Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Re: Props and engine mount (Ron)
2. 02:00 AM - Re: NOTAM For Sun and Fun 2007 (icrashrc)
3. 02:54 AM - Re: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? (pat ladd)
4. 03:58 AM - Re: Props and engine mount (Larry Bourne)
5. 04:00 AM - Re: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? (Dana Hague)
6. 04:06 AM - Re: Kolb-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 03/27/07 (Charles Davis)
7. 05:50 AM - Re: Wanted-Kolb Instructor Pilot (joe)
8. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: NOTAM For Sun and Fun 2007 (John Hauck)
9. 05:57 AM - Re: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? (DANIEL WALTER)
10. 07:16 AM - Re: Props and engine mount (Vic Peters)
11. 07:17 AM - Attending Sun and Fun 2007 (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
12. 07:27 AM - Re: SPAM: Re: Fly-in (Terry)
13. 07:30 AM - Re: Props and engine mount (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
14. 07:39 AM - Re: Props and engine mount (John Hauck)
15. 07:40 AM - Re: SPAM: Re: Fly-in (John Hauck)
16. 07:57 AM - Props and engine mount (boyd)
17. 08:02 AM - Re: vinyl graphics vs painting (MKIIIX040)
18. 08:18 AM - Re: newbie (jb92563)
19. 08:21 AM - Southern California Kolb flyers? (jb92563)
20. 08:30 AM - E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (Richard Girard)
21. 09:10 AM - Re: SUV (jb92563)
22. 09:34 AM - Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (John Williamson)
23. 10:01 AM - Re: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? (Ralph)
24. 10:32 AM - Re: newbie...we are all newbies (joe)
25. 10:40 AM - Re: Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (David Key)
26. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: newbie (N27SB@aol.com)
27. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: newbie (N27SB@aol.com)
28. 11:18 AM - New 912ULS Oil Fittings (John Hauck)
29. 11:42 AM - Re: newbie (JetPilot)
30. 11:51 AM - Re: newbie (jb92563)
31. 12:18 PM - Re: Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (Richard Girard)
32. 12:21 PM - Re: Props and engine mount (Ron)
33. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: newbie (knowvne@aol.com)
34. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (Vic Peters)
35. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: newbie (N27SB@aol.com)
36. 01:06 PM - Re: Re: newbie (N27SB@aol.com)
37. 01:10 PM - Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (John Williamson)
38. 02:41 PM - Re: Props and engine mount (JetPilot)
39. 02:45 PM - Re: SPAM: Re: Fly-in (Dana Hague)
40. 02:50 PM - Re: New 912ULS Oil Fittings (JetPilot)
41. 03:37 PM - Re: New 912ULS Oil Fittings (Roger Lee)
42. 03:42 PM - Re: Re: New 912ULS Oil Fittings (John Hauck)
43. 03:42 PM - Re: Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (TheWanderingWench)
44. 03:50 PM - Re: Re: newbie (Russ Kinne)
45. 03:52 PM - Re: Re: New 912ULS Oil Fittings (John Hauck)
46. 04:00 PM - Re: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 (Mark W German)
47. 05:21 PM - Re: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 (Don G)
48. 06:23 PM - Re: Props and engine mount/propeller selection (Jack B. Hart)
49. 06:48 PM - Re: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 (JetPilot)
50. 07:22 PM - Fw: Re: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 (John Hauck)
51. 07:30 PM - Re: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
52. 07:34 PM - Re: Re: Props and engine mount (Ron)
53. 07:50 PM - Re: Props and engine mount/propeller selection (Ron)
54. 10:47 PM - Re: Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 (Richard Girard)
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: Props and engine mount |
"This gearbox was designed for aviation conversion of engines up to 160 h.p. It
is in production since 2000. The available reduction ratios are 2.03, 2.34, 2.5.
There is a German (BMW) rubber damper between the gear box and the engine.
The propeller moment of inertia up to 9,000 kg/cm2. Rotax-style propeller hub,
propeller shaft with a hole so it can be used with variable pitch prop or for
glider towing. It is possible to use this gearbox for both (tractor and pusher)
layouts, install it up, down and any degrees left or right. "
The motor is a 105-110 hp Suzuki. The above is a quote from the vendor's web site.
Ron (Arizona)
===============================
---- Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
============
What engine and reduction ratio?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldpoops)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <captainron1@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Props and engine mount
>
> for all the senior Kolbers here is a question. I am about to weld in place
> the engine mount. I have now the option of lowering the mount a bit to
> reduce thrust line. I have done some measuring and it looks like I can
> reduce it some with a 2 inch prop clearance from the tail boom and have a
> max size of a 68 inch prop. I figure that at best the rubber mount would
> flex .5 inch which would still give me ample clearance, from the boom. Or
> I could of course go to a 3 inch clearance from the boom and raise the
> mount an inch.
> I guess the best question to ask is what is the minimum prop I can use and
> still be on par with the best performance. I know there are some more
> variables I can throw into this. But some ideas from which I can work will
> be real good.
> The next item is the angle of the mount. I am following the original mount
> bed angle on the assumption that Dennis Souder got it right when he
> figured it. Any opinions about that, shell I change it and if so why?
> John H what prop size and kind are you using?
> Anyone using a 4 blade?
>
>
--
kugelair.com
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: NOTAM For Sun and Fun 2007 |
John,
Will you have Miss Pfer back together and flying for Sun-n-Fun?
