Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:52 AM - Re: Aileron and flap hinges (Icrashrc@aol.com)
2. 05:05 AM - Re: To cut or not to cut? (Kirk Smith)
3. 05:47 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Eugene Zimmerman)
4. 06:27 AM - Re: To cut or not to cut? (planecrazzzy)
5. 07:19 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Richard Pike)
6. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (ray anderson)
7. 08:39 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (John Murr)
8. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Kirk Smith)
9. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (John Murr)
10. 10:03 AM - Re: To cut or not to cut? (Kirk Smith)
11. 10:17 AM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (John Murr)
12. 11:50 AM - Re: To cut or not to cut? (Kirk Smith)
13. 01:35 PM - Re: To cut or not to cut? (JetPilot)
14. 02:15 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Eugene Zimmerman)
15. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Terry Frantz)
16. 04:01 PM - KEVLAR BRIDLE (frank & margie)
17. 04:14 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Earl & Mim Zimmerman)
18. 04:19 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Jack B. Hart)
19. 04:46 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (John Murr)
20. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (John Murr)
21. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Jack B. Hart)
22. 05:57 PM - Re: Re: To cut or not to cut? (Eugene Zimmerman)
23. 06:00 PM - Re: KEVLAR BRIDLE (possums)
24. 08:23 PM - Lift Strut / Stress question (planecrazzzy)
25. 08:29 PM - sport pilot tv????????? (Larry Cottrell)
26. 09:56 PM - Re: Lift Strut / Stress question (Kirk Smith)
27. 11:06 PM - Re: sport pilot tv????????? (Kirk Smith)
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: Aileron and flap hinges |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Icrashrc@aol.com
John, Richard, and Duncan, thank you!
I was wondering if maybe I had misread the plans somehow. I'm happy to see
that isn't the case.
I seem to remember someone machining some blocks that allowed for easy
placement of the hinges. I can't find the thread now. As I recall whoever made
them
was willing to loan them out. I don't remember if they were for a Mark III or
not. Does this ring a bell with anyone?
Scott
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
The Kolb Firestar has been in production since 1985. In 1990 some styling changes
were introduced resulting in the KX series. The KXP is the KX with a stronger
wing to accommodate the more powerful Rotax 503. The KXP has 7 ribs per wing
vs 5 for the KX and original firestar, as mentioned previously. What I have
not seen mentioned on this topic is that the KXP also has a stronger drag strut
arrangement than the KX.
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19490#19490
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/runway_1_211.jpg
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net>
On Mar 3, 2006, at 11:04 PM, John Murr wrote:
> Anybody out there interested in a Firestar?
Hi John,
By now you know that what you actually have there is a wolf in
sheep's clothing.
How much do you want for that dangerous over-stressed Kolb death
trap? $3500.00?
Only joking of course!
You have a perfectly good plane.
I've seen it fly numerous times by it's former owner and I think you
are being influenced to part with a jewel.
I've flown a five rib Firestar with much higher gross weights than
yours for many years.
Fly with common sense and slowdown in rowdy air and you and your
plane will be fine.
If you do decide to sell that show quality beauty, it is worth a
premium.
Gene Zimmerman
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
Hi,
I was looking over your plane ( Nice Job ) but I saw something kind of disturbing
( to me ) it looks like you have your Pitot tube on the Left "lift Strut".....What
"I" thought was scary ...it looks like two holes were drilled into
it to run the tubing on the inside.... I hope looking at those holes is on
your preflight checklist...
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN
PS What SIZE are the tires you have ....I'll probly get something like those when
I change mine...( cost ? )
--------
The more people I know....
The more I like MY DOG
.
.
.
.
.Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19508#19508
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
Maybe I'm missing something here (always a good chance of that) but
isn't gross weight also a function of maximum G loading at a given
stress factor?
Let's assume (and this is strictly an assumption) that Homer designed
the Firestar for a +4.4 G load at 535 pounds, (which would be reasonable
under Part 103) but now you have added weight, your Firestar weighs 628
pounds at takeoff. Then in order to fly safely, you must reduce the
maneuvering speed (and maximum speed) accordingly so that your new
weight at any speed will not cause any higher G loading in any situation
than the designer originally planned for.
