Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Re: Decarbon 447 (N27SB@aol.com)
2. 06:47 AM - Re: Gaffers Tape (Mhqqqqq@aol.com)
3. 07:17 AM - John W message (russ kinne)
4. 07:33 AM - Re: q (ray anderson)
5. 07:36 AM - Re: q (ray anderson)
6. 08:25 AM - Re: q (ray anderson)
7. 08:32 AM - Re: q/Cross Country and Highways (PATRICK LADD)
8. 09:17 AM - Gap seal / Tape (Mike Pierzina)
9. 10:20 AM - Re: Liberal?/Conservative? which is which? was : young flyers (Bob N.)
10. 10:47 AM - q (russ kinne)
11. 03:07 PM - Re: Liberal?/Conservative? which is which? was : young flyers (WillUribe@aol.com)
12. 03:35 PM - Re: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV (Todd Fredricks)
13. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV (Todd Fredricks)
14. 04:12 PM - Re: Liberal?/Conservative? which is which? was : young flyers (robert bean)
15. 04:28 PM - Re: Liberal?/Conservative? which is which? was : young flyers (WillUribe@aol.com)
16. 06:23 PM - Tail boom (owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com)
17. 07:15 PM - Re: Tail boom (Dennis Souder)
18. 08:36 PM - Re: Tail boom (Bill Peterson)
19. 08:39 PM - Re: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV (Dennis Souder)
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: Decarbon 447 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
Dwight, You must have missed my email last week. sorry but I already sold
the chute. I try to go with the first guy to give me a commitment. I will let
you know if he changes his mind.
steve
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gaffers Tape |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Mhqqqqq@aol.com
In a message dated 7/6/2005 3:53:37 PM Central Standard Time,
planecrazzzy@yahoo.com writes:
I was going to order some of that gaffers tape in white for my aileron Gap
seal.....But
look around, you can find white duct tape. BUT I found some strong clear
tape at mills fleet farm that worked well. what I did was put the tape on for
the gapseal and then put some tape
on the other side of that (sticky side together) to keep the dirt from
sticking to it.
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: russ kinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
John
Thank you for the long email quoting extensively from Part 103 and the
AIM . Anyone who flies anything should be familiar with the material
you sent. We all should be flying loegally, have to obey the same
rules, and work with the FAA, hopefully in a friendly and cooperative
manner.
But I don't know why you addressed it specifically to me. I have Com
SEL,SES,MEL and an Instrument
rating so am well acquainted with Part 103. I don't fly ultralights and
freely admit I'm not "up to speed" on the regs concerning them, so the
second part of your email is useful to me. If I start flying UL's I'll
have to study them carefully.
I hope everyone on the list will copy your email for its reference
value and read it over until they've memorized it. Too much information
is way better than too little.
I never considered a Wal-Mart parking lot as an emergency field, but
have often looked at beachside lots in the winter when they're empty,
and plenty long enough.
I consider your opinions "better than anyone else's" due to your
wide expereience. We can all profit from listening to high-time pilots
Russ Kinne
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: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Just a thought. At least around here, most of our 4 lanes have a fairly wide and
clear median separating the two sections of lanes. For years I have eyeballed
those as a proper and fairly safe landing area. Might ding the undercarriage
of the plane but shouldnt pose any great danger to traffic. With something like
our Kolbs, I don't think a wing would overlap the roadways. If necessary one
could even land into the flow of traffic.
Ray Anderson
Ultra Star
Do Not Archive
Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike
At 07:02 PM 7/8/05 -0400, you wrote:
>I ALWAYS try to keep a 4-lane within reach. because its a great smooth
>surface
>to aim for.
