Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:15 AM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (David L. Bigelow)
2. 03:25 AM - Firestar adverse roll (Edward Steuber)
3. 05:37 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (John J. Peters)
4. 06:04 AM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Kirk Smith)
5. 06:25 AM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ray anderson)
6. 07:00 AM - Two tanks (EnaudZ@aol.com)
7. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Christopher Armstrong)
8. 10:48 AM - Re: Two tanks (Richard Pike)
9. 12:38 PM - Re: Lockwood's Diagnosis (N27SB@aol.com)
10. 12:42 PM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Jim Baker)
11. 01:26 PM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (John Hauck)
12. 01:27 PM - Re: Two tanks (Jim Baker)
13. 01:30 PM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Christopher Armstrong)
14. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Jack & Louise Hart)
15. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (dama)
16. 02:12 PM - Re: Hello (Icrashrc@aol.com)
17. 03:08 PM - Kolb list electric trim tab (Steve Garvelink)
18. 03:28 PM - Re: Two tanks (Richard Pike)
19. 03:39 PM - Re: Kolb list electric trim tab (John Hauck)
20. 03:55 PM - Re: Kolb list electric trim tab (Mitty)
21. 05:12 PM - Mk 11 vs Mk 111 (Thom Riddle)
22. 05:15 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
23. 05:37 PM - Re: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 (John Hauck)
24. 05:39 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (John Hauck)
25. 05:50 PM - trim motor (Ron Lee)
26. 06:09 PM - Re: Kolb list electric trim tab (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
27. 06:13 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
28. 06:17 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
29. 07:01 PM - 447 Status (Beauford)
30. 07:27 PM - Re: Lockwood's Diagnosis-black fuel line (Beauford)
31. 07:35 PM - Re: 447 Status (possums)
32. 08:34 PM - Re: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 (Richard Pike)
33. 08:56 PM - Ultrastar (Mitty)
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow@verizon.net>
>So if the first engine fails once in every 1000 flights, and the second
>engine fails once in every 1000 flights together they will fail 2 times in
>1000 flight, or twice as often. If the probability of each engine failing
>moves to once in every 500 flights, then for 2 of them it is 2 times in
>every 500 flights. One rotax 503 at 1/1000 versus two Hirths at 2/500 is 4
>times as much."
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here. It's intuitively obvious that
even with a pair of engines that may be less reliable than a particular single,
the odds of a simultaneous failure are quite slim.
Here's from an article by Arnold C. Anderson in his Ultralight Flying Notebook:
"To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability, let's
say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5% unreliable. Two
systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of 5% squared or .05
x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or 99.9975% reliable - a marked
improvement."
In the real world, the two systems (engines, ignitions, etc) do share some commonality,
and the actual reliability will probably be less than 99.9975%.
I can't predict the reliability of the Hirth F-33 compared to a 503, but it is
a dual ignition engine, and the operators I've been in contact with have hundreds
of trouble free hours. Another factor with a twin installation is that during
normal operation, the engines are not operated at as high an RPM as a single
engine installation. This reduces stress and increases time between overhaul.
Also, I'm not sure you can apply light twin statistics (constant speed props,
etc) to an experimental ultralight with near centerline thrust installation.
Guess I'll just have to try it and see..... :) Check's in the mail, and the
engines are coming!
Dave Bigelow
FS2
Kamuela, HI
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: | Firestar adverse roll |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber@rochester.rr.com>
Ellery and John ,
I had the same problem on my Ultrastar but maybe not as bad. Problem is
that the single lift strut does not allow for wing wash in or out. The left wing
needs to be washed out or the trailing edge moved up. This can be accomplished
by making new wing pivot attach points ( square steel ) and drilling the holes
slightly off that attach to the main spar. By using the one down on the left
wing and the other up on the right you can slightly change the relationship
of the wash in or out of the wings. You could also redrill the rear fuselage
attach points but then you would have to deal with bigger holes....Welding on
critical fittings ? The only problem with my method is the wing fold may be a
problem if you move the holes too far.... Good Luck !
Breakfast in Brockport this AM....May have to drive....raining here
but very light
ED in Western NY
do not archive
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John J. Peters" <jjp1945@juno.com>
David ,
I would think thee analysis of Arnold Anderson is a lot closer to
reality , of redundancy improving ones
chances / odds to avoid a mishap , than doubling the chances of a problem
refuses to fly with one engine . So I would conclude that with at least
some kind of power from the
remaining engine that the pilot could at least glide / fly to a further
out , and possibly safer landing site .