For a detailed explanation, check out this page here
http://www.ushga.org/article08.asp
To keep it super-simple, if your airplane stalls at (let's say) 35, and
you get caught in turbulence, as long as you keep your airspeed below
45, it is almost impossible to pull even 2 G's, because the wing will
stall first. Think about some of the turbulence you have flown in - if
you fly at your normal cruising speed and hit a booming thermal or a
rotor along a ridge top, you feel an appreciable and usually abrupt G load.
But if you slow that puppy down 15 - 20 mph and hit that same
turbulence, the airplane just sort of wallows around, and although it
feels sloppy, - and probably is, - it is obviously not being worked over
or abused by the vulgar air. At 15 mph over stall speed, we are almost
fool proof in the situations we normally fly our little airplanes in.
(Not that some fool can't figure out how to exceed the limits...)
But in practical terms, that is the difference between bending the
airplane or not.
At 628 pounds with a BRS, I would not be afraid to fly it, - but I would
do the math, come up with some conservative and realistic V numbers,
(calibrate your airspeed indicator accurately) not hot dog or play Mr.
high-speed-flyby-pull-up, avoid flying in serious turbulence, (and slow
down to an appropriate Va speed when it showed up unexpectedly) and then
enjoy the airplane.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Murr wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
>
> My gross weight is 600. I guess I'm just too fat for my fat plane! There is
> no way I can loose 65 pounds. guess I need a bigger plane!
>
> I'm sure the plane would be ok for someone around 172 pounds. I could lose
> the starter and battery and save 25 pounds. That gets it down to 535.
> <snip>
> John Murr
>
>
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
I believe Richard is correct. If this old brain is in gear, I believe I was told
that as your gross weight goes up, so does your stall speed and you can't normally
damage anything when the wing stalls, whether it's 25 mph or 50 mph. As
Richard so clearly points out, set a maneuvering speed and stay with it in rough
air. I know I'm repeating what Richard said but his analysis is important
for all of us to remember. Of course the joker in the deck is the fact that many
will "fly hard" regardless.
do not archive
Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike
Maybe I'm missing something here (always a good chance of that) but
isn't gross weight also a function of maximum G loading at a given
stress factor?
Let's assume (and this is strictly an assumption) that Homer designed
the Firestar for a +4.4 G load at 535 pounds, (which would be reasonable
under Part 103) but now you have added weight, your Firestar weighs 628
pounds at takeoff. Then in order to fly safely, you must reduce the
maneuvering speed (and maximum speed) accordingly so that your new
weight at any speed will not cause any higher G loading in any situation
than the designer originally planned for.
For a detailed explanation, check out this page here
http://www.ushga.org/article08.asp
To keep it super-simple, if your airplane stalls at (let's say) 35, and
you get caught in turbulence, as long as you keep your airspeed below
45, it is almost impossible to pull even 2 G's, because the wing will
stall first. Think about some of the turbulence you have flown in - if
you fly at your normal cruising speed and hit a booming thermal or a
rotor along a ridge top, you feel an appreciable and usually abrupt G load.
But if you slow that puppy down 15 - 20 mph and hit that same
turbulence, the airplane just sort of wallows around, and although it
feels sloppy, - and probably is, - it is obviously not being worked over
or abused by the vulgar air. At 15 mph over stall speed, we are almost
fool proof in the situations we normally fly our little airplanes in.
(Not that some fool can't figure out how to exceed the limits...)
But in practical terms, that is the difference between bending the
airplane or not.
At 628 pounds with a BRS, I would not be afraid to fly it, - but I would
do the math, come up with some conservative and realistic V numbers,
(calibrate your airspeed indicator accurately) not hot dog or play Mr.
high-speed-flyby-pull-up, avoid flying in serious turbulence, (and slow
down to an appropriate Va speed when it showed up unexpectedly) and then
enjoy the airplane.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Murr wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr"
>
> My gross weight is 600. I guess I'm just too fat for my fat plane! There is
> no way I can loose 65 pounds. guess I need a bigger plane!