I deleted the name of the author of this post because he is only typical of
several posts saying more or less the same thing. I have a problem with
this. When we fly, we take the risk for what we do upon ourself. An engine
out in the vicinity of a highway involves some serious moral choices. The
soccer mom in the SUV, the trucker trying to stay awake, the goober driving
the whatever should not become part of our potential disaster. I submit to
the list that unless you are absolutely, positively certain that there are
no vehicles on a road anywhere close to whatever your outcome might be,
then you better plan to stuff your Kolb into the trees next to the road and
leave the people driving on the roads alone. They didn't ask you to go fly,
and they don't need to be part of your failure mode. Any attempt at saving
your own butt that might very well put someone elses into the median upside
down in the process is unconscionable.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Just a thought. At least around here, most of our 4 lanes have a fairly wide and
clear median separating the two sections of lanes. For years I have eyeballed
those as a proper and fairly safe landing area. Might ding the undercarriage
of the plane but shouldnt pose any great danger to traffic. With something like
our Kolbs, I don't think a wing would overlap the roadways. If necessary one
could even land into the flow of traffic.
Ray Anderson
Ultra Star (note John W., I'm listening to you)
Do Not Archive
Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike
At 07:02 PM 7/8/05 -0400, you wrote:
>I ALWAYS try to keep a 4-lane within reach. because its a great smooth
>surface
>to aim for.
I deleted the name of the author of this post because he is only typical of
several posts saying more or less the same thing. I have a problem with
this. When we fly, we take the risk for what we do upon ourself. An engine
out in the vicinity of a highway involves some serious moral choices. The
soccer mom in the SUV, the trucker trying to stay awake, the goober driving
the whatever should not become part of our potential disaster. I submit to
the list that unless you are absolutely, positively certain that there are
no vehicles on a road anywhere close to whatever your outcome might be,
then you better plan to stuff your Kolb into the trees next to the road and
leave the people driving on the roads alone. They didn't ask you to go fly,
and they don't need to be part of your failure mode. Any attempt at saving
your own butt that might very well put someone elses into the median upside
down in the process is unconscionable.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
<Did I read correctly you'd consider landing AGAINST the traffic? Now
that really scares me -->
Russ,
No, no, heaven forbid!!! Not against traffic on the roadway. (sorry
I didn't state that more clearly) If clear, against traffic ON THE MEDIAN.
Around here the medians are usually fairly level and wide enough to permit this.
If a motorest saw even something as small as a Kolb approaching in their face,
most wouldn't die from a head on crash, but an instant heart attack. I would.
Ray
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: q/Cross Country and Highways |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
I think the terms "paralleling a road or railroad"would be more accurate.>>
Remebering on which side of the feature you are supposed to be travelling.
Just in case someone else is doing the same thing in the other direction.
Cheers
Pat
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
Hey Guys,
I have an address that K Fackler posted along time ago....it's
a detail of the gap seal approved by Jim Miller of Aircraft Technical Support...The
Poly-fiber experts...
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/kfackler@ameritech.net.10.03.2002/gap_seals.gif
I found some 3M vinyl tape(white) that I'm gonna try.....otherwise I'll look for
the colored duct tape at Walmart like somebody suggested on the "list"
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN
do not archive
SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Mhqqqqq@aol.comlook around, you
can find white duct tape. BUT I found some strong clear tape at mills fleet
farm that worked well. what I did was put the tape on forthe gapseal and then
put some tape on the other side of that (sticky side together) to keep the
dirt from sticking to it.
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
| 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: young flyers |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bob N." <ronoy@shentel.net>
Charlie E.,
Well Done, O Brave and Noble Spirit!
Bob N. ( 070 FireFly...which makes this Kolb-related)
another proud-to-be-called Liberal...in the truest sense
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: russ kinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
Would Kolber Dave Stroberg please contact me? Thanks.
Russ Kinne
Russ@RKIPhoto.com
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: WillUribe@aol.com
Sometimes it puts things in perspective to just LIST THEM
9/5/72 - Attack on Israeli athletes - Munich
11/4/79 - Iran Hostage Crisis
10/23/83 - Beirut barracks bombing
10/19/85 - Achilles Laura
12/21/90 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie
10/28/93 - WTC NYC
6/25/96 - Khobar Towers
7/17/96 - TWA 800 -- questionable
8/15/98 - Nairobi and Tanzania
10/12/00 - USS Cole
9/11/01 - WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania
3/11/04 - Madrid bombing
7/7/05 - London bombings
BTW, Congress funds and the Senate consents.