If you all play the lottery , and the odds are 50 million to one
are not 25 million to one , they are 50 million to two . ( hence my
lack of cash on hand )
$ .02 For what it's worth
JJP
FSII
single 503 DCDI , D-Carb
D-Floats
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
. When one engine on a twin fails, you don't lose half of your excess
> thrust, you typically lose 80% to 90% of your excess thrust, which means
> that if you were climbing at 1200 fpm with both engines, if you configure
> and fly the aircraft perfectly after an engine failure, you will likely
see
> around 200 fpm, which is pretty bad.
How much excess thrust do you lose when the engine on a single engine
airplane fails? Must be calculating form somewhere for that, that factors
in motivation.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar adverse roll |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Try a small trim tab on the aileron. I used one on some airplane I owned in the
past. Can't remember which one but it cured my problem. I hate being 87!!
Edward Steuber <esteuber@rochester.rr.com> wrote:--> Kolb-List message posted by:
"Edward Steuber"
Ellery and John ,
I had the same problem on my Ultrastar but maybe not as bad. Problem is that the
single lift strut does not allow for wing wash in or out. The left wing needs
to be washed out or the trailing edge moved up. This can be accomplished by
making new wing pivot attach points ( square steel ) and drilling the holes slightly
off that attach to the main spar. By using the one down on the left wing
and the other up on the right you can slightly change the relationship of the
wash in or out of the wings. You could also redrill the rear fuselage attach
points but then you would have to deal with bigger holes....Welding on critical
fittings ? The only problem with my method is the wing fold may be a problem
if you move the holes too far.... Good Luck !
Breakfast in Brockport this AM....May have to drive....raining here but very light
ED in Western NY
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: EnaudZ@aol.com
Hello
I would like to add 2nd tank to my fs2 .
when tanks are near emmty will front tank have 2-3" left
in it since tail is high inflight?
tanks
Duane Zollinger
FS2,503 290 hrs
Rittman Ohio
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
Which part of my post didn't you read? I stated above this quote that the
odds of both failing at the same time is 1 in 100000, calculated exactly
like Anderson. Then I calculated the odds of either engine failing....
which is the section you are quoting. I give up on you guys... you just
don't get math.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David L. Bigelow
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow@verizon.net>
>So if the first engine fails once in every 1000 flights, and the second
>engine fails once in every 1000 flights together they will fail 2 times in
>1000 flight, or twice as often. If the probability of each engine failing
>moves to once in every 500 flights, then for 2 of them it is 2 times in
>every 500 flights. One rotax 503 at 1/1000 versus two Hirths at 2/500 is 4
>times as much."
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here. It's intuitively obvious
that even with a pair of engines that may be less reliable than a particular
single, the odds of a simultaneous failure are quite slim.
Here's from an article by Arnold C. Anderson in his Ultralight Flying
Notebook:
"To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability,
let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5%
unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of
5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or
99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement."
In the real world, the two systems (engines, ignitions, etc) do share some
commonality, and the actual reliability will probably be less than 99.9975%.
I can't predict the reliability of the Hirth F-33 compared to a 503, but it
is a dual ignition engine, and the operators I've been in contact with have
hundreds of trouble free hours. Another factor with a twin installation is
that during normal operation, the engines are not operated at as high an RPM
as a single engine installation. This reduces stress and increases time
between overhaul. Also, I'm not sure you can apply light twin statistics
(constant speed props, etc) to an experimental ultralight with near
centerline thrust installation.
Guess I'll just have to try it and see..... :) Check's in the mail, and
the engines are coming!
Dave Bigelow
FS2
Kamuela, HI
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: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
With the limited experience I have in our FSII, it seems that the rear tank
runs dry when the front one still has a couple inches left.
Maybe we need to put a shim under the front one, raise it a couple inches?
Comments? Good idea? Dumb idea?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
At 09:59 AM 8/14/05 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: EnaudZ@aol.com
>
>Hello
> I would like to add 2nd tank to my fs2 .
> when tanks are near emmty will front tank have 2-3" left
>in it since tail is high inflight?