>
> I'm sure the plane would be ok for someone around 172 pounds. I could lose
> the starter and battery and save 25 pounds. That gets it down to 535.
>
> John Murr
>
>
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
Ok so using the equation my stall speed (IAS) is 35 at 4.47 g's that puts Va
at 74 and Vne at 85. That sounds about right. If I slow down to 50 my max
g load could only be 2.04.
I didn't see gross weight in the equation, but I assume it is a factor of
stall speed. The higher the gross weight, the higher the stall speed.
Conclusion: If I fly no faster than 74 in smooth air and no faster than 50
in all other types of air. I should be fine.
Also I looked and the 503 DCDI is only 13 pounds heavier than the 447, so
having a 503 shouldn't make a difference to the loading on the wing as long
as I stay in the Va parameters above. It's nice to have the 503 for short
fields. I climb out at about 60 until 800 AGL then throttle back. I could
climb a little steeper to get it down to 50.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: To cut or not to cut?
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here (always a good chance of that) but
> isn't gross weight also a function of maximum G loading at a given
> stress factor?
>
> Let's assume (and this is strictly an assumption) that Homer designed
> the Firestar for a +4.4 G load at 535 pounds, (which would be reasonable
> under Part 103) but now you have added weight, your Firestar weighs 628
> pounds at takeoff. Then in order to fly safely, you must reduce the
> maneuvering speed (and maximum speed) accordingly so that your new
> weight at any speed will not cause any higher G loading in any situation
> than the designer originally planned for.
>
> For a detailed explanation, check out this page here
> http://www.ushga.org/article08.asp
>
> To keep it super-simple, if your airplane stalls at (let's say) 35, and
> you get caught in turbulence, as long as you keep your airspeed below
> 45, it is almost impossible to pull even 2 G's, because the wing will
> stall first. Think about some of the turbulence you have flown in - if
> you fly at your normal cruising speed and hit a booming thermal or a
> rotor along a ridge top, you feel an appreciable and usually abrupt G
> load.
> But if you slow that puppy down 15 - 20 mph and hit that same
> turbulence, the airplane just sort of wallows around, and although it
> feels sloppy, - and probably is, - it is obviously not being worked over
> or abused by the vulgar air. At 15 mph over stall speed, we are almost
> fool proof in the situations we normally fly our little airplanes in.
> (Not that some fool can't figure out how to exceed the limits...)
> But in practical terms, that is the difference between bending the
> airplane or not.
>
> At 628 pounds with a BRS, I would not be afraid to fly it, - but I would
> do the math, come up with some conservative and realistic V numbers,
> (calibrate your airspeed indicator accurately) not hot dog or play Mr.
> high-speed-flyby-pull-up, avoid flying in serious turbulence, (and slow
> down to an appropriate Va speed when it showed up unexpectedly) and then
> enjoy the airplane.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> John Murr wrote:
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
>>
>> My gross weight is 600. I guess I'm just too fat for my fat plane! There
>> is
>> no way I can loose 65 pounds. guess I need a bigger plane!
>>
>> I'm sure the plane would be ok for someone around 172 pounds. I could
>> lose
>> the starter and battery and save 25 pounds. That gets it down to 535.
>> <snip>
>> John Murr
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
> Ok so using the equation my stall speed (IAS) is 35 at 4.47 g's that puts
Va
> at 74 and Vne at 85. That sounds about right. If I slow down to 50 my
max
> g load could only be 2.04.
>
> I didn't see gross weight in the equation, but I assume it is a factor of
> stall speed. The higher the gross weight, the higher the stall speed.
35 at what weight? What is the stall speed at 625lbs? I bet it's closer to
50.
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
At current gross weight of 603 it is 35 IAS. (tested at altitude using GPS
and it is real close)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: To cut or not to cut?
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
>
>
>> Ok so using the equation my stall speed (IAS) is 35 at 4.47 g's that puts
> Va
>> at 74 and Vne at 85. That sounds about right. If I slow down to 50 my
> max
>> g load could only be 2.04.
>>
>> I didn't see gross weight in the equation, but I assume it is a factor of
>> stall speed. The higher the gross weight, the higher the stall speed.
