---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 08/27/06: 35 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:52 AM - Re: Re: Propellers - IVO or Warp (Mike Schnabel) 2. 04:05 AM - Re: forward slip in Firestar (Mike Schnabel) 3. 04:18 AM - Re: Got my airworthiness certificate today (john s. flannery) 4. 04:28 AM - Re: A sleepless night (Thom Riddle) 5. 04:38 AM - Re: Re: Propellers - IVO or Warp (Richard Pike) 6. 04:59 AM - Re: forward slip in Firestar (Thom Riddle) 7. 06:04 AM - full enclosure (al bumhoffer) 8. 06:11 AM - Re: Re: A sleepless night (Denny Rowe) 9. 06:52 AM - Re: forward slip in Firestar (jimhefner) 10. 07:33 AM - Some prop questions (Chris Mallory) 11. 08:03 AM - Re: Some prop questions (John Hauck) 12. 08:46 AM - Re: Got my airworthiness certificate today (john s. flannery) 13. 09:03 AM - FS 2 stick conversion (WADE LAWICKI) 14. 09:09 AM - Re: Some prop questions (Richard & Martha Neilsen) 15. 10:06 AM - Re: Some prop questions (Richard Pike) 16. 10:52 AM - Re: Re: A sleepless night (Denny Rowe) 17. 11:28 AM - Re: Some prop questions (Jack B. Hart) 18. 11:48 AM - Re: Re: A sleepless night (Richard Girard) 19. 12:02 PM - Re: Some prop questions (George T. Alexander, Jr.) 20. 12:03 PM - Re: Re: A sleepless night (Richard Girard) 21. 12:11 PM - Re: Some prop questions (John Hauck) 22. 12:13 PM - Re: Some prop questions (Richard Girard) 23. 12:57 PM - Re: Some prop questions (Chris Mallory) 24. 01:04 PM - Re: Some prop questions (Chris Mallory) 25. 01:10 PM - Re: Some prop questions (Eugene Zimmerman) 26. 01:27 PM - Re: A sleepless night (Roger Lee) 27. 01:56 PM - Re: Some prop questions (DAquaNut@aol.com) 28. 02:27 PM - air pressure refueler (Bob Noyer) 29. 03:50 PM - Re: forward slip in Firestar (WillUribe@aol.com) 30. 04:20 PM - Re: Some prop questions (WillUribe@aol.com) 31. 05:29 PM - Re: "Jaz" modeling her "Mutt Muffs" (planecrazzzy) 32. 05:39 PM - Re: Re: "Jaz" modeling her "Mutt Muffs" (robert bean) 33. 05:59 PM - Re: A sleepless night (John Williamson) 34. 06:23 PM - Re: Some prop questions (Denny Rowe) 35. 08:47 PM - Re: Re: A sleepless night (Rick Pearce) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:52:57 AM PST US From: Mike Schnabel Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Propellers - IVO or Warp John / Gang, Interesting comments about the IVO prop and leading edge tape. The IVO on my Firestar was a "factory installed option" so to speak. Meaning, it came with the engine/airplane when built by Bryan M (great job by the way, Bryan knows how to build a Kolb!). Anyway (my point) is to say that this plane with only about 6 hours of time on the engine, the leading edge tape is separating from the prop. Granted, this plane has set dormant for several years inside an enclosed trailer which may be the cause for this issue since it gets REALLY hot in there. I have had several observers notice this, and sternly advise to replace the tape before taking her up (only test flown after build, I am still in training). For now, the few hours of taxi work I have done, I have left it as is. But will replace it before first flight. It might just be me, but I think I hear a noticeable change in sound when I run the engine right after pressing that tape down. But it always lifts back up after a while. Strike one against this 2 blade IVO. Another problem I have is that this 2-blade prop rubs against the aileron tubes when the plane is folded. Seems that the prop extension that is used, with the thrust angle, causes this. I asked a fellow flyer why the extension, and his thoughts were that to keep as much engine mass forward as possible, it was necessary for the extension to clear the back of the cage. He thought it was regular practice from Kolb (as they tend to be tail heavy?). Sounded reasonable to me, and I am happy to have it, except it is wearing out my aileron tubes! I have given serious thought to a 3-blade prop for that reason alone. Strike 2 against this 2 blade IVO. I dont know if I want to wait for strike 3, so I will just ask instead What 3 blade adjustable prop is best on a Firestar 2, and which would you men suggest? I would expect differing opinions, and thats a good thing. This list is all about sharing of ideas, and were it not for that, all we would need would be a single heres how to do it manual. What makes an idea worthy is when you have some experience to justify the opinion. There you have it, rant over. I hope you guys are all having a great weekend! I know I have, Saturday Steven Green flew in and allowed me my first few moments aloft in a Kolb (his Mk3) how sweet it is! Thanks Steven! Mike S Manchester TN Firestar 2 503 John Hauck wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | John, I just purchased an IVO 66" two blade prop for my Firestar. Are you saying that THere may be a need or a time when I would need to balance it? | Heroic Ohio 40 landing Ralph! Ralph: No, Sir! I said I never had to balance a Warp Drive Prop. I have flown IVO Props quite a bit on Kolb Factory airplanes over the years. When the silver tape was applied correctly, and it was a new prop, was smooth as can be. However, when the silver tape would start to release, just a little, that little prop would wear you out. With the Warp Drive, I like the idea of setting the prop up, then flying 400 or 500 or more hours without touching it. No need to. Once it is adjusted to the airplane and the engine, there isn't anything left to do. The Warp I pulled off my airplane is still adjusted exactly like it was in June 2004, when I installed and adjusted it. Yes, I am a Warp Drive kinda guy. In addition, you might call me a Kolb kinda guy, a Rotax 912ULS kinda guy, MATCO wheels and brakes kinda guy, among a few other items of equipment I have used for a long time with a great deal of success, e.g., reliability. Take care, john h mkIII --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:05:37 AM PST US From: Mike Schnabel Subject: Re: Kolb-List: forward slip in Firestar Will, Great video, and demonstration of a slip. What were the wind conditions? Much cross wind? Thanks for the informative demonstration. Mike S Manchester TN Firestar 2 503 do not archive WillUribe@aol.com wrote: www.members.aol.com/willuribe/slip.wmv Here is part of a video I took today performing 3 forward slips, I started the slip at 5,000 feet MSL and held it until I was over the runway. There is no noticeable crab angle but check out the jaw string. I dropped 1,000 fpm and the forward airspeed was 60 mph indicated. WARNING!!! This is a 4.09 MB video so it could take a while for dial-up users to view it. Enjoy, Will Uribe FireStar II N4GU El Paso, TX http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/ Do not archive --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:18:20 AM PST US From: "john s. flannery" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Got my airworthiness certificate today --> Kolb-List message posted by: "john s. flannery" David, Think what it would be if you didn't know. Suppose some unknown, inexperienced builder had really screwed up or hadn't followed plans or hadn't had an experienced builder or A&P or AI check it out, had substituted inferior make-do material, or had rebuilt an already messed-up airplane in a hasty fashion, then painted it to cover the flaws and dumped it on you, an unsuspecting buyer . You are in fat city, man. Sure you'll be in puckerville for a while, and you may need to tweak some minor things after the first few flights, but your attention to what you did and the loving care you put into your work will be rewarded. jsf ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Key" Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Got my airworthiness certificate today > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" > > that's what scares me! > > >>From: "john s. flannery" >>To: >>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Got my airworthiness certificate today >>Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:42:13 -0700 >> >>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "john s. flannery" >> >>At least you know who built it and how, and believe me that is a major >>consolation when it comes to that test flight! >> >>jsf >> >>Do not archive >>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Key" >>To: >>Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:31 PM >>Subject: Kolb-List: Got my airworthiness certificate today >> >> >>>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" >>> >>> >>>While I was building it I said to myself I wish this was done so I can >>>just go fly it. Now that the day is here... I'm nervous. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:28:42 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night From: "Thom Riddle" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Thom Riddle" Roger, You are mistaken about the SLSA "option". A home builder does NOT have an option of seeking a S-LSA airworthiness certificate for an airplane he built. The S-LSA a/w certificate is for those aircraft meeting the LSA criteria, and built by a FACTORY that has had this model aircraft approved by the FAA for this Special Light Sport Aircraft category. Home builders, whether they build 90% or 1 % of the aircraft do not have this option. For the current list of Approved S-LSA Factory Built Airplanes, see the EAA's Sportpilot.org website. do not archive -------- Thom in Buffalo Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57711#57711 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:38:31 AM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Propellers - IVO or Warp --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike Ivo used to use a really thick metal tape, but no more. The metal tape that comes on them now is wimpy. Replace it with Powerfin tape, they use a heavy thick vinyl, sticks great, price is right. Don't know how it reacts to heat. Probably not too well. Their phone # is on their web page. Concerning prop extensions, the air coming off the wing surfaces creates a noise when it interfaces with the prop, and the further away from the wing you can get the prop, the quieter it will be. If you have ever listened to a Varieze when it flies over, they are a worst case example of wing/prop interference noise. A two blade prop on a Kolb with a 2 stroke makes a lower-pitched growley sound, a three blade sounds like a typical 2 stroke ultralight. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Mike Schnabel wrote: > John / Gang, > > Interesting comments about the IVO prop and leading edge tape. The IVO > on my Firestar was a "factory installed option" so to speak. Meaning, > it came with the engine/airplane when built by Bryan M (great job by > the way, Bryan knows how to build a Kolb!). Anyway (my point) is to > say that this plane with only about 6 hours of time on the engine, the > leading edge tape is separating from the prop. > I asked a fellow flyer why the extension, and his thoughts were that > to keep as much engine mass forward as possible, > > > Mike S > Manchester TN > Firestar 2 503 > > * > * > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 04:59:50 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: forward slip in Firestar From: "Thom Riddle" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Thom Riddle" Will, Nice video. The yaw string tells it all. You are definitely slipping. Also, the crab angle my not be noticeable during the slip due to camera angle perhaps, but when you stop slipping shortly before touchdown, the nose obviously comes around to a less yawed condition. Both of these are obvious in your videos. do not archive -------- Thom in Buffalo Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57714#57714 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:04:18 AM PST US From: al bumhoffer Subject: Kolb-List: full enclosure --> Kolb-List message posted by: al bumhoffer I would like to add a full enclosure to my Firestar II. Is it necessary to use a hoop that goes from one side to the other at the top of the lexan, and do you also need the eyebrow hoop under the gap seal? Can this be done without having a center bar? If so,what thickness Lexan should I use? I have looked in the archives, but have not found the answers I was looking for. Al Bumhoffer, FirestarII, 50 hrs and loving it, Elkton,MI Do not archive __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:11:55 AM PST US From: "Denny Rowe" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" Rick, I forgot in my last reply to tell you I am looking forward to hearing how your bird performs with this combo. Have fun and fly safe. Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Williamson" Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:53 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" > > > Hi All, > > "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". > > Clarification is in order here: This statement is not true! > > "If, however, he is a stand up guy, he will do the inspection by the list > contained in 14 CFR 43 Appendix D. One of the requirements is to do an > INTERNAL inspection of the wings." > > The Title to FAR Part 43 Appendix D tells you exactly what and when it is > used: > "Appendix D to Part 43?"Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the > Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections" > > Here is the scope of the inspection as it pertain to the wings: > "(f) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect > (where applicable) all components of the wing and center section assembly > for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, > evidence of failure, and insecurity of attachment." > > As you can see, there is no reference to "One of the requirements is to do > an INTERNAL inspection of the wings." > > You as the Manufacturer will be required to make an entry in the log books > that the aircraft/engine/propeller are in an "airworthy and safe condition > for flight." befoe the inspector will make his entry. > > The inspector (FAA/DAR) is only required to inspect the aircraft in so far > as to determine it's eligibility for and the issuance of an Experimental > Airworthiness Certificate. > > Go the regulations and look it up: > http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl > > The following statement is true but isn't the whole answer: > "Some of you may find 14 CFR 91.409 (c) which says that light sport is > exempt from annuals and 100 hour inspections." > > The FAA will issue Operating Limitation for Experimental Light Sport and > Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. Here is a partial Exerpt of: > > " PHASE II Operating Limitations > > Following completion of Phase I requirements and a record documenting that > completion, the aircraft may be operated in accordance with Phase II of > these Operating Limitations. > > No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of > recreation and education as stated in the program letter for this > aircraft. In addition, this aircraft shall be operated in accordance with > applicable air traffic and general operating rules of CFR part 91 and all > additional