>
> tanks
> Duane Zollinger
>FS2,503 290 hrs
>Rittman Ohio
>
>
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: Lockwood's Diagnosis |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
In a message dated 8/12/2005 9:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
beauford@tampabay.rr.com writes:
> Got a warning about black automotive fuel lines... don't use them with
> pre-mix. They are fine for straight gas,
> but swell up and delaminate internally when exposed to oil in the gas.
>
>
Hi Beauford, I have been running the auto fuel lines for a few months with
not problem but I see their point. Marine brand black fuel lines are used with
premix all the time for years. I wonder how they differ from auto type if at
all.
Steve
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: | Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> Statistically, it doesn't work that way. Multivariate entities are not
> that arithmatically simple.
What we're really talking about here is reliability, defined as:
The probability that an item will perform a required function without
failure under stated conditions for a stated period of time.
> Probability of an engine failure is number of engine
failures/number
> of flights.
>
> Using the Multiplication Theorem for Independent Events
>
> If the events A and B are independent then
>
> P(AB) = P(A)* P(B). So if one engine fails 1 time in every 1000
> flights both engine will fail once every 100000 flights. SO this is
> good.
That's fine....except what if the engine that fails is now paired with an
engine that won't. There are such things as reliability probabilities for
repairable systems, systems reliability (reliability prediction), part
reliability (reliability estimation), and non-repairable system reliability.
Gets a bit more dicey.
That said, what is the real failure rate? Lets use your assumption of
one failure in every 1000 flights. I'll use, say, 2.5 hours duration per
flight (yeah, I know it's just a WAG). 2500 hours per 1000 flights. US
gen aviation piston single engine aircraft were estimated to have
flown 17.7 million hours in 2000. That shows 7080 engine related
failures per year in the general aviation, single engine universe.
What was the actual mechanically related failure rate? 81, with 41
partial power non-mechanical and 36 mechanical partial power
(NTSB, 2000). And yes, I know this relates primarily to four stroke
gen av engines and not the subject at hand, two stroke rates. But
then this really begs the question about repairable systems reliabilty,
considering sometimes just who is working on these two-stroke
engines, parts substitution, etc....
And that opens up an entirely new line of investigation, one for which
I've never seen any data....reliability data between two- and four-
cycle engines. Anyone claiming to have a good statistical handle on
engine reliability had better make the case with millions of data
points. Hell, I certainly can't...I'm not that smart!
> But how often will one of the two engines fail?
>
> Here we need to use the Addition Rule
>
> If the event A1, A2, ..., An are pairwise mutually exclusive events
> then
>
> P(A1+ A2+ ...+An)= P(A1)+P(A2)+ ...+P(An)
>
> So if the first engine fails once in every 1000 flights, and the
> second engine fails once in every 1000 flights together they will fail
> 2 times in 1000 flight, or twice as often. If the probability of each
> engine failing moves to once in every 500 flights, then for 2 of
them
> it is 2 times in every 500 flights. One rotax 503 at 1/1000 versus
> two Hirths at 2/500 is 4 times as much.
>
> So what do you think is wrong with my math?
The math is suspect with the assertion that Hirth fails once every 500
hours vs Rotax at 1000 hours, an unsubstantiated and self-serving
assumption. I certainly don't know the true figures. Please provide
your data source.
> As to the real twin engine data, do they actually fail twice as often.
> Probability is that they do, and the data supports it, but the second
> engine does keep the plane from crashing often enough that
accident
> rates due to engine failures are lower for twins. This assumes of
> course that the engines have the same failure rate. If you add in a
> higher failure rate for the twins engines then you are going to be
> somewhat less well off then just going from a single to a twin.
Let's look at some data from CASA (Australia) that muddies that
view, but only for fatality accidents (1986-1996), and maybe only for
Australia.
Single engine fatality rate per 100,000 hours .31
Twin engine fatality rate per 100,000 hours .98
The variables? VFR/IFR, pilot skills with single engine operations in
a twin, phase of flight......but still........
However the total accident rates for singles was 9.54 and 8.39 for
twins, per 100,000 hours. I'd be more concerned about this stat than
the reliability of twin engine systems.
Then the FAA data (2000) shows accident rates for single at 7.61
per 100k and 3.92 for twin (both piston). The fatality rate is 1.27 for
single and 1.35 for twins, per 100k hours.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
without
| failure under stated conditions for a stated period of time.
Jim B/Topher/All:
Numbers are great! However, when you are flying in front of a two
stroke, you won't have any idea when she is going, only that
eventually she will. No way numbers are going to let me know when not
to fly a two stroke.
As two stroke pilots, the best we can do is be prepared for that
particular time.
Be proficient at actual dead stick landings. Right! Landings with a
good engine shut down. Why? Because that is the way it is going to
be when it occurs. You will not likely have a chance to mull all this
immediate problem at hand over. Immediate decisions must be made to
make that predesignated forced landing area.
You only have one chance at each engine failure. Don't screw it up.
I screwed up two two stroke engine failures in 15 minutes. Had I left
well enough alone, I had put the MKIII down without a scratch when the
582 went belly up, I could have trailered the airplane home, done the
engine repair and been back in the air. Thinking the engine was now
free, ready and willing to propel me back into the air, I went for it.
At 30 feet it seized again, I was behind the aircraft, and stalled it
in. Result: gear legs, gear leg mount, some bent tubes, and torn
fabric.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> With the limited experience I have in our FSII, it seems that the
rear
> tank runs dry when the front one still has a couple inches left.
>
> Maybe we need to put a shim under the front one, raise it a couple
> inches? Comments? Good idea? Dumb idea?
Realistically, is anyone actually using that second seat? Just curious
since I don't as it really violates the 103 rule. Can't teach anyone
from the back and passengers really aren't learning to fly. Other than
that, I've got both five gallon tanks at the rear seat position. Benefits
are ease of fueling, not as significant a change in CG from full to
empty, and frees up the aft section for carrying "stuff".
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: | Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
The math is suspect with the assertion that Hirth fails once every 500
hours vs Rotax at 1000 hours, an unsubstantiated and self-serving
assumption. I certainly don't know the true figures. Please provide
your data source.
Those are obviously just made up numbers, with no attempt to guess the rates
real accurately, since for the most part the planes these things fly in do
not have their rates recorded by anybody. That doesn't make the math
suspect or wrong like you implied. My math is right, and based on
information from the people who fly these things I bet my very rough guess
at relative engine stoppage rates (not the actual numbers but the
difference) is not too far off either. If you're going to say my math is
wrong
"> Statistically, it doesn't work that way. Multivariate entities are not
> that arithmatically simple."
mean that my math is wrong not that my guesses are bad. I will concede my
guesses might be bad.
As far as systems that are not independent the math for those is easy as
well, but determining the degree of dependence is work for smart minds then
me. Basically if the two engines share a fuel system and the largest cause
of engine stoppages is due to fuel problems then you're going to find out
that both engines are going to stop together much more often then just once
every 100000 flights. For every system they share it will get worse.
I would doubt that data from the GA twin world is applicable to this
discussion. The engines are way more reliable... and no I don't have an
numbers to back that up, but face it they are, and the systems that support
the engine, starting with the quality of the fuel and the amount of
maintenance that the planes get all the way to the skill of the pilots is
just not in the same ball park.
As usual, I am being told I am wrong on this list... when I am not. Oh well,
I have gotten used to it and you guys will fly on happily without this
useless SWAG anyway!
Topher
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
>
>"To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability,
>let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5%
>unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of
>5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or
>99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement."
>
The last line should read - "The reliability is now (1.00 - .0025)x100 or
99.75% reliable - a marked improvement."
So you gain 4.75 percent in that at least one engine will be running. The
interesting info would be to determine pilot survival outcome based on the
loss of one engine. Does the single engine pilot fair any worse that the
twin engine pilot?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
do not archive
Jack B. Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "dama" <dama@mindspring.com>
How about a 3 engined Firestar...?
Calculator ready.
Kip
http://www.springeraviation.net/
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart@ldd.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
>
> >
> >"To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability,
> >let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5%
> >unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability
of
> >5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or
> >99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement."
> >
>
> The last line should read - "The reliability is now (1.00 - .0025)x100 or
> 99.75% reliable - a marked improvement."
>
> So you gain 4.75 percent in that at least one engine will be running. The
> interesting info would be to determine pilot survival outcome based on the
> loss of one engine. Does the single engine pilot fair any worse that the
> twin engine pilot?