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: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Todd Fredricks <flyingfox@copper.net>
Dennis:
The differences between twins and singles are well noted, however, when
dealing with aircraft like the AirCam specifically you are dealing with a
twin with 100% redundancy. That is, the aircraft can fly its mission
entirely on a single engine alone. I have personally done this by departing
flying and landing all on a single engine in the AirCam at gross weight.
I am very familiar with the concept of SE service ceilings and limitations
in most GA twins and I would never be cavalier with something like a King
Air 200 loaded to gross on a typical Southeast Ohio Summer Day. The
performance on single engine, even with those beautiful Pratts turning is
remarkably different than when both fans are turning.
But I hasten to add that the principle reason Phil Lockwood designed the
AirCam was so that when the National Geographic people were buzzing over
dense jungle taking pictures they would have assurance that they had total
power redundancy. In essence the AirCam is WAYYYYYYY over powered, even with
a 582 application, for its basic needs. This in light of the oft spoken 80
20% twin engine rule (A twin's second engine provides only twenty percent
additional performance but accounts for 80% of the aircraft's reserve power,
a phenomenon I witnessed first hand during my MEL checkride when the 12,000+
hour RC-121 veteran examiner pulled the low time engine right after rotation
and with not enough runway left to abort. Flying a 10 mile Upwind to reach
pattern altitude on a wheezy TBO'ed Lycoming in a beat up Seminole will
convince you about the inadequacy of most twins' twin).
But buying a twin light aircraft like an AirCam is not for performance like
that of a Seneca, it can cruise barely fast enough to get out of its own
way, it is specifically for Phil Lockwood's purpose which is to have a
machine that allows for significant piece of mind when you are plowing
around 30 feet off of the surface of the forest canopy or threading mountain
passes while your front seater is buzzing away with an IMAX camera.
My only problem with the AirCam is that it is a tandem seat airplane. I
would prefer it to be side-by-side seating, which defeats its utility as an
awesome IMAX platform but would allow both passengers to utilize a common
panel in the event of IMC or simply the need to fly right to left seat. That
is why I would love to see the MarkIII developed into a twin application.
I know it sounds extreme, but my purpose for the Kolb I buy is for
photography and cross country flying. It is without question that John H and
John W as well as others are Subject matter experts on long range flying in
the Kolbs so I try and suck up everything they have to say, but for shear
utility, for my tastes, which would involve occasionally flying IFR in the
machine, I would love to have the absolute redundancy of that second 912
engine.
Yes costly, very, to the tune of 14K and the additional fuel burn, but when
I am winging out across Lake Erie or the Pacific Ocean I will take the
additional risk of failure and cost for the knowledge that if I lose one fan
the overwhelming odds are that the second one, on such a light machine, will
be more than adequate to get me back to a safe landing area.
Finally, if I am totally honest, I have $30,000 tied up into a 172 that
burns 8.5 GPH and gets me there at 105knots. It is a very old airplane as
well. For me it would be worth it to spend the additional dollars to have an
airplane that goes almost as fast when needed, burns just a little bit more
but can fly much slower and burn a lot less when desired AND still be
capable of handling my farm field with ease AND going on a single fan if
needed. The point about drag is well taken, but when we are talking about
these airplanes, including Kolbs, there is only so much you can gain in
terms of speed.
My take on John H, if I might be so bold is that we are dealing with a very
experienced and wise aviator who has seen and experienced much and is
intimately familiar with his machine. He has spent a lot of time, sweat and
presumably sore backside hours learning his art of long range flying. His
comfort level with Miss P'Fer is unquestioned as are his reasons for
tweaking her just as she is, but I still find myself, from my perspective,
wishing for the additional margin that second engine would afford my piece
of mind.
I am sure you know all of this so forgive me if I am preaching to a well
informed "choir". :)
I really appreciate this forum. I enjoy reading the words of everyone and it
is a great alternative to some of the more "nose-high" groups that I have
encountered in the past. I feel like I learn something good everyday I read
my email. Thanks.
Todd
On 7/8/05 11:03 PM, "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Good to hear from a fellow twin-hugger.
>
> Actually handling characteristic were not negatives in my thinking as a
> close-to-centerline twin need not have these traditional twin vices.
>
> The negatives I was referring to were the ones John Hauck had mentioned -
> and they are very valid. Higher cost for engines, more fuel costs, more
> maintenance, less payload. For a hard core cruiser like John, the
> additional drag and additional fuel cost would be a big deal because payload
> and range would decrease with a twin by a substantial margin. (Figure out
> the fuel mileage of the Spectrum single vs the twin.)
>
> These negatives are compounded because a twin, for it to be truly redundant,
> needs much more power than a single engine aircraft. Because if an engine
> quits, the good engine must not only fly the aircraft with its payload, but
> it must also carry the weight of the dead engine and the drag of the stopped
> prop. Did I mention that more wing area is needed to carry the extra weight
> for a given stall speed?
>
> So the properly redundant twin not only needs much more power, but it is
> also bigger, heavier and dreggier than its svelte single brother. This
> means more power yet.
>
> If a twin does not have adequate single engine performance then you are
> twice as likely to come out of the sky due to an engine failure - because
> you have twice the probability of having an engine out.
>
> I hope I am not sounding like a twin hater, but this is what makes designing
> a twin so maddening - it is a tough nut to crack ... and do it well.
>
> For a round-the-patch flyer like myself, these negatives would not be a big
> deal as I would be enjoying the twin's main positive virtue: redundancy
> while flying it only as a single-place aircraft.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd Fredricks
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Kolb Mark IV
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Todd Fredricks <flyingfox@copper.net>
>
> Well the Air Cam has no specifically nasty tendencies. Pulling an engine is
> a non-event in the machine. It has a lot of tail, the elevator is mounted
> high and its engines are mounted very close to one another. There is double
> the cost of engines but you reach over, pull the go lever back and you feel
> a slight pull into the 'bad' engine and then you keep flying.
>
> The thing is that because the engines are mounted nearly centerline and they
> each have enough power to fly the machine you really get a lot of insurance
> out of the package with little in terms of the conventional twin "scariness"
> though I would hasten to add that aside from the conspicuous absence of
> sound, an engine out in the C-12 is pretty unremarkable because of the
> autofeather system and even on the Seminole I trained in it was noticeable
> but as long as you keep it as blue line or above you are fine.
>
> I wouldn't want to fly any twin without some instruction but I think a
> bigger Kolb with twin engines would be awesome as another alternative. If I
> could figure out the cage geometry and had a modicum of engineering ability
> I would love to build one myself.
>
> You might gain some greater efficiency as well by moving both fans outward
> and into cleaner air.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
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: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Todd Fredricks <flyingfox@copper.net>
Hey, I don't even own one and I like em just the way they are. Don't
misinterpet my enthusiasm for distaste but I recall seeing that Mr. Kolb at
one time had a multi he was flying. I just figured that slapping another
engine on a Mark III would be sort of a return to the roots :)
I'll shut up now about modifying success and continue to drool about sitting
in a Mark IIIX at Oshkosh to see if I can fit in one.
Thanks for the admonishment. I spent the day doing flight physicals on your
colleagues John, I know all about the rule that medicine is the natural
enemy of Army Aviation. I'll stick to what I know about over 40 FDMEs and
defer to pilots about pilot stuff. :)
Did you fly just helos in Vietnam or anything else?
Todd
On 7/8/05 11:33 PM, "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
> | I wouldn't want to fly any twin without some instruction but I
> think a
> alternative. If I
> ability
> | Todd
>
> Todd/Gang:
>
> If you want something with two engines and larger than a Kolb, it
> would no longer be a Kolb. To me, a Kolb is what Homer Kolb designed,
> the airplanes I fly, have flown, and am flying now. Guess I am a
> little old fashion and very comfortable with the MKIII from the
> Original Kolb Company with a few Jim and John Hauck modifications
> thrown in.