>
> 35 at what weight? What is the stall speed at 625lbs? I bet it's closer
> to
> 50.
>
> 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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
At current gross weight of 603 it is 35 IAS. (tested at altitude using GPS
and it is real close)
That's good. :D Another suggestion you might consider, is cutting inspection
holes in the wing fabric to look it over inside.
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19548#19548
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
I do have inspection holes but it's very hard to see very small hair-line
cracks.
Another thing I could do is have someone on this list about my weight do a
few loops, hammerheads, and fly it around at 100 mph mid-day in the summer
and see what happens? Volunteers should bring their own cute. I don't want
to pay the repacking fee on mine!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: To cut or not to cut?
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
>
> At current gross weight of 603 it is 35 IAS. (tested at altitude using GPS
> and it is real close)
>
>
> That's good. :D Another suggestion you might consider, is cutting
> inspection holes in the wing fabric to look it over inside.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19548#19548
>
>
>
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
"I do have inspection holes but it's very hard to see very small hair-line
cracks"
Very well :D .....I wish you good luck in resolving your dilemma to your satisfaction.
By the way I looked at the pic of your plane and it certainly is a sharp
looking Kolb.
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19558#19558
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
I would not part with the airplane... The firestar is a great plane, and I would
also keep the 503 on it, just respect VNE and rough air. What some people
do not understand is that fatigue adds up over time to the point that a structure
will fail one day with NORMAL loads. If there is fatigue in those ribs, keeping
the loads down at this point will not keep you safe. If you read about
fatigue failures in structures, its usually a result of many many hours of stress,
and the structure finally breaks under NORMAL loads....
The angle aluminum and modification John recommends is only a couple pounds...
Given the weight and power you have, a couple extra pounds will make no difference,
we are talkng about less than a 1% change in gross weight. Not enough
to worry about. You have flown the plane, if you like the way it flys at the
heavy weight, keep flying it heavy, no need to trade your plane in. Just do
the little bit of work that is need to make the ribs strong enough to handle
the extra load. The firestar II is designed to be flown at those weights, so
obviously the basic structure is very capable of handling it... Except for those
5 ribs, which is a pretty easy and inexpensive fix.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
NO FEAR - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19565#19565
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net>
On Mar 4, 2006, at 4:31 PM, JetPilot wrote:
> Except for those 5 ribs, which is a pretty easy and inexpensive fix.
:-) We can tell how much Kolb RE-building experience you have.
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Terry Frantz <tkrolfe@usadatanet.net>
WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:06:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>ul15rhb@juno.com writes:
>
>The Original 5-rib wing Firestar had a gross weight limit of 535 lbs.
>
>
>
>Ralph/John Murr/All,
>
>Speaking of the original 1985 design model FireStar with 5 ribs and a Rotax
>377 engine. I bought a kit from Homer on June 30, 1989 and have the plans
>and builders manual.
>
>I have never seen the gross weight stated in print on any of the
>documentation I have, but on page 50 of the builders manual I quote, "The VNE
of the
>FireStar in calm air is 75 MPH. As the air gets turbulent, reduce your speed
>accordingly. This airplane has a light wing loading. Stresses go way up if
it
>is fully loaded and the air gets rough".
>
>I have replaced the 377 engine (at 425 hrs) with a 447, added the 1-1/8 inch
>gear legs, brakes, 3/4 canopy, baggage board behind the seat and have a
>second chance chute above my head between the wings. Instrumentation is ASI,
>EGT, CHT, RPM, compass and ALT. Otherwise it is stock with a 5 gal. fuel tank.
>Empty wt. (as an UL) is somewhat fat at about 280 lbs. With full fuel (5
>gal. X 6 lb. p/gal.) of 30 lbs., plus my 140 lbs., my gross is at 450 lbs. On
>occasion, when I go on a long X-country, I carry 4 more gals. of fuel in two
>cans as baggage, adding another 24 lbs., for a gross of 474 lbs. Probably
>more, as I didn't include weight for a small tool kit, tie down ropes, fuel
>transfer hose, camera, cell phone, wallet full of $$ and other pocket items.
