit Load
Load Factor: +6,-2 Ultimate Load
among other things. What is the designer trying to tell me? Is it OK to
set the specifications on my airplane to some other number? If I do, what
else do I need to change?
What will break my airplane? How likely am I to get conditions that will
break my airplane?
The designer is saying that at a flight load of +4*725 = 2900 pounds load,
he thinks a Firestar II airplane will bend and recover completely with out
breaking, and at +6 *725 =4350 pounds load it will have permanently bent
parts but will not break and above that it is anybody's guess what will
happen. So, that leaves a lot of room for expanding the limits - right?
The limit and ultimate loads are set by the design, materials and
construction's quality? Changing the maximum gross weight I choose does not
change them. So if I change the gross weight, perhaps I will want to change
the load factors I allow to protect the airplane's structure.
Consider, for example, that I are flying along at 70 mph in my Firestar II
airplane that stalls (1g stall) at 35 mph. Today, there is a little wind
and some wind gusts. My airplane gets a good updraft! What limits the
load? The wing at speed of 70 stalls at 4 g's, so that good updraft can
make my Firestar II loaded to gross weight of 725 pounds have a flight load
(almost instantly) of 2900 pounds on the wings - it is at the design limit
set by the conditions and the way I am flying it. At 86 mph, that same good
updraft can load the wings to 4350 pounds before they stall and I now have
a bent airplane and may need that parachute that helped push up the actual
weight. It can be even worse because even when I am flying at less than 70
mph a gust from the both below and the front direction can get to the 4 g
load limit.
So, if you change the gross weight you plan to carry but do not change the
design of the airplane, you will likely want to change your flying to
accommodate the designed load limits of the airplane.
Comments and discussion are welcome. We all want to fly safely and need to
know the tradeoff's we make as we change things so that we can continue to
operate safely. I have used the Firestar II as an example, but the same
considerations with different numbers apply to them all, IMHO.
Vince Nicely
Firestar II
---------------------------------
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! --
|