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103344#103344
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: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? |
. at which time they'll find they're flying an unregistered aircraft
with no airworthiness certificate and no annual.>>
...And no insurance. Any Insurance Company will grab that as a get out.
Pat
do not archive
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: Props and engine mount |
I'd be interested in more info about the redrive, Ron. Who's the
manufacturer, and what's his website ??
Thanks Lar.
On 3/28/07, Ron <captainron1@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> "This gearbox was designed for aviation conversion of engines up to 160
> h.p. It is in production since 2000. The available reduction ratios are
> 2.03, 2.34, 2.5. There is a German (BMW) rubber damper between the gear
> box and the engine. The propeller moment of inertia up to 9,000 kg/cm2.
> Rotax-style propeller hub, propeller shaft with a hole so it can be used
> with variable pitch prop or for glider towing. It is possible to use this
> gearbox for both (tractor and pusher) layouts, install it up, down and any
> degrees left or right. "
>
> The motor is a 105-110 hp Suzuki. The above is a quote from the vendor's
> web site.
>
> Ron (Arizona)
> ===============================
>
>
> ---- Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
>
> ============
>
> What engine and reduction ratio?
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldpoops)
> do not archive
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? |
At 05:54 AM 3/28/2007, pat ladd wrote:
>
>...And no insurance. Any Insurance Company will grab that as a get out.
Around here, I don't think most ultralight (legal or not) pilots have
insurance anyway. It's not required by law, and it's not inexpensive.
-Dana
--
--
The citizens of the United States are getting the government they deserve.
The problem is that I'm also getting the government they deserve.
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: Kolb-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 03/27/07 |
And don't forget the hotel that backs right up to the airport!
Chuck
**********************************************
Terry,
I would like to overnight at Smoketown for the gathering at Homer's.
It's a great airport three resturants within walking distance and plenty
of Kolb owners nearby!!
Steven
Let me know if this sounds interesting and I will speak to the owner of
the airport about you staying there. He's a real nice guy!
Terry - FireFly #95
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: Wanted-Kolb Instructor Pilot |
>From what I've been able to gather here in Tulsa this is not as popular a sport
as it was ten years ago. Maybe not everywhere, but here that is what it seems.
People in the club I've joined, the only one here, say there used to be more
people and they did more things together. I think it is harder now with the
popularity down some and with the sport being more regulated now, people aren't
teaching as much. I think it is becoming more expensive for someone to be
a legal teacher and plane that is a legal trainer.
I will end by saying that I know very little, this is just how it appears to be
to me here in Tulsa.
Joe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103378#103378
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: NOTAM For Sun and Fun 2007 |
Morning Scott/Gang:
Hoping to have her flying before Sun and Fun, so I can load her up and
fly down.
The update is going good. I am a lot slower now than 6 years ago when
I swapped out lexan and did some updating and repairs. One gets very
spoiled when there is little to do to maintain their airplane over the
years.
I started out building new center section with .016" 6061 and no
lexan. Got half way through and decided that .025" was the way to go.
The top and bottom are drilled and trimmed. This morning will start
doing the cut outs for fit, fuel fill, access holes, etc. The .025 is
much, much stronger, and still lighter than my old lexan and sheet
metal center section.
Soon as I get the center section finished, I'll set the engine on the
airframe, do all the engine stuff, new cables, fuel line, coolant
lines, oil lines, hook up the wiring, and finally install the
windshield and rear quarter windows.
Only priming and painting I have to do is the center section, and I'll
probably shoot the gear legs while I am at it.
Eager to get flying again. Have been groundbound since 22 Aug 06,
except for some flying at the factory the end of Sep at the Kolb
Homecoming.
See you all at Lakeland.
john h
mkIII
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: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? |
----- Original Message -----
From: BMWBikeCrz@aol.com
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:11 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ???
I was talking to a couple of guys at lunch that fly Trikes and Gyro
Copters Thier feeling is that The FAA is not too concerned with Single
seat ultralights ...
Dave, What does your Firestar weigh? You should be close to the 254
dry and putting it on a diet may be the thing to do. If you carry more
than 5 gallons or are thinking of putting on a 503 than the N number is
the way to go.
Dan Walter
Palmyra PA
Ultrastar, UL202
Do not Archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Props and engine mount |
Anyone,
I always wondered why the plans called for 3 washers in the back and 2
in front for the 912 mount. Why not 2 in rear and 1 in front?
Can 1/16" make that much difference anyway?
John , I thought you were running a 74'' Warp.
Vic
912 UL Extra
Maine
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Attending Sun and Fun 2007 |
I will be going to Sun N Fun 2007 and will be camping in the Ultralight
campground most of the week. Is anyone else planning on going? Sounds like
John H. will be there.
I will be driving so I can bring supplies people might need. Is there going
to be a cook out? Can I bring something for it?
Do not archive
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
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 |
|
Steven Green wrote:
>
> Terry,
>
> I would like to overnight at Smoketown for the gathering at Homer's.
> It's a great airport three resturants within walking distance and
> plenty of Kolb owners nearby!!
>
> Steven
>
> Let me know if this sounds interesting and I will speak to the owner
> of the airport about you staying there. He's a real nice guy!
>
> Terry - FireFly #95
Steve,
I know that won't be a problem! As we get closer to the date, I will
take a poll and see how many are coming for Clara and Homer to be able
to plan and how many might like to stay over at Smoketown. I know that
some of us will probably camp out at Shreveport North's UL Fly-in
Saturday night after our visit to Homer's.