>
>I am a very conservative flyer and do worry about overstressing the plane in
>rough air, so I always slow down for a more comfortable ride for me.
>
>John M, you will have to make your own decision on what to do. Modifying
>the wing as John H suggested will add strength, but it also adds weight.
>Calculate your gross weight carefully. Because of your personal body weight,
you
>might be better off with a two place Kolb. By the way, I've been to
>Smoketown's breakfast fly-in several times in my Kolb. Weather permitting I
will see
>you there this year.
>
>Bill Varnes
>Original Kolb FireStar
>Audubon NJ
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Bill,
You should be advised that the Memorial Day Fly-in isn't going to be at
Smoketown this year. Seems that some disgruntled and "wiser" heads have
decided to move it to Lancaster Airport which is a controlled airspace.
I have met you several times at Smoketown and Homers and thought you
should be aware!
Terry - FireFly #95
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: "frank & margie" <frank-margie@worldnet.att.net>
He got a full canopy, but the kevlar bridal
>seperated when it came into contact with the sharp edge of the engine
>mount. Unfortunately, it was his last flight. Those two events
>happened 15 years ago. Mine in March and Aubrey's in May. BTW My
>parachute worked.
He did have the spades on his plane, but later we cut down the ailerons and
archived the same or better results.
That's right about the crash - except Aubrey had a "Second Chance" chute
with a "nylon"
bridal
-----------------------------------------
Ref. John Hauck's above post:
John,
Does "nylon" mean they called it nylon, but it was actually kevlar?
If it was really kevlar, what does that say about the current BRS setup? What
do you use for a bridle?
Thanks,
Frank Clyma
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: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi@supernet.com>
John Murr wrote:
>
> Anybody out there interested in a Firestar?
I think that you should sell it to me real cheap cause I'll soon be down
to only one plane in my hanger :-) ~ Earl
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: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
At 01:31 PM 3/4/06 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
>
>What some people do not understand is that fatigue adds up over time to the point
that a structure will fail one day with NORMAL loads.
David, and others,
I have to take exception to this statement. It is simply not true. If the
structure is designed so that it will sustain "normal" loads and remain with
in the elastic limit of the structural material, no fatigue will take place.
Fatigue can only take place when the material is over stressed beyond its
elastic limit. When the elastic limit is surpassed, the material will take
a permanent set, but in most cases it will not fail. To get it to fail, the
same previously over stressed area must be repeatedly stressed in opposite
directions until a crack appears. Once the crack is initiated, structural
strength is greatly reduced. The only way this scenario can be played out
is if the structure was inadequately designed, or the structure was
subjected to repeated abuse.
Stay within the design operating limits (normal loads), and you will most
likely will never over stress the structure. I believe my FireFly receives
it greatest structural loading upon landing. If you do not beat up your
plane, it will take care of you.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
LOL!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl & Mim Zimmerman" <emzi@supernet.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: To cut or not to cut?
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi@supernet.com>
>
> John Murr wrote:
>
>>
>> Anybody out there interested in a Firestar?
>
> I think that you should sell it to me real cheap cause I'll soon be down
> to only one plane in my hanger :-) ~ Earl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
What about 900 hours of engine vibration?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: To cut or not to cut?
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
>
> At 01:31 PM 3/4/06 -0800, you wrote:
>>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
>>
>>What some people do not understand is that fatigue adds up over time to
>>the point that a structure will fail one day with NORMAL loads.
>
> David, and others,
>
> I have to take exception to this statement. It is simply not true. If
> the
> structure is designed so that it will sustain "normal" loads and remain
> with
> in the elastic limit of the structural material, no fatigue will take
> place.
> Fatigue can only take place when the material is over stressed beyond its
> elastic limit. When the elastic limit is surpassed, the material will
> take
> a permanent set, but in most cases it will not fail. To get it to fail,
> the
> same previously over stressed area must be repeatedly stressed in opposite
> directions until a crack appears. Once the crack is initiated, structural
> strength is greatly reduced. The only way this scenario can be played out
> is if the structure was inadequately designed, or the structure was
> subjected to repeated abuse.