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Jack B. Hart
> jbhart@ldd.net
>
>
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: Icrashrc@aol.com
Mitty,
I fly many types of planes. From 2.5 oz. indoor electric to 15 lb
aerobatic planes. You can see pics of some of my past and current fleet at
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?icrashrc
Richard,
East Tennessee Ultralights [ http://www.flyultralites.com/ ] is
located about halfway between Knoxville and Chattanooga in Sweetwater, TN. I'll
keep your invite in mind. Thanks!
Scott
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | Kolb list electric trim tab |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink" <link@cdc.net>
Again you guys talk about trim tabs, I think that this is still the
coolest one I have seen.
SRGLINK
http://www.n566aj.com/max/frugal.htm
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: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
Not doing part 103. FSII N582EF is part 91.
The rear seat is necessary, since the owner has a small wife, and he wants
to be able to take her along when the conditions are nice. (Which has been
real seldom so far this summer...) Otherwise the rear seat area would make
a great place for a fuel tank. So far, the only thing that has been in the
back seat area is "stuff."
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
At 03:27 PM 8/14/05 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
>
> > With the limited experience I have in our FSII, it seems that the
>rear
> > tank runs dry when the front one still has a couple inches left.
> >
> > Maybe we need to put a shim under the front one, raise it a couple
> > inches? Comments? Good idea? Dumb idea?
>
>Realistically, is anyone actually using that second seat? Just curious
>since I don't as it really violates the 103 rule. Can't teach anyone
>from the back and passengers really aren't learning to fly. Other than
>that, I've got both five gallon tanks at the rear seat position. Benefits
>are ease of fueling, not as significant a change in CG from full to
>empty, and frees up the aft section for carrying "stuff".
>
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>'71 SV, 492TC
>Elmore City, OK
>
>
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: Kolb list electric trim tab |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
the
| coolest one I have seen.
|
| SRGLINK
Steve G/All:
That's a pretty busy system.
What I look for in any system in my airplanes is simplicity,
reliability, and longevity.
As I posted yesterday, a simple aileron and elevator trim tab, popped
to the trailing edge tube with soft aluminum rivets, .016 aluminum,
did the job for my original Firestar. It was set and forget. Flew
neutral at all airspeeds and pitch angles.
john h
titus, alabama
Message 20
| 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: Kolb list electric trim tab |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Mitty <benny_bee_01@yahoo.com>
Love that idea....Pretty neat!It'll be on my future
plane.Most definately.
Do not archive
--- Steve Garvelink <link@cdc.net> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink"
> <link@cdc.net>
>
> Again you guys talk about trim tabs, I think that
> this is still the
> coolest one I have seen.
>
> SRGLINK
>
>
> http://www.n566aj.com/max/frugal.htm
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| 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: Thom Riddle <jtriddle@adelphia.net>
Kolbers,
Can anyone tell me the major (and minor) differences between a Twinstar
Mk 11 and Mk 111(c)?
Thom in Buffalo
do not archive
Message 22
| 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: Firestar adverse roll |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com
I am going to try the trim tab on the aleron first and see where that gets me
I went 84 miles this morning starting at Day light to a fly-in in Northern
Maine went through a couple small sprinkle showers, the air was great and what
looked like an aluminum overcast.
I Had a blast at the fly in entered the bomb drop, Poker run and the spot
landing contest I didn't do as well on the Bomb drop or the poker run but after
only have flown this for a few hours before the fly in I came in third place
on the spot landing contest which I didnt think was to bad as I haven't taken
the time to add my aleron trim tab yet But after I get done with this thats
next on my agenda
I am not sure how much longer I will have this bird There was an older guy
at the fly-in that wanted to buy it right then I told him of my plans to The
Home coming next month and he said well take care of it and I will buy it when
you get back then I will just have to get me a Kolbra Kit coming shortly after
that I guess
Ellery Batchelder Jr. in Maine FS
do not archive
Message 23
| 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: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Twinstar
| Mk 11 and Mk 111(c)?
|
| Thom in Buffalo
Hi Thom/Gang:
Primary differences are tail boom and main wing spars. MKIII has 6"
instead of 5".
Fuselage is much better designed, wider and stronger.
I don't know much about the MKII. Never had any dealings with it
except what I read on this List.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
Message 24
| 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: Firestar adverse roll |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Northern
| Maine |
| Ellery Batchelder Jr. in Maine FS
Ellery/All:
Looks like you have already made a good start training for your "big"
flight next month. Two 84 mile legs ain't bad. Doesn't take too many
of those to get you to London, KY, and return.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 25
| 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: "Ron Lee" <rlee468@comcast.net>
An electric screwdriver should work fine as a trim motor.
Ron
Message 26
| 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: Kolb list electric trim tab |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com
that sure looks like a bunch of junk just to adjust a trim tab what does it
all weigh I will stick to the Cockpit adjustable elevator trim tab I have built
in my firestar thanks it's Simple Easy and it cant go out of controll with
a crazy electric motor, switch going bad ,or just losing power to it
the choice is yours, Easy and dependable or something else to keep fixin
do not archive
Message 27
| 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: Firestar adverse roll |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com
That's right I am getting her all tweaked up for the trip, no sense in having
something you do use to its potential
Ellery
do Not archive
Message 28
| 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: Firestar adverse roll |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com
error on last o post
That's right I am getting her all tweaked up for the trip, no sense in
having
something you don't use to its potential
Ellery
do not archive
Message 29
| 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: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
All...
Cautiously optimistic here.... Break-in appears successful, but saw high EGT's
and had to pause in process to raise the needle a notch. Some improvement. After
process let it cool and retorqued the heads and exhaust before flying it
for 1.1 hrs over the airport.
The prop is unloaded and I overdid it slightly, turning 6500 on takeoff... Ran
it at varying speeds between 6600 and 5300 during the hour and saw high EGT's,
but gradually improving CHT... at 6000 RPM in level flt, eventually got 365
steady on both jugs... Plug color is good.
Consensus at Sebring is that 447 is most carbon-prone and crankiest to adjust of
all the current Rotax engines.
I believe it.
Beauford
FF #076
Do not archive
Message 30
| 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: Lockwood's Diagnosis-black fuel line |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Steve...
Good to hear from you...
I dunno about the marine lines, but the Lockwood guys were certainly adamant
about the subject and I cannot see where they would make any money from
bad-mouthing the black automotive lines...
Sure enough, when I pulled off the black rubber lines and filter yesterday,
the clear Fram filter had a flat chunk
of black rubber about half the size of a small fingernail in it... plus a
cloud of small black
particles that looked like the same stuff... The debris was largely hidden
in the folds of the paper element until shaken, then easy to see. I saved
it to show the other Kolbers on the field.
There was only about a foot of the black line ahead of that filter... Kinda
got my attention...
That line was installed in January 05.
Two thunderstorms on the airport this PM... then blessed overcast...was
smooth flying in the shade... and cool for a change.
Regards,
Beauford
----- Original Message -----
From: <N27SB@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Lockwood's Diagnosis
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/12/2005 9:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> beauford@tampabay.rr.com writes:
>
>> Got a warning about black automotive fuel lines... don't use them with
>> pre-mix. They are fine for straight gas,
>> but swell up and delaminate internally when exposed to oil in the gas.
>>
>>
>
> Hi Beauford, I have been running the auto fuel lines for a few months
> with
> not problem but I see their point. Marine brand black fuel lines are used
> with
> premix all the time for years. I wonder how they differ from auto type if
> at
> all.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Message 31
| 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: possums <possums@mindspring.com>
At 10:08 PM 8/14/2005, you wrote:
>Consensus at Sebring is that 447 is most carbon-prone and crankiest
>to adjust of all the current Rotax engines.
>I believe it.
>
>Beauford
You better believe it.
My old 503 has recently run up to 335 - 340 CHT on climb out...and I'm starting
to get worried.
Message 32
| 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: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
There are probably others who can give you a more through answer, but when
I get in turbulence, I remember that the MKII has a 5" main spar and boom
tube, and the MKIII has a 6" main spar and boom tube.
Which has me liking my MKIII a lot...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 08:10 PM 8/14/05 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Thom Riddle <jtriddle@adelphia.net>
>
>Kolbers,
>
>Can anyone tell me the major (and minor) differences between a Twinstar
>Mk 11 and Mk 111(c)?
>
>Thom in Buffalo
>do not archive
>
>
Message 33
| 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: Mitty <benny_bee_01@yahoo.com>
Good evening fellow Kolbers and Kolbets :)
Browsing through the archive and current discussions i
hardly ever see a mention of Ultrastar.Is there anyone
flying them still?I understand this model was
discontinued by Kolb.But i realy like the high boom
design.
Just a though...
Do not archive my thoughs :)
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! --
|