>
> I flew single engine aircraft in the US and in RVN when I first
> started flying. Had good success with them then, and I continue to
> have good success with them now. Keep it as simple as possible. Like
> my avionics, the smallest, cheapest ICOM Handheld VHF (A-3) and a GPS,
> also hand held. Have demonstrated that is all I need to do what I
> want to do with my Kolb.
>
> Todd, you can call your new twin engined aircraft the Fredericks. Be
> aware though, most folks on the Kolb List like Kolbs, basically, the
> way they are. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> Titus, Alabama
> Finished building 13.5 years ago, but not finished having fun.
>
> PS: Maybe you should learn to fly a Kolb before you redesign it.
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
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: young flyers |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Gents, despite my urge to jump in on this, once again this is an
inappropriate
forum for such matters and will not change anyone's mind.
In addition, whilst I'z shaking my pointin' finger, try to remember the
DO NOT ARCHIVE
unless deemed gainful.
-BB, (social liberal, fiscal conservative)
-too windy for the Kolb today
On 9, Jul 2005, at 6:06 PM, WillUribe@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: WillUribe@aol.com
>
> Sometimes it puts things in perspective to just LIST THEM
>
> 9/5/72 - Attack on Israeli athletes - Munich
> 11/4/79 - Iran Hostage Crisis
> 10/23/83 - Beirut barracks bombing
> 10/19/85 - Achilles Laura
> 12/21/90 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie
> 10/28/93 - WTC NYC
> 6/25/96 - Khobar Towers
> 7/17/96 - TWA 800 -- questionable
> 8/15/98 - Nairobi and Tanzania
> 10/12/00 - USS Cole
> 9/11/01 - WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania
> 3/11/04 - Madrid bombing
> 7/7/05 - London bombings
> BTW, Congress funds and the Senate consents.
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: WillUribe@aol.com
Bob,
Thanks for your post, I totally agree with you. Please forgive me, I just
couldn't resist the urge to let someone get away with distorting the truth.
Regards,
Guillermo Uribe
El Paso, TX.
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of robert bean
Subject: Re: Liberal?/Conservative? which is which? was : Kolb-List: young
flyers
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Gents, despite my urge to jump in on this, once again this is an
inappropriate
forum for such matters and will not change anyone's mind.
In addition, whilst I'z shaking my pointin' finger, try to remember the
DO NOT ARCHIVE
unless deemed gainful.
-BB, (social liberal, fiscal conservative)
-too windy for the Kolb today
On 9, Jul 2005, at 6:06 PM, WillUribe@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: WillUribe@aol.com
>
> Sometimes it puts things in perspective to just LIST THEM
>
> 9/5/72 - Attack on Israeli athletes - Munich
> 11/4/79 - Iran Hostage Crisis
> 10/23/83 - Beirut barracks bombing
> 10/19/85 - Achilles Laura
> 12/21/90 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie
> 10/28/93 - WTC NYC
> 6/25/96 - Khobar Towers
> 7/17/96 - TWA 800 -- questionable
> 8/15/98 - Nairobi and Tanzania
> 10/12/00 - USS Cole
> 9/11/01 - WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania
> 3/11/04 - Madrid bombing
> 7/7/05 - London bombings
> BTW, Congress funds and the Senate consents.
>
> do not archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by:
I=92m a owner of Mark II built in 1989, very good plane with stretch
fuselage and only 38hp Rotax 462, but it works very well.
My plane have got on the nose for 3 or 4 times when we are two people
on board, especially when the runaway is heavy like high grass. (and
probably the previous owner had the same problem) But the reason that
I=92m writing this is, that at I had to lend on very rough place few days
a go, when the engine stop suddenly on the mountain trip.
The lending was very good, but at the end the plane stick the nose to
the ground (not so hard) and back on the tail, and the tail boom bent
in half. I was very surprised because it was not so hard. The =91H=92 brace
is ok. I=92m wondering is there any update of the tail boom, like
stronger boom or different =91H=92 brace or shall we all replace the boom
after 10-15 years and few nose-overs=92
Thank you, Johannes
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Hi Johannes,
I am curious about the "stretched" fuselage you mention; I am pretty
familiar with most of the Kolb models - but I don't know what this is.