limitations prescribed under the provisions of CFR part > 91.319(e). These operating limitations are a part of the FAA Form 8130-7, > Special Airworthiness Certificate, and are to be carried in the aircraft > at all times for availability to the pilot in command of the aircraft. > > This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over > densely populated areas unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or unless > sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in > the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property > on the surface. > > After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped > for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with CFR section 91.205, > this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. > > No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding twelve > (12) calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in > accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to CFR part 43, or > other FAA approved programs, and found to be in a condition for safe > operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft maintenance > records. > > Condition inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance > records showing the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify > that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with > the scope and detail of appendix D to CFR part 43, or other FAA-approved > programs and found to be in a condition for safe operation," The entry > will include the aircraft total time in service, and the name, signature, > certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing > the inspection." > > * * * * * * > > This is where the condition inspection will be spelled out and also tell > you that your "aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable > air traffic and general operating rules of CFR part 91 and all additional > limitations prescribed under the provisions of CFR part 91.319(e)." > > The Certification and Operating Limitations process can be found in: > FAA Order 8130.2F w/Change 2 (7/10/2006) which can can be found at this > link: > http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/ > > Well, if you made to here, Thank You. Remenber that all our advise is > worth the paper we are writing on. > > -------- > John Williamson > Arlington, TX > > Kolbra, 912ULS > http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57574#57574 > > > -- > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:46 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: forward slip in Firestar From: "jimhefner" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "jimhefner" Will, nice video. That looks similar to a forward slip in a Firefly. The crab angle is not very noticeable compared to many GA planes. I assumed it was caused by the pusher, high thrust angle, close proximity to rudder, compared to the tractor configs, but it might be due to something else. It's more like a side slip, but it does slip and allow you to loose altitude faster than normal or helps with cross wind landings. With the big flaperons on a FF, you can loose altitude plenty fast so I generally didn't bother slipping for that. -------- Jim Hefner Tucson, AZ Firefly #022 447, 2 blade IVO, BRS-750 Do Not Archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57726#57726 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:33:08 AM PST US From: "Chris Mallory" Subject: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All, Mr. Alexander and I both have FS II's both with 503 DCDI, the planes are "almost" exactly alike except that (1)George's plane carries 5gal. fuel and mine, 10gal. (2).. George is a bigger and heavier pilot than I am and (3) he has a three blade Warp Drive and I have a three blade IVO prop. On any given day under any given conditions, I can't for the life of me keep up with him unless I run way over normal cruise rpm (way over). I haven't checked my prop pitch (going to though) but I plane performs great except during cruise (trying to catch George). I personally think that he's running a turbo boost system but I can't prove anything. Anyway, I am giving serious thought to changing to a Warp Drive prop but in light of the recent postings, I am wondering if I should go two blade or stick with three blades. What do you "experienced" gentleman think? ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:39 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | Chris: Probably be a good idea to tune the prop to engine and airplane first. Prop pitch is correct when the tach will bump the red line, wide open throttle, straight and level flight. For a Rotax two stroke, that would be 6,500 rpm, not 6,800 rpm. 6,500 rpm is maximum continuous rpm. This procedure will also give you your correct static rpm, used to check the health of the engine during run up and pre-take off procedures. For 912's it would be 5,500 rpm, max continuous rpm. This is the same way one props a boat to get optimum all around performance. Propping an airplane this way will give you best climb and cruise performance. A good person to talk to about Warp Drive Props is Daryl, chief honcho of the company. He has been at this job for many years and is very knowledgeable on the subject. His telephone number is: 1-800-833-9357 Take care, john h mkIII ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:44 AM PST US From: "john s. flannery" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Got my airworthiness certificate today I lucked out. Thanks to years of buyin 'n flyin Gen Aviation annualled junk, having a few initial exciting moments, then fixing it up as I went, I got thru this surprise package. I kept from getting killed in the mis-rigged, loose-throttled, no-history pig-in-a- poke red Kolb when I got it took it up in mid-May shortly after it was trailered in from Texas. Only good part of that aerial rodeo was a greased no-power landing on dirt when I got it righted and headed the right way. This morning's one-door off flight was different. Rough on the left ear, but bird handled okay except for one bumpy windblast off Monticello Peak north of the TorC airport. Was able to get a few decent pictures and 532 engine was okay. Aside from slight dif in CHTs and some dif in EGTs which I'm trying to iron out.. jsf do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Key" Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:14 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Got my airworthiness certificate today > You are exactly right, with all this anticipation I've realized I wouldn't > do the first flight someone elses work, no way. I flew the tail yesterday. > > >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:03:46 AM PST US From: WADE LAWICKI Subject: Kolb-List: FS 2 stick conversion Group, Has anyone changed thier FS 2 from old to new style control stick? Is thier a kit? How much welding? My old style has more slop than i like and, ive checked everything for tension and wear, just too many connections to be a tight feel. also any info on the rubber joint under the seat, good or bad? thanks, Wade FS 2 #1030 do not archive --------------------------------- Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:09:03 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" John makes a good point that the prop needs to be tuned to the engine and airplane but you first need to get a prop that matches your engine and airplane. Refer to the factory recommendations for best prop because there is kind of a black science to the prop