>
> Stay within the design operating limits (normal loads), and you will most
> likely will never over stress the structure. I believe my FireFly
> receives
> it greatest structural loading upon landing. If you do not beat up your
> plane, it will take care of you.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
At 07:50 PM 3/4/06 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Murr" <jdm@wideworld.net>
>
>What about 900 hours of engine vibration?
>
John,
>From my experience with the 447 on the FireFly, it shook the heck out of
things at 2,000 rpm or less, but ran smooth at cruise speeds. The only area
of concern I have on the FireFly is the left aileron/flaperon. The most
inboard piano hinge pin seems to wear out. Since I have removed much of the
slack from the aileron control system, it seems to be ok.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: To cut or not to cut? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net>
On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:50 PM, John Murr wrote:
>
> What about 900 hours of engine vibration?
John,
your biggest concern on a high time air frame should be rust and
corrosion not "metal fatigue".
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: KEVLAR BRIDLE |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: possums <possums@mindspring.com>
No... the 2nd chantz had a "nylon" bridal back then. The BRS had a
'steel" bridal
back then, but they have switched to "kevlar" now. I think they know what they
are doing, at least I hope they do. Your bridal may very well go thru your prop
and I think that is why they switched to kevlar. It will take lickin'
(even from a warp drive)
and keep on tickin'.
BTW - I sunk one of the KXP's in a local lake,( Pilot error - I'm
told) and left it
under water for for 24 hrs.
Pulled it up the next day. It had a six year old BRS unit. We let the
water drain out
of the canister and fired it off about a week later. I hooked the
chute around backwards
so the rocket would have to pull it out inflated. Worked great!
>That's right about the crash - except Aubrey had a "Second Chance" chute
>with a "nylon"
>bridal
>-----------------------------------------
>Ref. John Hauck's above post:
>
>John,
>
> Does "nylon" mean they called it nylon, but it was actually kevlar?
>
> If it was really kevlar, what does that say about the current
> BRS setup? What do you use for a bridle?
>
>Thanks,
>Frank Clyma
>do not archive
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: | Lift Strut / Stress question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
Hey Guys,
I've seen my"stock" Lift struts "wiggle/shake" in flight.....I'll
be changing over to the streamline struts....
I'm sure they'll still flex alittle....
I've heard on the list that the chromemoly on the end of the lift struts have
cracked on a couple of different planes....
Here's a picture of two holes in a lift strut....I'm looking for YOUR opinion
if this looks like trouble waiting to strike....or are these streamline struts
"bullet proof" where these hole won't crack with repeated flexing....
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN N381PM ( still improving it )
--------
The more people I know....
The more I like MY DOG
.
.
.
.
.Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19614#19614
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pitot_tube_holes_in_lift_strut2_131.bmp
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 |
|
| Subject: | sport pilot tv????????? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel@kfalls.net>
Hi,
Just tried to watch another episode of "Sport Pilot". I was so disgusted that
I ended up listening to music. It seems to be just like the Mag of the same
name. Lots of planes but rarely anything that qualifies as an actual sport pilot
plane. Somehow I don't think they get it. They should just change the name
to General Aviation and forget it. I am real happy that those guys can afford
the Piper Saratoga's and Glasstar's, hell I can't even afford to feed one of the
things, so what are we supposed to, sit there with our mouth watering saying
to ourselves, When I grow up!!!!!!!!!! Actually I'm really not interested in
any of those things, with the possible exception of a few of the RV series.
It would be nice to see some of the real airplanes featured there though. Apparently
my medication is a bit off, I had better check.
Larry, Oregon
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: Lift Strut / Stress question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
" Here's a picture of two holes in a lift strut....I'm looking for YOUR
opinion if this looks like trouble waiting to strike"
YIKES!!!!!! Maybe it doesn't have the moly inserts at the end but has a
full length moly tube inside the streamline strut?
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: sport pilot tv????????? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
"Apparently my medication is a bit off, I had better check."
Nah......It's the radiation from that crater. All kinds of weird stuff there.;)
Here we call it cabin fever.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19632#19632
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! --
|