You might want to consider joining us there.
Terry - FireFly #95
Do Not Archive
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: Props and engine mount |
Ron
I don't know about that senior thing but.... I built my VW mount with two
inch clearance for a 72 inch prop. I also set the thrust line just slightly
up from being even with the bottom of the wing. I figured the wing would fly
with just a bit of up angle of attack.
My assumption is that the most efficient thrust angle would be straight back
at cruise. A thrust line pushing the plane down would not be good and having
the thrust line lifting the plane would not be as efficient as lift from the
wing.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <captainron1@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Props and engine mount
>
> for all the senior Kolbers here is a question. I am about to weld in place
> the engine mount. I have now the option of lowering the mount a bit to
> reduce thrust line. I have done some measuring and it looks like I can
> reduce it some with a 2 inch prop clearance from the tail boom and have a
> max size of a 68 inch prop. I figure that at best the rubber mount would
> flex .5 inch which would still give me ample clearance, from the boom. Or
> I could of course go to a 3 inch clearance from the boom and raise the
> mount an inch.
> I guess the best question to ask is what is the minimum prop I can use and
> still be on par with the best performance. I know there are some more
> variables I can throw into this. But some ideas from which I can work will
> be real good.
> The next item is the angle of the mount. I am following the original mount
> bed angle on the assumption that Dennis Souder got it right when he
> figured it. Any opinions about that, shell I change it and if so why?
> John H what prop size and kind are you using?
> Anyone using a 4 blade?
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Props and engine mount |
Can 1/16" make that much difference anyway?
John , I thought you were running a 74'' Warp.
Vic
Vic:
1/16" will not make any difference.
I discovered many years ago the amount of engine movement with a 447
powered Firestar. Was amazed at how much the engine tilted under full
power.
I experimented with different angles of mounting the engine on the
mkIII and came to the conclusion I was wasting my time. Now I fly
with the engine as low as possible and in the standard configuration
with the hardest Lord mounts available. Travis sends these hard Lord
mounts with the mkIII kits.
72" is largest prop I have flown with.
john h
mkIII
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 |
|
I know that
| some of us will probably camp out at Shreveport North's UL Fly-in
| Saturday night after our visit to Homer's.
| You might want to consider joining us there.
|
| Terry - FireFly #95
Terry: Count me in on that.
john h
mkIII
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Props and engine mount |
for all the senior Kolbers here is a question. I am about to weld in place
the engine mount. I have now the option of lowering the mount a bit to
reduce thrust line.
Ron
I guess it depends on what engine you will be using,,, what altitude you
will be flying at most,,, and what properties you want your plane to have.
When I called warp drive and asked for my application. I was told 68 inch 3
blade full width tips. Darrell at warp drive told me that the full width
tips were best suited for sea plane and / or high altitude applications.
I have a mark III with a 912 80 hp. field elevation is 4426 ft and density
altitudes in the summer of 6000 + or - and to fly over the mountains I go
to 8000 ft msl on a regular basis.
John H has the 912s 100 hp version. And uses a 72 inch taper tip blade.
Which warp drive told me was best suited for his plane and application.
In short, I think I would call Darrell at Warp Drive, explain your
situation, and ask for his advice. I don't think he would steer you wrong.
As for tip boom clearance,,, I think 1 1/2 to 2 inch should be ok it seems
that some are using on inch or so. The biggest problem would be involved
in how much shake the engine has during start up and shutdown.
Boyd
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: vinyl graphics vs painting |
Paul thanks for the "plug".
You probably ordered from a girl in Fl. because she was, oh say, purtier than
me.
Aplication fluid works good for large surface areas. Dry is best on the rest.
I use a clear aplication tape, makes it easier to see what your doing and is good
for multiple color registration.
The slickest way to keep your #'s or graphic in place is to tape it in the center.
Peel back the aplication tape with the graphic half way and cut the backing
paper. Squeege that side and your vinyl won't move from there, then remove
the tape you used for positioning and the remainder of backing paper, squeege
the other half remove the application tape and Presto your done!
Do not apply in direct sunlight!
I use high perfomance vinyl on GA just because. It's thinner, 3 times the cost,
and harder to work with.
The less expensive intermediate vinyl may shrink slightly after a couple years
but neither one will will come off. I've put a pressure washer directly against
letters on my tailgate and they didn't come off.
I asked Travis about making their logos in different sizes and colors to match
different aircraft. He said he didn't have any problem with it.
Quite a while back I even made Kolb mugs for the crew at TNK.
Vic
912 UL Extra
Maine
do not archive
--------
MKIIIX040
912UL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103418#103418
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 |
|
Hi Steve,
Interesting points you mentioned.
What do you mean by VERY thinwalled tubing in a wet environment?
Are you talking about the welded structure of the US?
Is the FF welded structure of thicker tubing?
Its Crome-Molly tubing on the US as far as I know from my friend.
I assume those floats are ~29lbs each right?
and you can use the parachute allowance? meaning that you do not have a parachute
but floats instead?
Pardon all the questions from a newbie, but my other aircraft are experimental
category and I dont know about all the ins/out of the Part 103 category.
I dont think the FF is in my budget right now...the US Im getting is only 3K with
a trailer, 2 Cuyuna 430's a 2 blade and 3 blade prop.
The wing has a 6" tear in the covering that I need to repair and is otherwise in
decent corrosion free condition.
Ray
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103422#103422
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: | Southern California Kolb flyers? |
I was wondering if there is a presence of Kolbs in Southern California?
Perhaps I can join them for some flying sorties when my US is ready later this
year, and to compare notes etc.
Ray
Lake Elsinore, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103425#103425
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: | E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
>From current online FAR's
=A7 21.191 Experimental certificates.
Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
(i) *Operating light-sport aircraft. *Operating a light-sport aircraft that
=97
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and doe
s
not meet the provisions of =A7103.1 of this chapter. An experimental
certificate will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft afte
r
January 31, 2008;
2) Has been assembled=97
(i) From an aircraft kit for which the applicant can provide the informatio
n
required by =A721.193(e); and
(ii) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an
applicable consensus standard; or
(3) Has been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category under =A721.190.
=A7 21.193 Experimental certificates: general.
An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following
information:
(e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to be
certificated in accordance with =A721.191(i)(2), an applicant must provide
the
following:
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured
and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.
(2) The aircraft's operating instructions.
(3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.
(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in
the aircraft assembly that meets =A721.190(c), except that instead of meeti
ng
=A721.190(c)(7), the statement must identify assembly instructions for the
aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard.
(5) The aircraft's flight training supplement.
(6) In addition to paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section, for an
aircraft kit manufactured outside of the United States, evidence that the
aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which the United States has
a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning airplanes or a Bilateral
Aviation Safety Agreement with associated Implementation Procedures for
Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an equivalent airworthiness
agreement.
These are the rules that apply to obtaining an experimental certificate for
operating an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.
Notice that 21.191(i)1 doesn't say anything about where the aircraft came
from. No mention of kits, manufactured, homebuilt, nothing, nada. Just two
things are required to get an experimental certificate for an E-LSA before
1-31-08. The aircraft in't legal as an ultralight, and it's never been
registered before. That's it.
Can you buy a kit from Kolb today and get an E-LSA experimental certificate
?
YES, but you must have that experimental certificate in your hands before
the stroke of midnight on the night of Jan 31, 2008.
Can you buy a complete aircraft, today, and get an E-LSA experimental
certificate? YES, but you must have that experimental certificate in your
hands before the stroke of midnight on the night of Jan 31, 2008.
Can you design and build an aircraft from scratch, starting today, and get
an E-LSA experimental certificate? YES, but you must have that experimental
certificate in your hands before the stroke of midnight on the night of Jan
31, 2008.
The word registration is getting kicked around this group as though it is
synonymous with getting an experimental certificate. It is not. Getting an
aircraft registered is only a step in the process of getting an experimenta
l
certificate.
If you have only your registration on February 1, 2008 your aircraft CANNOT
be given an experimental certificate for E-LSA unless it meets the
requirements of 21.191(i)2 or 21.191(i)3.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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 |
|
Personally I drive an SUV Jeep Wrangler because when the floods, landslides and
Earthquates tear up the land here in California I will be able to put it in 4wd
and get my self and loved ones out of harms way.
Also comes in handy when roads are washed out or accidents block entire highways
and you need to go around the mess.
Also good for launching the Seadoos since I can drive in deep to the fenders and
not have to worry about the engine quiting.
Its also nice to know I can mount a .50 Cal on the Jeep if things start going to
hell out here some day. I think I'll mount it next week, those road ragers are
really starting to get out of hand....LOL
I am able to tow a 1000lb 30' glider/trailer at 75mph no problem with this combo
so I imagine that my Kolb US will not be a problem either.
My commuting to work vehicle gets 50mpg (Motorcycle)
Ray
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103445#103445
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: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
Hi Rick and all,
To use your own message quote:
"(e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to be certificated
in accordance with 21.191(i)(2), an applicant must provide the following:
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured and assembled
by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport category.
(2) The aircraft's operating instructions.
(3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.
(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in the
aircraft assembly that meets 21.190(c), except that instead of meeting 21.190(c)(7),
the statement must identify assembly instructions for the aircraft that
meet an applicable consensus standard.
(5) The aircraft's flight training supplement."
You guys can read and interpret to your liking all you want but that isn't going
to change the fact that you can't build a new TNK Kit and register it as ELSA:
Why you might ask:
1. TNK does not manufacturer an airplane that has had a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport category issued.
2. TNK does not issue aircraft's operating instructions with their Kits.
3. TNK does not issue aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures. You might
be able to write your own for submittal, but I doubt it.
4. TNK does not issue a manufacturer's statement of compliance or assembly instructions
for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard.
5. TNK does not issue an aircraft's flight training supplement.
If any one of the five item are missing, it can't be done as an ELSA for a new
kit construction, ever.
Do Not Archive
--------
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, 912ULS
http://home.tx.rr.com/kolbrapilot
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103451#103451
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: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ??? |
I numbered mine and got the license. Mine weighed in at 319 lbs and I
would usually carry an extra 6 gallons in addition to the 5 gallon
main tank. It takes awhile to go through the process, but it's worth
it to have the freedom to take short trips. If you try to stay under
103 (which is next to impossible), 5-gallons doesn't allow any
serious cross country flying. A Firestar with a 503 or larger engine
certainly puts it out of the legal limits for an ultralight.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar w/447
20 years flying it
N91493
-- "DANIEL WALTER" <worrybear@verizon.net> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: BMWBikeCrz@aol.com To: kolb-
list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:11 PMSubject: Kolb-
List: Kolb-List Fire Star Logistics ???
I was talking to a couple of guys at lunch that fly Trikes and Gyro
Copters Thier feeling is that The FAA is not too concerned with
Single seat ultralights ...
Dave, What does your Firestar weigh? You should be close to the 254
dry and putting it on a diet may be the thing to do. If you carry
more than 5 gallons or are thinking of putting on a 503 than the N
number is the way to go. Dan WalterPalmyra PAUltrastar, UL202 Do not
Archive_-
============================================================_-
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List_-
============================================================_-
http://forums.matronics.com_-
===========================================================
________________________________________________________________________
Interested in getting caught up on today's news?
Click here to checkout USA TODAY Headlines.
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=198954&u=http://www.usatoday.com/news/front.htm?csp=24
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: newbie...we are all newbies |
Bob,
Thanks, that is the type of thing I would like to hear. I really don't know the
difference in all the planes. I think the folding wings has to be a huge plus.
My understanding is that they are a safe plane and I sure like the way they
look. I mentioned another brand in another post and got the impression I shouldn't
have, but apparently that other brand, which shall remain nameless here,
doesn't fly nearly as well. Does it flying better mean that it handles better,
flys faster with the same engine, better fuel economy, less maintainence,
pick up women better or what. What makes it better than some of the others?
Joe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103468#103468
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
John W(on list)
I was told that if I build a EAB I can switch it to a ELSA. Not that I would
want to, but someone was comparing the two on the list and didn't mention
that huge advantage of EAB, you can switch an EAB to ESLA but not the other
way around. Not that anyone would want to but is this true? I was told this
by the instructor in an ELSA repair man class.
Thanks,
David Key
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Ray,
According to TNK the Ultrastars were typically .028 wall chrome moly. Some
early FF were also .028. All of the later FF's are either 50/50 .028 and .035
or all .035. My comment in regard to Very thin wall tubing was directed at the
concern for where you attach loads and also the issue of internal rust from
years of age. The configuration I saw years ago placed loads on the front of
the cage. I do not believe it was designed for that. The Ultrastar looks to
be challenging for float mounting.
If you have a BRS that weighs less than 24 lbs you can use the overage but
the chute has to be on.
Part 103 gives you up to 60 lbs total for the floats but if your floats
weigh less you cannot keep the extra and it does not apply to the mounting gear
or spreader bars. This is not much of a factor though because you will have a
hard time finding floats that weigh less than 30 lbs each.
Good luck on your project.
Steve
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Ray
Also wanted to mention that the key here is to keep your mounting hardware
lighter than your existing gear legs, tires, wheels and brakes. It is easy to
do on the FF and you actually end up with a little extra weight loss to play
with. On a Firefly you need to keep it simple and drop the frills and add
BRS to stay in weight in a Float configuration.
Steve
do not archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New 912ULS Oil Fittings |
Hi Gang:
Need some help with the new, push on type, oil line fittings used on
the 912ULS oil tank and engine.
What is the prescribed procedure for installation and security?
Also, prescribed procedure for removal.
I found some info last night on the internet. From what I could make
out, it is a simple push on fit with no securing hose clamp.
Thanks,
john h
mkIII
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I would defintely go for the Firefly, its an updated and improved design... If
you cannot afford it, then it will have to be the older ultrastar, but they are
old and I would check for rust, corrosion, etc. very carefully.
Why are you so worried about weight ? The ultrastar and the firefly are 103 airplanes,
I dont think anyone is going to come out and weigh you on the lake or
grass field to see if you are 5 pounds over or not. Dont get too anal about
the weight. If I needed a chute, and it put me 5 pounds over weight, i would
sure as hell put it on. Maybe some guys would feel good about getting killed
"legally" after a structural failure because they were not 5 pounds over weight,
but not me. I would put on a BRS, period. If my 103 plane needed something
to make it safer, whatever it may be, I would sure as heck put it on and
not worry about 5 or 10 pounds that will never make any difference to anyone.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103484#103484
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I just want to keep it light so I get decent performance with floats on an US with
Cuyuna 430.
I plan on WEARING my chute, as I'd rather not be in the seat with the engine and
wings behind or above my head if I crash.
I'll take my chances with the tree branches....LOL (No rhyming intended)
--------
Ray
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103487#103487
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
David, No you can't. 21.191(i)1 says not previously registered so you can't
switch back and forth.
John, Those regulations do not go into effect until Feb 1, 2008.
I registered my store boughten trike in January, no problems.
Go take a look at Form 8050-88A "Affidavit of Ownership". If, as you say,
you can't register an E-LSA why does this form have so many ways to account
for ownership when registering. Notice that this form, too, expires on Jan
31, 2008.
You just don't seem to understand 21.191(i)1. If it meets the definition of
an LSA (FAR 1 Definitions), hasn't been registered before, and doesn't
qualify as an ultraltlight you can obtain an E-LSA experimental certificate
until Jan 1, 2008. Period.
After Jan 31, 2008 you have to meet the requirements of 21.191(i) 2 or 3.
Rick
On 3/28/07, David Key <dhkey@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> John W(on list)
> I was told that if I build a EAB I can switch it to a ELSA. Not that I
> would
> want to, but someone was comparing the two on the list and didn't mention
> that huge advantage of EAB, you can switch an EAB to ESLA but not the
> other
> way around. Not that anyone would want to but is this true? I was told
> this
> by the instructor in an ELSA repair man class.
>
> Thanks,
> David Key
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Props and engine mount |
I think I want to stay with the 2 inch clearance that is mandated for standard
airworthiness aircraft. It specifies a 2 inch clearance as a minimum. I suppose
with super rigid mounts less would be safe, but I am not sure vibration was
the only reason for the clearance. I've wanted a 4 blade prop for some time, I
think it probably gives better thrust effect (I don't want to start up the old
debate of how many blades are better). I mostly want to do it for my own gratification
and to validate my theory. That is why I figure a 68" would be fine.
But if it does not work out I certainly want the option of going to a larger
diameter prop. I think JH probably experimented with most of that stuff, but
I would want to know if there was any side by side comparisons. I think that lowering
back drag from the rear engine mount supports and prop eficiency all else
equal may give the best return on effort spent.
I will call the fellow at Warp Drive and see what he has to say.
Ron (Arizona)
---- boyd <by0ung@brigham.net> wrote:
============
for all the senior Kolbers here is a question. I am about to weld in place
the engine mount. I have now the option of lowering the mount a bit to
reduce thrust line.
Ron
I guess it depends on what engine you will be using,,, what altitude you
will be flying at most,,, and what properties you want your plane to have.
When I called warp drive and asked for my application. I was told 68 inch 3
blade full width tips. Darrell at warp drive told me that the full width
tips were best suited for sea plane and / or high altitude applications.
I have a mark III with a 912 80 hp. field elevation is 4426 ft and density
altitudes in the summer of 6000 + or - and to fly over the mountains I go
to 8000 ft msl on a regular basis.
John H has the 912s 100 hp version. And uses a 72 inch taper tip blade.
Which warp drive told me was best suited for his plane and application.
In short, I think I would call Darrell at Warp Drive, explain your
situation, and ask for his advice. I don't think he would steer you wrong.
As for tip boom clearance,,, I think 1 1/2 to 2 inch should be ok it seems
that some are using on inch or so. The biggest problem would be involved
in how much shake the engine has during start up and shutdown.
Boyd
--
kugelair.com
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The weight of the BRS or any other recover system is a NON issue for
part 103........
Your legal with or without it regardless of its weight... Put one on
the plane...
103.1 Applicability.
This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight
vehicles in the United States.
For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle
that:
(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by
a single occupant;
(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes
only;
(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and
(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
(e) If powered:
(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and
safety devices
which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic
situation;
(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;
(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full
power in level flight; and
(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots
calibrated airspeed.
Mark
Why are you so worried about weight ? The ultrastar and the firefly
are 103
airplanes,
I dont think anyone is going to come out and weigh you on the lake or
grass field to see if you are 5 pounds over or not. Dont get too anal
about
the weight. If I needed a chute, and it put me 5 pounds over weight, i
would
sure as hell put it on. Maybe some guys would feel good about getting
killed
"legally" after a structural failure because they were not 5 pounds
over weight,
but not me. I would put on a BRS, period. If my 103 plane needed
something to
make it safer, whatever it may be, I would sure as heck put it on and
not worry
about 5 or 10 pounds that will never make any difference to anyone.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 34
| 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: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
Now you've all got me confused. I've never understood lawyer speak or
FAR's
If I don't finish my Extra by Feb. 08 besides hanging myself
what are my options then?
Does it have to be finished to be documented?
Vic
912 UL Extra
Maine
do not archive
Message 35
| 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 |
|
In a message dated 3/28/2007 1:43:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
Why are you so worried about weight ? The ultrastar and the firefly are
103 airplanes, I dont think anyone is going to come out and weigh you on the
lake or grass field to see if you are 5 pounds over or not. Dont get too
anal about the weight. If I needed a chute, and it put me 5 pounds over
weight, i would sure as hell put it on. Maybe some guys would feel good about
getting killed "legally" after a structural failure because they were not 5
pounds over weight, but not me. I would put on a BRS, period. If my 103 plane
needed something to make it safer, whatever it may be, I would sure as heck
put it on and not worry about 5 or 10 pounds that will never make any
difference to anyone.
Mike
Hi Mike,
The issue with weight is important to me for several reasons,
At times I put my FF on display at the Kolb Booth And it should be legal at
that time
The BRS is a non issue because the one I am using weighs less than 24 lbs.
You do not get the 24 lbs if it is not on the plane. If yours for example
weighed 15 lbs then you get the extra 9 lbs free to use.
I also like the personal challenge to play by the rules and win.
Probably most important though is that a Legal Firefly on Floats with a
pilot that weighs less than 180 lbs really performs.
If I was interested in traveling greater distances I would register EAB.
Steve B
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 36
| 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 |
|
Mark, I see you beat me to the Punch, Well said, a BRS is a Win Win,
except on the checkbook
steve
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 37
| 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: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
Rick and All,
I stand corrected. Thank you Rick.
Here is the section of FAR 21.191 that allows you to build and register your Kit
Built or already built non-ultralight Kolb as as ELSA:
"Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does not
meet the provisions of 103.1 of this chapter. An experimental certificate will
not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008;"
Here are some links for those that are interested in what this thread has been
about:
Fat Ultralights Deadline Looming
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/FatUltralights.doc
Light Sport Aircraft Registration
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/light_sport_aircraft/
Affidavit of Ownership for Experimental or Special Light-Sport Aircraft, AC Form
8050-88A
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/media/8050-88a.pdf
Thanks again Rick for keeping me straight.
No Not Archive
--------
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, 912ULS
http://home.tx.rr.com/kolbrapilot
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103508#103508
Message 38
| 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: Props and engine mount |
Why would anyone want a 4 blade prop on a Kolb ? The climb would be horrible.
With a 4 blade prop, you have less area producing a faster airstream, so IF
you had a plane with a high top speed, 4 blades would make it faster.
A Kolb is so slow, that you would never see any advantage of the higher velocity
from the prop. Its kind of like putting a small jet engine on a Kolb, you
would have a huge amount of air velocity out of the enigne, but not that much
thrust in pounds.. All that HP with a low static thrust would be wasted on a
slow and draggy plane.
With a 4 bladed prop, you will be lucky if you dont lose so much thrust that the
plane not only climbs horribly, but will be acutally slower than the 3 bladed
prop. It looks like you have been looking at to many fast GA airplanes with
4 bladed prop, and not understanding that it just wont work well on a Kolb.
But Im all for having real life testing over theory, as long as its someone
else paying for the testing :) I look foward to seeing the results.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103528#103528
Message 39
| 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 |
|
At 10:27 AM 3/28/2007, Terry wrote:
>Steven Green wrote:
>
>I know that won't be a problem! As we get closer to the date, I will take
>a poll and see how many are coming for Clara and Homer to be able to plan
>and how many might like to stay over at Smoketown. I know that some of us
>will probably camp out at Shreveport North's UL Fly-in Saturday night
>after our visit to Homer's.
>You might want to consider joining us there.
For me, trailering to Smoketown and flying from there to Homer's sounds
like the most practical plan... perhaps flying over to Shreveport and back
on Sunday before heading home.
Depending, of course, on whether I can get away that weekend at all (and if
I have a flyable US, a roadable trailer, and a truck to pull it, none of
which are true at the moment...)
-Dana
do not archive
--
--
The citizens of the United States are getting the government they deserve.
The problem is that I'm also getting the government they deserve.
Message 40
| 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: New 912ULS Oil Fittings |
Here is a pictre of mine.
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103531#103531
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_27_2006_055_136.jpg
Message 41
| 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: New 912ULS Oil Fittings |
Hi John,
With the correct push-on fittings and correct hose (special hose for push on only)
you are technically right that they are push on only, but Rotax would like
those backed up with a clamp. If they were enclosed in a cowling then they would
like fire sleveing , too. But I know your plane is an open engine mounting.
I can only guess that they want a clamp because we don't drive on the ground?
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103539#103539
Message 42
| 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: New 912ULS Oil Fittings |
Thanks, Mike B:
But..............your fittings are the old style, like I had on my
last engine.
john h
mkIII
Message 43
| 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: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
Yes, Vic, it has to be finished to be "documented"
(e.g. get its airworthiness certificate.) It has to
be completely finished and have received its
airworthiness certificate by 1-31-08.
Apparently the FAA is expecting a flood of
applications for airworthiness inspections in Dec. and
Jan., and they are saying that if you apply for your
airworthiness certificate inspection by November (and
I'm not sure of the exact date in November - it's been
on this list) they will still grant you a certificate
(assuming it's airworthy) even if they can't get to
you by 1-31-08. BUT - that's only if they aren't able
to complete the process - not if you're not ready for
them to do the inspection.
Arty Trost
--- Vic Peters <vicsvinyl@verizon.net> wrote:
> Now you've all got me confused. I've never
> understood lawyer speak or FAR's
> If I don't finish my Extra by Feb. 08 besides
> hanging myself
> what are my options then?
> Does it have to be finished to be documented?
>
> Vic
> 912 UL Extra
> Maine
> do not archive
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
Message 44
| 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 |
|
Ray
You might want to do some re-thinking.
I doubt you'd be able to get out of a Kolb in time, if something
suddenly happened, esp at a low altitude.
I've done some jumping, but never had the luxury of flying a chute-
equipped aircraft. I consider it a HUGE advantage.
You could deploy it in a second or less if you had to. If a wing
folds do you want to try opening a door & getting out in anything
like that time?
If the price were double or even triple I'd still buy a BRS. My life
is worth it to me.
FWIW
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:51 PM, jb92563 wrote:
>
> I just want to keep it light so I get decent performance with
> floats on an US with Cuyuna 430.
>
> I plan on WEARING my chute, as I'd rather not be in the seat with
> the engine and wings behind or above my head if I crash.
>
> I'll take my chances with the tree branches....LOL (No rhyming
> intended)
>
> --------
> Ray
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103487#103487
>
>
Message 45
| 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: New 912ULS Oil Fittings |
| With the correct push-on fittings and correct hose (special hose
for push on only) you are technically right that they are push on
only, but Rotax would like those backed up with a clamp.
| Roger Lee
Hi Roger:
No problem with the push on fitting. The 912 series engines are
operating on a vacuum for the feed line from the oil tank, and 3 to 5
psi on the return line to the tank.
I may use a narrow SS hose clamp as backup, or a couple wraps of
safety wire, just to make an old man feel better. ;-)
Take care,
john h
mkIII
Message 46
| 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: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 |
Hi Rick:
I will be coming down to take the Lockwood 912 training class at the show.
Two days 17-18 but will be around all week. will have a car and am staying
in a hotel. Hope to see you all.
Mark German
Kolbra 912
280 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:16 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Attending Sun and Fun 2007
> <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
>
> I will be going to Sun N Fun 2007 and will be camping in the Ultralight
> campground most of the week. Is anyone else planning on going? Sounds like
> John H. will be there.