selection. Most manufactures experiment with a bunch of props before they get the best one. But when you try nonstandard prop you will be the test pilot again. Generally speaking the larger the diameter of the prop the more thrust you get up to the point where the tips get close to supersonic. The down side is that the effective speed range of the prop gets more narrow as the prop gets longer and closer to the point were there is too much prop for the engine power. This is the limit of my experience. Also three bladed props seem to run smoother on Kolbs than two bladed props. I'm told that a properly selected two bladed prop will produce more thrust than a three bladed prop. I don't know the specifics but Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft tested (hopefully equal) Warp, Ivo, and PowerFin props and found that PowerFin props produced the most thrust and were the lightest. Warp Drive produced a bit less thrust and was the heaviest by quite a bit. Ivo produced the least thrust and was in between the weight of the others. My $.02 worth Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIc Serial # M3-174 Root tube #1044 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > > > Chris: > > Probably be a good idea to tune the prop to engine and airplane first. > > Prop pitch is correct when the tach will bump the red line, wide open > throttle, straight and level flight. For a Rotax two stroke, that > would be 6,500 rpm, not 6,800 rpm. 6,500 rpm is maximum continuous > rpm. > > This procedure will also give you your correct static rpm, used to > check the health of the engine during run up and pre-take off > procedures. > > For 912's it would be 5,500 rpm, max continuous rpm. > > This is the same way one props a boat to get optimum all around > performance. > > Propping an airplane this way will give you best climb and cruise > performance. > > A good person to talk to about Warp Drive Props is Daryl, chief honcho > of the company. He has been at this job for many years and is very > knowledgeable on the subject. His telephone number is: > > 1-800-833-9357 > > Take care, > > john h > mkIII > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:01 AM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike Check John H's post on propping to hit 6,500 rpm, do that, and also pull one blade out of your Ivo. You will need some cheap spacer blocks to do it right, but try using it as a two-blade first. You might be pleasantly surprised. And if not, it didn't cost you much. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Chris Mallory wrote: > > All, > > Mr. Alexander and I both have FS II's both with 503 DCDI, the planes > are "almost" exactly alike except that (1)George's plane carries 5gal. > fuel and mine, 10gal. (2).. George is a bigger and heavier pilot than > I am and (3) he has a three blade Warp Drive and I have a three blade > IVO prop. > > On any given day under any given conditions, I can't for the life of > me keep up with him unless I run way over normal cruise rpm (way over). > > I haven't checked my prop pitch (going to though) but I plane performs > great except during cruise (trying to catch George). > > I personally think that he's running a turbo boost system but I can't > prove anything. > > Anyway, I am giving serious thought to changing to a Warp Drive prop > but in light of the recent postings, I am wondering if I should go two > blade or stick with three blades. > > What do you "experienced" gentleman think? > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:52:46 AM PST US From: "Denny Rowe" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" Whoops, Looks like I replied to the wrong message on that last post, these 80 hr work weeks are killing me. Denny Rowe do not archive ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:14 AM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" Kolbers, Another propeller consideration is it's moment of inertia. This is a measure of propellers flywheel effect. Considering all other things equal, the heavier and higher moment of inertia propeller will be more difficult to accelerate or decelerate and to absorb engine power impulses. This in turn causes more work for the reduction unit, engine mounts and the fuselage in that they have to absorb more vibration. For similar power settings, the lightest and lowest moment of inertia propeller should feed the least vibration back to the cage. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:18 AM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night John you're trying to seperate the fly poop from the pepper, IMHO. What par t of "all components" exempts the internal parts of the wing? You are right only on the point that I meant to say "in essence" before stating an internal inspection is required. If it weren't required, do you think Cessna, Piper, Aeronca, or any manufacturer would put inspection hatches on the wings? Go read Appendix D again starting from the beginning. (a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine. (b) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the fuselage and hull group: Inspect does not mean take glance and write a sentence in the logs, it mean s inspect. To drive the point home the feds give you AC 43-13.1b so you have a reference for the acceptable techniques of building, what to look for whe n inspecting, and how to correct an unacceptable condition. Then go back and look at 43.15 (a) *General.* Each person performing an inspection required by part 91, 125, or 135 of this chapter, shall=97 (1) Perform the inspection so as to determine whether the aircraft, or portion(s) thereof under inspection, meets all applicable airworthiness requirements; and then to drive the point home that the inspection is thorough: (c) *Annual and 100-hour inspections.* (1) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall use a checklist while performing the inspection. The checklist may be of the person's own design, one provided b y the manufacturer of the equipment being inspected or one obtained from another source. This checklist must include the scope and detail of the items contained in appendix D to this part and paragraph (b) of this section. Those shalls and musts mean exactly what they say, it's not optional. You don't get to say I forgot, I missed it, or Oops. John, I think we're really on the same page here, and you're holding my fee t to the fire because I made an absolute statement about the regs when, as I said, I should have added that, "in essence" to make it clear that this is the intent although it doesn't say this exact wording. John, just so there's no misunderstanding between us, I really appreciate you holding me accountable. The guys (and gals, for the PC crowd) on this list deserve the correct information. Rick On 8/26/06, John Williamson wrote: > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" < > kolbrapilot1@comcast.net> > > Hi All, > > "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". > > Clarification is in order here: This statement is not true! > > "If, however, he is a stand up guy, he will do the inspection by the list > contained in 14 CFR 43 Appendix D. One of the requirements is to do an > INTERNAL inspection of the wings." > > The Title to FAR Part 43 Appendix D tells you exactly what and when it is > used: > "Appendix D to Part 43=97Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the > Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections" > > Here is the scope of the inspection as it pertain to the wings: > "(f) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspec t > (where applicable) all components of the wing and center section assembly > for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, > evidence of failure, and insecurity of attachment." > > As you can see, there is no reference to "One of the requirements is to d o > an INTERNAL inspection of the wings." > > You as the Manufacturer will be required to make an entry in the log book s > that the aircraft/engine/propeller are in an "airworthy and safe conditio n > for flight." befoe the inspector will make his entry. > > The inspector (FAA/DAR) is only required to inspect the aircraft in so fa r > as to determine it's eligibility for and the issuance of an Experimental > Airworthiness Certificate. > > Go the regulations and look it up: > > http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse /Title14/14tab_02.tpl > > The following statement is true but isn't the whole answer: > "Some of you may find 14 CFR 91.409 (c) which says that light sport is > exempt from annuals and 100 hour inspections." > > The FAA will issue Operating Limitation for Experimental Light Sport and > Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. Here is a partial Exerpt of: > > " PHASE II Operating Limitations > > Following completion of Phase I requirements and a record documenting tha t > completion, the aircraft may be operated in accordance with Phase II of > these Operating Limitations. > > No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of > recreation and education as stated in the program letter for this > aircraft. In addition, this aircraft shall be operated in accordance wit h > applicable air traffic and general operating rules of CFR part 91 and all > additional limitations prescribed under the provisions of CFR part 91.319 (e). > These operating limitations are a part of the FAA Form 8130-7, Special > Airworthiness Certificate, and are to be carried in the aircraft at all > times for availability to the pilot in command of the aircraft. > > This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over > densely populated areas unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or unless > sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in t he > event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on t he > surface. > > After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped > for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with CFR section 91.205, > this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. > > No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding twelve > (12) calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in > accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to CFR part 43, or oth er > FAA approved programs, and found to be in a condition for safe > operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft maintenance > records. > > Condition inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance > records showing the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify > that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with > the scope and detail of appendix D to CFR part 43, or other FAA-approved > programs and found to be in a condition for safe operation," The entry wi ll > include the aircraft total time in service, and the name, signature, > certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing > the inspection." > > * * * * * * > > This is where the condition inspection will be spelled out and also tell > you that your "aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable a ir > traffic and general operating rules of CFR part 91 and all additional > limitations prescribed under the provisions of CFR part 91.319(e)." > > The Certification and Operating Limitations process can be found in: > FAA Order 8130.2F w/Change 2 (7/10/2006) which can can be found at this > link: > http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/ > > Well, if you made to here, Thank You. Remenber that all our advise is > worth the paper we are writing on. > > -------- > John Williamson > Arlington, TX > > Kolbra, 912ULS > http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57574#57574 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:36 PM PST US From: "George T. Alexander, Jr." Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All: So rare that one has an opportunity to correct Mr. Mallory........ He states......"(3) he has a three blade Warp Drive" He should have stated..... "(3) he has a three blade Power Fin" I would have been harsher in my correction if Chris had not been so kind when he said ".....and heavier...." That's being kind. Coulda said "fat" Regards, George "turbo boost" Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net _____ From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Mallory Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All, Mr. Alexander and I both have FS II's both with 503 DCDI, the planes are "almost" exactly alike except that (1)George's plane carries 5gal. fuel and mine, 10gal. (2).. George is a bigger and heavier pilot than I am and (3) he has a three blade Warp Drive and I have a three blade IVO prop. On any given day under any given conditions, I can't for the life of me keep up with him unless I run way over normal cruise rpm (way over). I haven't checked my prop pitch (going to though) but I plane performs great except during cruise (trying to catch George). I personally think that he's running a turbo boost system but I can't prove anything. Anyway, I am giving serious thought to changing to a Warp Drive prop but in light of the recent postings, I am wondering if I should go two blade or stick with three blades. What do you "experienced" gentleman think? ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:29 PM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night Roger, The only way you can get S-LSA certification is if the kit you built has been certificated through the process established by ASTM committee F37. There are no qualifying kits at this time from anyone. Even if you took this option with a qualifying kit, you must then build the kit and equip it EXACTLY as specified by the kit manufacturer. If you change anything your airworthiness certificate is null and void (CFR 21.181). To do a change and keep your airworthiness certificate you would have to get a letter of authorization from the manufacturer for that change (or each change if you made more than one) and it would be airframe specific, i.e. it would list the N number of you aircraft and is good ONLY for that aircraft. Rick On 8/26/06, Roger Lee wrote: > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Roger Lee" > > Hi All, > > I registered my Kolb Mark III ELSA last year and got my LSA lic. I did not > think that getting the LSA lic. was difficult. I got the Gliem self study > program of books and CD. Studied for 2 months while I flew with the CFI for > my hours and took the written. The test of 40 questions was quite easy > except for two out in left field questions that no one seemed to know. > The FAA LSA was a little different as they didn't really know themselves > what was going on. One guy had me fill out amateur built papers and then the > FAA wanted more info. Everytime you send them something it seems to take 3 > weeks to get something back. I talked to the main honcho at the FAA for LSA > and he explained everything. Then I had to call the FAA people that were > handling my file and explain it to them. After I filled out the correct > paperwork I had my ELSA paper work from FAA in a couple of days. Then there > was nobody in Az. that inspected LSA aircraft so I brought in John Shablow > out of Calif. He was great. You also have to option of going SLSA which > would allow you to train or rent your craft. The main difference is SLSA has > to have an A/P or equivilent for inspections and to preform work on your > craft. If you rent it or train in it you have to include 100 hr. > inspections. I went ELSA so I can do all my own maintenance and I took the > "Condition of Inspection" clas! > s and now I can do my own inspections. If you buy an SLSA you can bust it > back to ELSA and then you can do your own work again, but you can not ever > take it back to SLSA. > > -------- > Roger Lee > Tucson, Az. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57577#57577 > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:11:10 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | Considering all other things equal, | the heavier and higher moment of inertia propeller will be more difficult to | accelerate or decelerate and to absorb engine power impulses. This in turn | causes more work for the reduction unit, engine mounts and the fuselage in | that they have to absorb more | vibration. | | For similar power settings, the lightest and lowest moment of inertia | propeller should feed the least vibration back to the cage. | | Jack B. Hart FF004 Jack: The 912 series engines are not experiencing any problems with the heavier 3 blade Warp Drive Props, especially those equipped with the slip clutch. At 1,200 hours, all flown with the 70 and 72 inch Warp, my gear box torsional vibration dampner showed not wear. john h mkIII ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:46 PM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions Jack is absolutely correct here. The Warp drive is a great prop, but it is heavy (lots of rotational inertia). If you are running a "B" box it is way too heavy. If you run a "C", or "E" box, which has twice the allowable limit as the "B", you are hitting the top of the limit at best. These limit numbers come right from the Rotax manual for the gear box. Rick On 8/27/06, Jack B. Hart wrote: > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" > > Kolbers, > > Another propeller consideration is it's moment of inertia. This is a > measure of propellers flywheel effect. Considering all other things > equal, > the heavier and higher moment of inertia propeller will be more difficult > to > accelerate or decelerate and to absorb engine power impulses. This in > turn > causes more work for the reduction unit, engine mounts and the fuselage in > that they have to absorb more > vibration. > > For similar power settings, the lightest and lowest moment of inertia > propeller should feed the least vibration back to the cage. > > Jack B. Hart FF004 > Winchester, IN > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 12:57:39 PM PST US From: "Chris Mallory" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chris Mallory" John, Thanks for the information and the number, I'll use it. Chris Mallory do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > > > Chris: > > Probably be a good idea to tune the prop to engine and airplane first. > > Prop pitch is correct when the tach will bump the red line, wide open > throttle, straight and level flight. For a Rotax two stroke, that > would be 6,500 rpm, not 6,800 rpm. 6,500 rpm is maximum continuous > rpm. > > This procedure will also give you your correct static rpm, used to > check the health of the engine during run up and pre-take off > procedures. > > For 912's it would be 5,500 rpm, max continuous rpm. > > This is the same way one props a boat to get optimum all around > performance. > > Propping an airplane this way will give you best climb and cruise > performance. > > A good person to talk to about Warp Drive Props is Daryl, chief honcho > of the company. He has been at this job for many years and is very > knowledgeable on the subject. His telephone number is: > > 1-800-833-9357 > > Take care, > > john h > mkIII > > > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:43 PM PST US From: "Chris Mallory" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions George, I stand corrected Sir ............... but I'm still suspicious of the turbo boost :) Chris do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: George T. Alexander, Jr. To: kolb-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All: So rare that one has an opportunity to correct Mr. Mallory........ He states......"(3) he has a three blade Warp Drive" He should have stated..... "(3) he has a three blade Power Fin" I would have been harsher in my correction if Chris had not been so kind when he said ".....and heavier...." That's being kind. Coulda said "fat" Regards, George "turbo boost" Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Mallory Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:33 AM To: Kolb List Subject: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All, Mr. Alexander and I both have FS II's both with 503 DCDI, the planes are "almost" exactly alike except that (1)George's plane carries 5gal. fuel and mine, 10gal. (2).. George is a bigger and heavier pilot than I am and (3) he has a three blade Warp Drive and I have a three blade IVO prop. On any given day under any given conditions, I can't for the life of me keep up with him unless I run way over normal cruise rpm (way over). I haven't checked my prop pitch (going to though) but I plane performs great except during cruise (trying to catch George). I personally think that he's running a turbo boost system but I can't prove anything. Anyway, I am giving serious thought to changing to a Warp Drive prop but in light of the recent postings, I am wondering if I should go two blade or stick with three blades. What do you "experienced" gentleman think? s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 01:10:46 PM PST US From: Eugene Zimmerman Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions --> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman Hey Geo, I just upped my starvation insurance as I got older. On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:02 PM, George T. Alexander, Jr. wrote: > I would have been harsher in my correction if Chris had not been so > kind when he said ".....and heavier...." That's being kind. > Coulda said "fat" > > Regards, > > George "turbo boost" Alexander ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:15 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night From: "Roger Lee" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Roger Lee" My error. I guess Mr. Shablow was mistaken and then I have mispoke. Sorry about that. -------- Roger Lee Tucson, Az. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57809#57809 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 01:56:35 PM PST US From: DAquaNut@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions In a message dated 8/27/2006 11:10:02 A.M. Central Standard Time, NeilsenRM@comcast.net writes: I don't know the specifics but Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft tested (hopefully equal) Warp, Ivo, and PowerFin props and found that PowerFin props produced the most thrust and were the lightest. Warp Drive produced a bit less thrust and was the heaviest by quite a bit. Ivo produced the least thrust and was in between the weight of the others. My $.02 worth Rick Neilsen Did they consider smoothness quiteness or durability? Ed Diebel ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 02:27:08 PM PST US From: Bob Noyer Subject: Kolb-List: air pressure refueler For all the listees that pooh-poohed my air pressure refueler, saying it would be dangerous because compressed air had more oxygen(!), and that the fuel going thru the hose would generate static electricity, zub, zub...check ebay#http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FUEL-DISPENSER- PUMP-AIRPLANE-ULTRALIGHT- HELICOPTER_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ26442QQihZ003QQitemZ130021130577QQ rdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW. $89, Made in USA Mine cost less than five bucks. Here's your chance to live dangerously...and for easy refueling, too. regards, Bob N. http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/ new story for August do not archive ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:50:32 PM PST US From: WillUribe@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: forward slip in Firestar This winds were light and variable, not much of a quarterly cross wind to speak off. In a message dated 8/27/2006 5:06:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, tnfirestar2@yahoo.com writes: Will, Great video, and demonstration of a slip. What were the wind conditions? Much cross wind? Thanks for the informative demonstration. Mike S Manchester TN Firestar 2 503 do not archive ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:08 PM PST US From: WillUribe@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions This is very interesting, when Dave and I flew our FireStars together, all things being equal except for the Power Fin two blade prop on his FireStar and the IVO three blade prop on mine. Dave would fly circles around me. It is your choice so choose what is right for you. I'm satisfied with the IVO but I wish I would have bought a three blade Power Fin. The IVO had problems with slinging the leading edge aluminum tape. IVO said they got a bad batch of aluminum tape, I now use transparent tape. Regards, Will Uribe FireStar II N4GU El Paso, TX _http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/oregon.htm_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/oregon.htm) do not archive In a message dated 8/27/2006 8:34:19 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, wcm@tampabay.rr.com writes: All, Mr. Alexander and I both have FS II's both with 503 DCDI, the planes are "almost" exactly alike except that (1)George's plane carries 5gal. fuel and mine, 10gal. (2).. George is a bigger and heavier pilot than I am and (3) he has a three blade Warp Drive and I have a three blade IVO prop. On any given day under any given conditions, I can't for the life of me keep up with him unless I run way over normal cruise rpm (way over). I haven't checked my prop pitch (going to though) but I plane performs great except during cruise (trying to catch George). I personally think that he's running a turbo boost system but I can't prove anything. Anyway, I am giving serious thought to changing to a Warp Drive prop but in light of the recent postings, I am wondering if I should go two blade or stick with three blades. What do you "experienced" gentleman think? ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 05:29:07 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: "Jaz" modeling her "Mutt Muffs" From: "planecrazzzy" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" The Mutt Muffs "stayed" on her ears today....We flew to the Cherry Grove Fly-in ( I was getting 82 mph GS/ SMOOTH air ) after we landed , Taxi'd to our spot , She jumped out and ran around alittle with her sweater and ear muffs... Gotta Fly... Mike & Jaz in MN -------- .. .. .. .. .. Do Not Archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57852#57852 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/jaz__mutt_muffs_010_162.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/jaz__mutt_muffs_009_117.jpg ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 05:39:19 PM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: "Jaz" modeling her "Mutt Muffs" --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean No scarf? Yeah, well maybe not with a pusher.... We need a shot of her belted in. do not archive On 27, Aug 2006, at 8:28 PM, planecrazzzy wrote: > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "planecrazzzy" > > > The Mutt Muffs "stayed" on her ears today....We flew to the Cherry > Grove Fly-in ( I was getting 82 mph GS/ SMOOTH air ) after we landed , > Taxi'd to our spot , She jumped out and ran around alittle with her > sweater and ear muffs... > > Gotta Fly... > Mike & Jaz in MN > > -------- > . > . > . > . > . > Do Not Archive > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57852#57852 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/jaz__mutt_muffs_010_162.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/jaz__mutt_muffs_009_117.jpg > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:41 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night From: "John Williamson" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" Rick and All, My last words on this subject: "What part of "all components" exempts the internal parts of the wing?" Well it seems you want to skip the very important words: "(where applicable)" that are in the same sentence. "You are right only on the point that I meant to say "in essence" before stating an internal inspection is required. If it weren't required, do you think Cessna, Piper, Aeronca, or any manufacturer would put inspection hatches on the wings?" We don't interpret the FAR's, we do what they require by the words present. We don't have to guess what the intent was. "Go read Appendix D again starting from the beginning. (a) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before that inspection, remove or open all necessary inspection plates, access doors, fairing, and cowling. He shall thoroughly clean the aircraft and aircraft engine. (b) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the fuselage and hull group: Inspect does not mean take glance and write a sentence in the logs, it means inspect." Again, there is only the requirement to "remove or open all necessary inspection plates". We as the manufacturer determine what access is required to comply with the letter of the FAR. "To drive the point home the feds give you AC 43-13.1b so you have a reference for the acceptable techniques of building, what to look for when inspecting, and how to correct an unacceptable condition." AC 43-13.1b is Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices--Aircraft Inspection and Repair" , not for "acceptable techniques of building" as you stated. "Then go back and look at 43.15" No need to go to that section of the FAR if "Experimental" is on the Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitaions" since they say that I have to do the condition inspection IAW Appendix D Part 43. Nowhere else will it say that any other part of Part 43 applies to "Experimental" aircraft. "Those shalls and musts mean exactly what they say, it's not optional. You don't get to say I forgot, I missed it, or Oops." This is very true and if this discussion does nothing but get a couple more people to read the Regs, then it has not been for nothing. -------- John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolbra, 912ULS http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57862#57862 ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 06:23:24 PM PST US From: "Denny Rowe" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Some prop questions George, That makes me feel a whole lot better about my Powerfin prop. Denny PS: Which model Powerfin do you have? ----- Original Message ----- From: George T. Alexander, Jr. To: kolb-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All: So rare that one has an opportunity to correct Mr. Mallory........ He states......"(3) he has a three blade Warp Drive" He should have stated..... "(3) he has a three blade Power Fin" I would have been harsher in my correction if Chris had not been so kind when he said ".....and heavier...." That's being kind. Coulda said "fat" Regards, George "turbo boost" Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Mallory Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:33 AM To: Kolb List Subject: Kolb-List: Some prop questions All, Mr. Alexander and I both have FS II's both with 503 DCDI, the planes are "almost" exactly alike except that (1)George's plane carries 5gal. fuel and mine, 10gal. (2).. George is a bigger and heavier pilot than I am and (3) he has a three blade Warp Drive and I have a three blade IVO prop. On any given day under any given conditions, I can't for the life of me keep up with him unless I run way over normal cruise rpm (way over). I haven't checked my prop pitch (going to though) but I plane performs great except during cruise (trying to catch George). I personally think that he's running a turbo boost system but I can't prove anything. Anyway, I am giving serious thought to changing to a Warp Drive prop but in light of the recent postings, I am wondering if I should go two blade or stick with three blades. What do you "experienced" gentleman think? s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 8/25/2006 ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:09 PM PST US From: "Rick Pearce" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rick Pearce" My Kolb Mark3 has the Kolb amphib floats and I'm a very big guy so I will need all the power I can get.Will be a single place I'm pretty sure. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denny Rowe" Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:11 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" > > Rick, > I forgot in my last reply to tell you I am looking forward to hearing how > your bird performs with this combo. > Have fun and fly safe. > > Denny > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Williamson" > To: > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:53 PM > Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A sleepless night > > > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". > > > > Clarification is in order here: This statement is not true! > > > > "If, however, he is a stand up guy, he will do the inspection by the list > > contained in 14 CFR 43 Appendix D. One of the requirements is to do an > > INTERNAL inspection of the wings." > > > > The Title to FAR Part 43 Appendix D tells you exactly what and when it is > > used: > > "Appendix D to Part 43?"Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the > > Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections" > > > > Here is the scope of the inspection as it pertain to the wings: > > "(f) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect > > (where applicable) all components of the wing and center section assembly > > for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, > > evidence of failure, and insecurity of attachment." > > > > As you can see, there is no reference to "One of the requirements is to do > > an INTERNAL inspection of the wings." > > > > You as the Manufacturer will be required to make an entry in the log books > > that the aircraft/engine/propeller are in an "airworthy and safe condition > > for flight." befoe the inspector will make his entry. > > > > The inspector (FAA/DAR) is only required to inspect the aircraft in so far > > as to determine it's eligibility for and the issuance of an Experimental > > Airworthiness Certificate. > > > > Go the regulations and look it up: > > http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl > > > > The following statement is true but isn't the whole answer: > > "Some of you may find 14 CFR 91.409 (c) which says that light sport is > > exempt from annuals and 100 hour inspections." > > > > The FAA will issue Operating Limitation for Experimental Light Sport and > > Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. Here is a partial Exerpt of: > > > > " PHASE II Operating Limitations > > > > Following completion of Phase I requirements and a record documenting that > > completion, the aircraft may be operated in accordance with Phase II of > > these Operating Limitations. > > > > No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of > > recreation and education as stated in the program letter for this > > aircraft. In addition, this aircraft shall be operated in accordance with > > applicable air traffic and general operating rules of CFR part 91 and all > > additional limitations prescribed under the provisions of CFR part > > 91.319(e). These operating limitations are a part of the FAA Form 8130-7, > > Special Airworthiness Certificate, and are to be carried in the aircraft > > at all times for availability to the pilot in command of the aircraft. > > > > This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over > > densely populated areas unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or unless > > sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in > > the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property > > on the surface. > > > > After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped > > for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with CFR section 91.205, > > this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. > > > > No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding twelve > > (12) calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in > > accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D to CFR part 43, or > > other FAA approved programs, and found to be in a condition for safe > > operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft maintenance > > records. > > > > Condition inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance > > records showing the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify > > that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with > > the scope and detail of appendix D to CFR part 43, or other FAA-approved > > programs and found to be in a condition for safe operation," The entry > > will include the aircraft total time in service, and the name, signature, > > certificate number, and type of certificate held by the person performing > > the inspection." > > > > * * * * * * > > > > This is where the condition inspection will be spelled out and also tell > > you that your "aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable > > air traffic and general operating rules of CFR part 91 and all additional > > limitations prescribed under the provisions of CFR part 91.319(e)." > > > > The Certification and Operating Limitations process can be found in: > > FAA Order 8130.2F w/Change 2 (7/10/2006) which can can be found at this > > link: > > http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/ > > > > Well, if you made to here, Thank You. Remenber that all our advise is > > worth the paper we are writing on. > > > > -------- > > John Williamson > > Arlington, TX > > > > Kolbra, 912ULS > > http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1 > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57574#57574 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > >