Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:14 AM - Re: full enclosures (jerb)
2. 01:28 AM - Re: full enclosures (jerb)
3. 07:57 AM - Re: full enclosures (Jack B. Hart)
4. 07:57 AM - Re: full enclosures ()
5. 09:10 AM - Re: Something New!!!!!! (Bob Dresden)
6. 09:44 AM - Re: full enclosures (Richard Pike)
7. 12:24 PM - Re: Something New!!!!!! (N27SB@AOL.COM)
8. 12:42 PM - Re: Something New!!!!!! (robert bean)
9. 12:58 PM - Re: full enclosures (John Hauck)
10. 02:59 PM - Re: full enclosures (jerb)
11. 03:05 PM - Re: Wings needed ? (planecrazzzy)
12. 03:23 PM - Re: full enclosures (Jim Baker)
13. 04:23 PM - Re: Hey Max, You Bastage (Max Stanford)
14. 05:25 PM - Matt (Chris Mallory)
15. 05:50 PM - Re: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage (Larry Bourne)
16. 05:56 PM - Re: full enclosures (robert bean)
17. 05:57 PM - Pictures of Seats - Work in Progress - for J. Cooley (John Bickham)
18. 05:59 PM - MuttMuffs... (David Lehman)
19. 06:07 PM - Re: full enclosures (Richard Pike)
20. 06:10 PM - Re: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage (russ kinne)
21. 06:15 PM - Re: Pictures of Seats - Work in Progress - for J. Cooley (John Hauck)
22. 08:45 PM - Re: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage (Matt Dralle)
23. 08:53 PM - Re: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage (Cory Emberson)
24. 09:02 PM - Re: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage (John Cooley)
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Depending upon what you do with instrument panel, wheels and brakes,
and paint, you should be able to make the legal weight with the
447. We didn't build ours to make the weight. If I recall right,
may be thinking of my Hawk, we had 15# in our instrument panel
(sensitive altimeter, G-meter are both heavy). I like the EIS - use
it, its a good instrument. You might look at the new Stratomaster
instruments, they may offer good price performance.
We had heavier 6" wheel barrow wheels, Azusa expansion brakes, heavy
again, IVO 2 blade prop and alum extension, and the front only part
of the full enclosure. If you use a light altimeter, the small 5"
wheels, wood prop, and band brakes which I would do if doing over
again, they require a minor mod but they work better, you should be
able to come in right near the max weight limit with 447. Keep in
mind you have to build with light in mind. Don't go crazy with the
silver or the paint. We applied a single coat of silver on all lower
surfaces and two coats on all top surfaces. Painted it to the point
where the color looked good but you could still distinguish some of
the weave in the fabric. If you apply paint to the point where you
get that glossy finish look, it will add a lot of weight. Also,
didn't Hirth have a small single cylinder available without a Aux
power lighting coil. The Hirth's seem to be doing better now.
jerb
At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>
>I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is
>anyone out there flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully
>enclosed canopy?
>
> Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big
> difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out
> compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I
> would never go with smaller motor again".
>Rob.
>
>
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Unless some one has a new engine tucked away, can you get a 277 other
than used or rebuilt (by whom using what for parts) and next can you
get parts needed to properly maintain it?
jerb
At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>
>I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is
>anyone out there flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully
>enclosed canopy?
>
> Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big
> difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out
> compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I
> would never go with smaller motor again".
>Rob.
>
>
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
At 10:19 PM 6/11/06 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>
>I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is anyone out
there flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully enclosed canopy?
>
> Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big difference "in you're
opinion" in take off roll and climb out compared to one with a 477? One big
enough that you would say "I would never go with smaller motor again".
Rob,
I purchased a MZ34, 27 hp engine a couple of years ago. I was going to
mount it the winter of 2005, but found out I was going to be moving and so
it is still in the box. Currently, I am flying a FireFly with a Simonini
Victor 1+ 382cc reed valve engine. The FireFly weighs 248 pounds dry.
The reason, I want to go down in hp is that it allows one to reduce drag and
remain within the ultra light vehicle regulations. Since I have moved north
I would like to add a full enclosure for winter flying and some additional
fairings. By doing so, the charts indicate the FireFly will still cruise
well and the fuel flow should go down to some where around 1.5 gph. I
calculate that the change to the MZ34 will reduce dry weight to about 210
pounds. I don't expect much of a climb rate, but since I fly most of the
time from hard surfaces that is ok. I want the economical cruise. One can
always find a thermal to help get up to 2,000-3,000 feet agl. If you want
to hedge hop and barn storm, it is better to have more hp. The more you
reduce hp the more you have to fly like a sailplaner.
The new engine is an air cooled reed valve engine with a bulkhead mount.
Hirth build a similar engine. The engine will hang inverted behind the
original mounting location. The advantage is that I will still meet the
fully exposed engine drag requirement with much less overall profile drag
than the Victor 1+ or Rotax 447 present. Also there is no need for a engine
to propeller spacer.
The engine mount has been welded up. I am making a mockup so that I can get
the engine controls and muffler placement figured out. But it is low
priority at this time.
If you are going to build, think about how to do it lighter without
sacrificing strength. Go very light on the paint. I two coat silvered the
top surfaces of the wings and tail. I am using the four inch plastic wheels
with home made band brakes.
May be next year I will have an answer your last statement.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
Thank you for the info. I was asking about the smaller motor because in the rule
book it say's that with a 447 it's illegal to put a on full enclosure. They
say it would make it faster than allowed. This is why I asked about the smaller
motor. I have the big wheels and the brakes and they are very heavy. Also
I noticed that the seat belt's were very heavy. Anyone know of an alternative
belt that would help save #? as far as the panel I'm going with the string
for the turning and bare min. for the motor. Has anyone been ramp checked by
thee FAA before? I'm taking my plane to a well know spot for the first time
I fly it and I'm wondering if I will be checked some day by the FAA for what
I don't know. Has there ever been a time when the FAA had there scales in the
truck and made you put the plane on them right then and there?
--
Rob.
---- jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
>
> Depending upon what you do with instrument panel, wheels and brakes,
> and paint, you should be able to make the legal weight with the
> 447. We didn't build ours to make the weight. If I recall right,
> may be thinking of my Hawk, we had 15# in our instrument panel
> (sensitive altimeter, G-meter are both heavy). I like the EIS - use
> it, its a good instrument. You might look at the new Stratomaster
> instruments, they may offer good price performance.
>
> We had heavier 6" wheel barrow wheels, Azusa expansion brakes, heavy
> again, IVO 2 blade prop and alum extension, and the front only part
> of the full enclosure. If you use a light altimeter, the small 5"
> wheels, wood prop, and band brakes which I would do if doing over
> again, they require a minor mod but they work better, you should be
> able to come in right near the max weight limit with 447. Keep in
> mind you have to build with light in mind. Don't go crazy with the
> silver or the paint. We applied a single coat of silver on all lower
> surfaces and two coats on all top surfaces. Painted it to the point
> where the color looked good but you could still distinguish some of
> the weave in the fabric. If you apply paint to the point where you
> get that glossy finish look, it will add a lot of weight. Also,
> didn't Hirth have a small single cylinder available without a Aux
> power lighting coil. The Hirth's seem to be doing better now.
> jerb
>
>
>
>
> At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
> >
> >I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is
> >anyone out there flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully
> >enclosed canopy?
> >
> > Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big
> > difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out
> > compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I
> > would never go with smaller motor again".
> >Rob.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Something New!!!!!! |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Dresden <bdres@zirkel.us>
Steve, Think of that trailer as a beam with one end secure and a spring
in the middle, not unlike a diving board. The secure end, the ball,
moves very little, the springs have a fixed travel, so you can see
where this is all going. The rear travels quite a bit. A G meter
would tell the ultimate story. In your case a good set of shocks is
about the best solution. I am still in the process of designing my
trailer with a forward loading and some semblance of streamlining.
Bob Dresden Lurker
Back in the closet
Do Not Archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
I flew with a 277 for 550 hours - a Maxair Hummer - it is not quite as
smooth as a 447, but if you hang it inverted like Maxair did, and use
soft mounts, it is not obnoxious at all. Also. to keep it from slinging
the carb as someone else mentioned, Maxair used a short length of thick
walled heater hose instead of the factory Rotax rubber carb adapter, and
it was bulletproof.
You will lose some climb compared to a 447, but a 1.5 to 1.75/ hr fuel
burn is very attainable. And depending on how you prop it, you will not
lose any cruise or top speed. If I was going to use a 277, I would hang
it inverted right behind the cage, that would keep the top of the wing /
gap seal clean, and use the exhaust system that lets the muffler hang
down alongside the main tube. You would probably come out with an
airplane that weighed around / less than 240 pounds. Having flown my
Hummer at weights between 242 (Part 103) and 285 pounds empty (Part 91
Experimental) it is amazing how much more responsive an airplane gets
with just that small difference.
I also like Jack Hart's ideas for you in his post.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
jeepacro@cox.net wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>
> Thank you for the info. I was asking about the smaller motor because in the
rule book it say's that with a 447 it's illegal to put a on full enclosure. They
say it would make it faster than allowed. This is why I asked about the smaller
motor. I have the big wheels and the brakes and they are very heavy.
Also I noticed that the seat belt's were very heavy. Anyone know of an alternative
belt that would help save #? as far as the panel I'm going with the string
for the turning and bare min. for the motor. Has anyone been ramp checked
by thee FAA before? I'm taking my plane to a well know spot for the first time
I fly it and I'm wondering if I will be checked some day by the FAA for what
I don't know. Has there ever been a time when the FAA had there scales in the
truck and made you put the plane on them right then and there?
>
> --
> Rob.
>
> ---- jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
>>
>> Depending upon what you do with instrument panel, wheels and brakes,
>> and paint, you should be able to make the legal weight with the
>> 447. We didn't build ours to make the weight. If I recall right,
>> may be thinking of my Hawk, we had 15# in our instrument panel
>> (sensitive altimeter, G-meter are both heavy). I like the EIS - use
>> it, its a good instrument. You might look at the new Stratomaster
>> instruments, they may offer good price performance.
>>
>> We had heavier 6" wheel barrow wheels, Azusa expansion brakes, heavy
>> again, IVO 2 blade prop and alum extension, and the front only part
>> of the full enclosure. If you use a light altimeter, the small 5"
>> wheels, wood prop, and band brakes which I would do if doing over
>> again, they require a minor mod but they work better, you should be
>> able to come in right near the max weight limit with 447. Keep in
>> mind you have to build with light in mind. Don't go crazy with the
>> silver or the paint. We applied a single coat of silver on all lower
>> surfaces and two coats on all top surfaces. Painted it to the point
>> where the color looked good but you could still distinguish some of
>> the weave in the fabric. If you apply paint to the point where you
>> get that glossy finish look, it will add a lot of weight. Also,
>> didn't Hirth have a small single cylinder available without a Aux
>> power lighting coil. The Hirth's seem to be doing better now.
>> jerb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>>>
>>> I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is
>>> anyone out there flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully
>>> enclosed canopy?
>>>
>>> Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big
>>> difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out
>>> compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I
>>> would never go with smaller motor again".
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Something New!!!!!! |
In a message dated 6/13/06 2:09:52 PM Central Daylight Time, bdres@zirkel.us
writes:
> Steve, Think of that trailer as a beam with one end secure and a spring
> in the middle, not unlike a diving board. The secure end, the ball,
> moves very little, the springs have a fixed travel, so you can see
> where this is all going. The rear travels quite a bit. A G meter
> would tell the ultimate story. In your case a good set of shocks is
> about the best solution. I am still in the process of designing my
> trailer with a forward loading and some semblance of streamlining.
>
> Bob Dresden Lurker
> Back in the closet
> Do Not Archive
>
Thanks Bob,
But that was not the problem. The I beam aluminum trailer was quite stiff
and the axe placement was far aft. The stock 3500 lb torsion axle was replace
with a special 1500 lb torsion axle. The trailer hauled as smooth as silk. The
problem was on an open trailer the wind moving across a backwards Kolb beats
up the tail feathers. I guess it is the reason that seagulls always stand Beak
to the wind.
Steve
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: Something New!!!!!! |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
My, what a well mannered lurker! We need more like you.
One thing that will help smooth a ride on any vehicle is to design it
in a near full-loaded condition. Shocks will help prevent bottoming
out impact damage but when you get that airplane in there, stick in
and tie down enough extra weight to get close to a full load.
It took a long time to do it but auto designers finally realized that a
light car could be designed to ride as well as a luxury car as long as
the load was proper. -problem was the variable between solo and
four fat guys on board.
-BB do not archive
On 13, Jun 2006, at 12:07 PM, Bob Dresden wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Dresden <bdres@zirkel.us>
>
> Steve, Think of that trailer as a beam with one end secure and a
> spring in the middle, not unlike a diving board. The secure end, the
> ball, moves very little, the springs have a fixed travel, so you can
> see where this is all going. The rear travels quite a bit. A G meter
> would tell the ultimate story. In your case a good set of shocks is
> about the best solution. I am still in the process of designing my
> trailer with a forward loading and some semblance of streamlining.
>
> Bob Dresden Lurker
> Back in the closet
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
| You will lose some climb compared to a 447, but a 1.5 to 1.75/ hr
fuel
| burn is very attainable. And depending on how you prop it, you will
not
| lose any cruise or top speed.
| Richard Pike
Preacher Pike:
Perhaps men of the cloth can induce a 277 to perform as a 447 on a FF,
but us mere mortals may have a little problem there.
How you gonna get that little bitty 277 to equal top speed of a 447
powered FF???
john h
mkIII
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
If your building light you can't have big heavy wheels and brakes -
light is light. Use the 5" wheels and band brakes, not the internal
drum expansion brakes, there heavy. You don't trim away the designed
structure, but what you add beyond it does add up quickly. As for
the enclosure yes it can increase the speed however if that is your
concern you can prop it for slower cruise which should give you
better climb unless your using a puny engine. We would cruise about
70 at our weight. Also we didn't use the vinyl part that covers the
area behind the pilot (more weight) but were in more moderate
climate. When it starts getting below 50 where water freezes in
Texas, we don't fly much. Ours with 447 we would continue to feed in
the throttle as it rolled gaining speed, it would still sit you back
in the seat. It had plenty of climb performance. With a lighter
pilot, not us 260-290 pounders, the ground roll would be greatly
reduced. Just keep in mind if you go to a small engine your going to
be running it contently near max RPM to get the power out of it -
think wear and tear and how it impacts reliability. You can run
minimum instruments - for a single cylinder one combo EGT/CHT, yes
you want a heart monitor, it clues you in what going on with the
engine. Things start changing your better start looking for the
reason. A airspeed is desirable, a good light (car/boat) compass for
navigation so you know what direction is what, a Tiny tach for RPM
and engine hours, and a cheap (non-sensitive) altimeter so at least
you can be close to blending in with normal GA traffic at the proper
altitudes.
I found that in the UL community people get some strange
ideals. Look at it this way, if the FAA wanted to bust people they
could go to Sun and Fun or Oshkosh and go down the line. If you look
like an ultralight, don't do stupid things that will attract
attention no body will bother you. The FireFly is small and looks
like and can be built to meet being an ultralight. The FAA has
bigger problems and fish to chase. Just do the right things, do your
preflights and look professional.
jerb
At 09:40 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>
>Thank you for the info. I was asking about the smaller motor
>because in the rule book it say's that with a 447 it's illegal to
>put a on full enclosure. They say it would make it faster than
>allowed. This is why I asked about the smaller motor. I have the
>big wheels and the brakes and they are very heavy. Also I noticed
>that the seat belt's were very heavy. Anyone know of an alternative
>belt that would help save #? as far as the panel I'm going with the
>string for the turning and bare min. for the motor. Has anyone been
>ramp checked by thee FAA before? I'm taking my plane to a well know
>spot for the first time I fly it and I'm wondering if I will be
>checked some day by the FAA for what I don't know. Has there ever
>been a time when the FAA had there scales in the truck and made you
>put the plane on them right then and there?
>
>--
>Rob.
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: Wings needed ? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
I also remember they said don't do it.....
They also said not to even shorten the "bow tip"....
I think Possum knows something about that project.....???
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40810#40810
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
Just keep in mind if you go to a small engine your going to
> be running it contently near max RPM to get the power out of it -
> think wear and tear and how it impacts reliability.
http://www.simonini-flying.com/victor1_eng.htm
Interesting solution? 63.5 lbs for a 277 and 70.5 for a 362
(includes fluids).
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
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: | Re: Hey Max, You Bastage |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Max Stanford" <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
Planecrazzzy,
If you dont like those assholes on your back then take it up with them. If you
dont like some asshole saying you are posting as someone else, then tell him
what you think about it. You are just an idiot playing into their hands by telling
me that I am responsible for what someone else posted. If you dont like
the witch hunters on this list, then have the courage to do something about it.
Im sure they are very pleased and laughing their asses off for having beaten
you down to the point that you so afraid of them, that you blame others for
what they do. You are pathetic.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40826#40826
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 |
|
OK, MATT,
ARE YU GOING TO BAN THIS GUY LIKE YOU SAID OR LET HIM STIR UP CRAP AGAIN?
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: Hey Max, You Bastage |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Ignore him, Mike. If nobody rises to the bait, maybe he'll go somewhere
else to spew his poison. Hang in there, bud. Lar.
Do not Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Stanford" <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Max Stanford" <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
>
> Planecrazzzy,
>
> If you don?Tt like those ?oassholes? on your back then take it up with
> them. If you don?Tt like some asshole saying you are posting as someone
> else, then tell him what you think about it. You are just an idiot
> playing into their hands by telling me that I am responsible for what
> someone else posted. If you don?Tt like the witch hunters on this list,
> then have the courage to do something about it. I?Tm sure they are very
> pleased and laughing their asses off for having beaten you down to the
> point that you so afraid of them, that you blame others for what they do.
> You are pathetic.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40826#40826
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
On 13, Jun 2006, at 5:55 PM, jerb wrote:
> I found that in the UL community people get some strange ideals. Look
> at it this way, if the FAA wanted to bust people they could go to Sun
> and Fun or Oshkosh and go down the line. If you look like an
> ultralight, don't do stupid things that will attract attention no body
> will bother you. The FireFly is small and looks like and can be built
> to meet being an ultralight. The FAA has bigger problems and fish to
> chase. Just do the right things, do your preflights and look
> professional.
> jerb
>
Sure makes sense to me. If it is loaded down with big tires, lotsa
gadgets inside, extra gas tank......
They will look twice. The part that has me shaking my head is the
worry about how fast it will go.
My guess is if you are magician enough to build a 254 lb airplane that
will haul your butt off
the ground AND goes 150 mph, the feds aren't going to be dusting off
their sliderule to
calculate you back to the ground. In fact that would be one of my
goals, to be able to bust
the phoney speed limit.
-BB, still a scofflaw at heart but only for the dumb laws
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: | Pictures of Seats - Work in Progress - for J. Cooley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Bickham" <gearbender@bellsouth.net>
Hello List,
Here are a few pictures of some seats that I am working on. Again it this is the
result of a few other peoples ideas.
Wanted to make some new seats that are:
1) Crashworthy - if I had sling seats back in 04, may not be walking yet!
2) lighter than old ones that were crashworthy.
3) they have to fit.
4) a little more comfortable.
Could not find anything that fit the criteria, so decided to make my own.
The pictures are a little out of focus. Sorry, I'm not Big Lar ( That is a compliment,
Larry). But you get the idea if your interested. I did resize them!
Seats are made of 4130 Chrome tubing with .063" aluminum pan. The second picure
is taped up with one layer of blue painters tape and then a layer of aluminum
duct tape. This gives it the form for fiberglassing.
Next step is to fiberglass them with a freinds help (Bruce W.).
This will lift for access and will be removeable (ala John/Jim Hauck)
This one is for John Cooley. I ain't giving up on the list. The List has been
a valuable resource for me over the years. Granted, there used to be a lot more
content about building and flying Kolbs. I did like that more better. I
have been disappointed lately like a lot of folks. Some really knowledgeable
people have given up on the list because of the BS. That is a shame but I can't
blame them and do understand. I learned a lot from them and they have a lot
to offer. But on the outside chance that there is someone out there (like me
when I first started) that is wanting to read about building and flying Kolbs,
I'm not giving up. I'll keep posting my efforts, my "dumb ideas", and other
people's good ideas that I have learned mostly on this list. They may stimulate
a better idea. Sorry about that rant, I'm done.
Fly safe, keep the faith.
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&ext=1&groupid=291568&ck
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C
"Using my Repairman Certificate"
St. Francisville, LA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40839#40839
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/hpim0717_medium_196.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/hpim0718_medium_139.jpg
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 |
|
For Mike and anyone else that carries their canine friends...
www.MuttMuffs.com
DVD
--
"Ultralight flying isn't about transportation; it's about the ma
gic of
pure, simple flight." - Scott Wilcox
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: full enclosures |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
I thought he was saying that with a full enclosure it would break out of
the Part 103 constraints, and that was why he was going to a smaller
engine than a 447. Did not mean to imply that a 277 would equal a 447
on the same airframe, but that with a 277 and streamlining (illegal
under Part 103 with a 447) he would not lose anything. If his legal top
speed now is 64 with a 447, (and probably more like 75 actual) he will
probably still get that much with a 277 and a full enclosure / streamlining.
I put streamline cuffs on all the exposed tubing on my Hummer (a draggy
beast) and streamlined the gear legs, added a full fairing, curved
windshield, etc, and the 277 pushed it through the air 10 mph faster
than stock, which reached the Part 103 speed limit (and the Hummers
redline). If a 277 will do that on a Hummer, you know it will do it
better on a Kolb.
After all the clean-up mods I have done on my MKIII, the 582 will still
not push it as fast full throttle as a 912 would, but it will hang in
there at around 85 top end, and my rpm at 65 mph cruise has dropped by 5
- 600 rpm's. Now if a fat MKIII can get that much improvement by
streamlining and cleaning up, certainly a skinny Firefly can.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Hauck wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> fuel
> not
>
>
> Preacher Pike:
>
> Perhaps men of the cloth can induce a 277 to perform as a 447 on a FF,
> but us mere mortals may have a little problem there.
>
> How you gonna get that little bitty 277 to equal top speed of a 447
> powered FF???
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Hey Max, You Bastage |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: russ kinne <kinnepix@earthlink.net>
Max Stanford/jetpilot/whoever you are -- please don't clutter up the
list with inflammatrory garbage like this.
Much better to just keep quiet -- IMHO.
We're a friendly, cooperative bunch & there's no need for this mud-
slinging.
do not archive
On Jun 13, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Max Stanford wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Max Stanford"
> <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
>
> Planecrazzzy,
>
> If you dont like those assholes on your back then take it up
> with them. If you dont like some asshole saying you are posting
> as someone else, then tell him what you think about it. You are
> just an idiot playing into their hands by telling me that I am
> responsible for what someone else posted. If you dont like the
> witch hunters on this list, then have the courage to do something
> about it. Im sure they are very pleased and laughing their asses
> off for having beaten you down to the point that you so afraid of
> them, that you blame others for what they do. You are pathetic.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40826#40826
>
>
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: Pictures of Seats - Work in Progress - for J. Cooley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
John B:
I like your seats, especially the sheet aluminum pan. May save your
butt some day.
john h
mkIII
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: Hey Max, You Bastage |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
This is an unacceptable post. As I indicated last week, any member perpetuating
this thread or any similar thread will be banned from the List.
Effective immediately, "Max Stafford" has been banned from posting to the Matronics
Lists.
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
At 04:21 PM 6/13/2006 Tuesday, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Max Stanford" <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
>
>Planecrazzzy,
>
>If you dont like those assholes on your back then take it up with them. If you
dont like some asshole saying you are posting as someone else, then tell him
what you think about it. You are just an idiot playing into their hands by telling
me that I am responsible for what someone else posted. If you dont like
the witch hunters on this list, then have the courage to do something about
it. Im sure they are very pleased and laughing their asses off for having beaten
you down to the point that you so afraid of them, that you blame others for
what they do. You are pathetic.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40826#40826
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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: Hey Max, You Bastage |
Thank you, Matt. (You da man! :-) )
do not archive
Matt Dralle wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
>
>This is an unacceptable post. As I indicated last week, any member perpetuating
this thread or any similar thread will be banned from the List.
>
>Effective immediately, "Max Stafford" has been banned from posting to the Matronics
Lists.
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics Email List Administrator
>
>
>At 04:21 PM 6/13/2006 Tuesday, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Max Stanford" <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
>>
>>Planecrazzzy,
>>
>>If you donEUR^(TM)t like those EURoeassholesEUR? on your back then take it up
with them. If you donEUR^(TM)t like some asshole saying you are posting as someone
else, then tell him what you think about it. You are just an idiot playing
into their hands by telling me that I am responsible for what someone else
posted. If you donEUR^(TM)t like the witch hunters on this list, then have
the courage to do something about it. IEUR^(TM)m sure they are very pleased and
laughing their asses off for having beaten you down to the point that you so
afraid of them, that you blame others for what they do. You are pathetic.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40826#40826
>>
>>
>
>
>Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
>925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
>http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Hey Max, You Bastage |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Cooley" <johnc@datasync.com>
Thanks Matt, he was past due.
John Cooley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Hey Max, You Bastage
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
This is an unacceptable post. As I indicated last week, any member perpetuating
this thread or any similar thread will be banned from the List.
Effective immediately, "Max Stafford" has been banned from posting to the Matronics
Lists.
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
At 04:21 PM 6/13/2006 Tuesday, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Max Stanford" <maxstanford77@yahoo.com>
>
>Planecrazzzy,
>
>If you dont like those assholes on your back then take it up with them. If you
dont like some asshole saying you are posting as someone else, then tell him
what you think about it. You are just an idiot playing into their hands by telling
me that I am responsible for what someone else posted. If you dont like
the witch hunters on this list, then have the courage to do something about
it. Im sure they are very pleased and laughing their asses off for having beaten
you down to the point that you so afraid of them, that you blame others for
what they do. You are pathetic.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40826#40826
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
--
--
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! --
|