Could you describe the stretched aspect of the fuselage in more detail?
Thanks
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Tail boom
--> Kolb-List message posted by:
I=92m a owner of Mark II built in 1989, very good plane with stretch
fuselage and only 38hp Rotax 462, but it works very well.
My plane have got on the nose for 3 or 4 times when we are two people
on board, especially when the runaway is heavy like high grass. (and
probably the previous owner had the same problem) But the reason that
I=92m writing this is, that at I had to lend on very rough place few days
a go, when the engine stop suddenly on the mountain trip.
The lending was very good, but at the end the plane stick the nose to
the ground (not so hard) and back on the tail, and the tail boom bent
in half. I was very surprised because it was not so hard. The =91H=92 brace
is ok. I=92m wondering is there any update of the tail boom, like
stronger boom or different =91H=92 brace or shall we all replace the boom
after 10-15 years and few nose-overs=92
Thank you, Johannes
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bill Peterson" <b1bookie@lycos.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Tail boom
> Hi Dennis and Johannes,
I had the same experience having the boom bend when doing a high speed taxie and
will post some photos when I get a chance. My 'Firestar' was also built in 1989.
Bill
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
>
> Hi Johannes,
>
> I am curious about the "stretched" fuselage you mention; I am pretty
> familiar with most of the Kolb models - but I don't know what this is.
> Could you describe the stretched aspect of the fuselage in more detail?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Tail boom
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by:
>
>
> I=92m a owner of Mark II built in 1989, very good plane with stretch
> fuselage and only 38hp Rotax 462, but it works very well.
> My plane have got on the nose for 3 or 4 times when we are two people
> on board, especially when the runaway is heavy like high grass. (and
> probably the previous owner had the same problem) But the reason that
> I=92m writing this is, that at I had to lend on very rough place few days
> a go, when the engine stop suddenly on the mountain trip.
> The lending was very good, but at the end the plane stick the nose to
> the ground (not so hard) and back on the tail, and the tail boom bent
> in half. I was very surprised because it was not so hard. The =91H=92 brace
> is ok. I=92m wondering is there any update of the tail boom, like
> stronger boom or different =91H=92 brace or shall we all replace the boom
> after 10-15 years and few nose-overs=92
>
> Thank you, Johannes
>
>
--
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
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: Twin Kolb Mark IV |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
Twinners,
Actually we built and flew 3 different twins during the Kolb years. The
Flyer was one. Flyers were powered with a variety of engines. The Chryslers
were used as direct drive engines and these were just okay with light
pilots. Then we added tuned expansion chambers and this helped noticeably.
Then we tried Chryslers with belt reductions and while these made much more
power, we really did not like the complexity of 2 added belt drives. So we
switched to direct drive 209 Solos and these were the most practical
arrangement.
The next twin also had 2 Solo engines mounted to the leading edge of
the wing. We flew this one very briefly but did not pursue it as it had an
unconventional control system and we did not like the way it handled.
The third twin was the SlingShot with 2si (430 Cuyuna) engines,
driving counter-rotating props. This flew very well and handled very well
and this would be one way to retro-fit a twin engine package to a Kolb ...
if you were a machinist. The one negative was that the drive system was not
totally redundant; the counter-rotating shafts shared common bearings. If
the bearing failed, you could loose all power. Probably not a likely
scenario - but still a possibility. The counter-rotating props were torque
canceling and of course they provided centerline thrust. Weight was
reasonable. I recall that at the static run-up how ferocious the thrust was.
It was tied to a tree but it seemed like it wanted to just jump off the
ground. It was powerful for a very short period of time. I lost an engine
on one of the first flights and when I landed the engine could not be
restarted. Upon pulling it apart, the piston was melted so badly that you
could almost slip a pencil under the rings at the exhaust port! I think
this twin engine package could have been developed as a reasonable
powerplant, but it would have taken a lot of work to de-bug and while some
would undoubtedly have been sold, most would probably opted for the 912.
Dennis
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! --
|