>
> I will be driving so I can bring supplies people might need. Is there
> going to be a cook out? Can I bring something for it?
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
>
>
Message 47
| 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: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 |
I will be there but for one day, either tues or wed, not sure yet. I will of course
be looking for other Kolb-benders...and even those who havent bent one! Hope
to see many of you there!
--------
Don G
FireFly#098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103561#103561
Message 48
| 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: Props and engine mount/propeller selection |
From: Ron <captainron1@cox.net>
...................
> I've wanted a 4 blade prop for some time, I think it probably gives better
thrust effect (I don't want to start up the old debate of how many blades
are better). I mostly want to do it for my own gratification and to validate
my theory. That is why I figure a 68" would be fine.
................
Ron,
In making propeller decisions look at:
http://www.gylesaero.com/freeware/propcalc.shtml
Using this software I input for a 63 mphi, 2,222 propeller rpm, and 68 inch
diameter propeller for the FireFly. Then I changed the pitch for a two
blade propeller until the engine was putting out 38 hp. This produced a
thrust of 166.5 pounds with a propeller efficiency of 73.6%.
Leaving all other inputs constant I changed from a two to a three blade
propeller and adjusted the pitch until three blade propeller produced the
same thrust. Propeller efficiency fell to 69.6% and the engine power to
produce the same thrust went up to 40.2 hp. Adding another blade to
propeller produced an efficiency of 64.3% and an engine hp requirement of
43.5 hp.
Then I changed tactics. I kept the initial conditions, thrust and
efficiencies constant as I added blades. To do this you have to shorten the
blade length and adjust pitch. What I found was that to maintain 73.6% at
166.5 pounds of thrust the three blade propeller diameter turned out to be
57.6 inches and the four blade came out at 52 inches.
To go the constant 68 inch diameter route, it indicates a 4.1 to 9.3%
increase in fuel burn. To go with constant efficiency with no increase in
fuel burn, one must be prepared to shorten the blades. If length can absorb
max engine hp, it is difficult to beat a two blade propeller. The inertia
is lower, weighs less, and in most cases is less expensive.
Try the program for your intended setup and see how it comes out.
For what it is worth.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Message 49
| 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: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 |
My wife and I are planning on going, dont know which days yet. With a little luck
I will be flying my MK-III to lakeland this year instead of having to borrow
John's !
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103583#103583
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rosafloridalakelandairshow04_04_2006_014_192.jpg
Message 50
| 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: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 |
With a little luck I will be flying my MK-III to lakeland this year
instead of having to borrow John's !
|
| Mike
Mike:
Hope you get to fly your Kolb to Lakeland this year.
However, Rosa is always welcome to borrow my chair and my wing any
time she desires.
Thanks for the photo. Good shot of my camp.
john h
mkIII
Message 51
| 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: Attending Sun and Fun 2007 |
Rick I will be camping behind the big bus near the headquarters tent and
working the UL camper registration if they still call it that Paradise city
has ben re named sport pilot something I will be there all week just ask for.
Malcolm
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 52
| 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: Props and engine mount |
:-DIf I ever wanted proof that I never get what I want here it is. I did not want
a debate about props. But I must say and I will not explain as I am holding
out for consultation fees, that a 4 blader will be better especially in climb
and throughout the range.
We shall see stay tuned, mmm unless I run out of money first. I will borrow a 3
blader from whoever, whenever install it on my flyer and will do both time to
climb and cruise. That is the only way to do it. Maybe next year at Monument
V we can test it.
,Ron (Arizona)
=======================================
---- JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
============
Why would anyone want a 4 blade prop on a Kolb ? The climb would be horrible. With
a 4 blade prop, you have less area producing a faster airstream, so IF you
had a plane with a high top speed, 4 blades would make it faster.
A Kolb is so slow, that you would never see any advantage of the higher velocity
from the prop. Its kind of like putting a small jet engine on a Kolb, you would
have a huge amount of air velocity out of the enigne, but not that much thrust
in pounds.. All that HP with a low static thrust would be wasted on a slow
and draggy plane.
With a 4 bladed prop, you will be lucky if you dont lose so much thrust that the
plane not only climbs horribly, but will be acutally slower than the 3 bladed
prop. It looks like you have been looking at to many fast GA airplanes with
4 bladed prop, and not understanding that it just wont work well on a Kolb. But
Im all for having real life testing over theory, as long as its someone else
paying for the testing :) I look foward to seeing the results.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103528#103528
Message 53
| 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: Props and engine mount/propeller selection |
I have no doubt that Induced drag and Parasitic drag on a 4 blader will be higher,
however I also think that I will get more thrust out of it with my set up.
It is obvious to me and I measured again today that my max prop can be 68 inches.
So working with that, and all the turbulation that a pusher prop experiences
I want as much air grabbing, thrust sucking, as I can garner out of that 105
hp in back there. I don't mind being proven wrong on this, I think its fun.
Ron (Arizona)
=========================================
---- "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net> wrote:
============
From: Ron <captainron1@cox.net>
...................
> I've wanted a 4 blade prop for some time, I think it probably gives better
thrust effect (I don't want to start up the old debate of how many blades
are better). I mostly want to do it for my own gratification and to validate
my theory. That is why I figure a 68" would be fine.
................
Ron,
In making propeller decisions look at:
http://www.gylesaero.com/freeware/propcalc.shtml
Using this software I input for a 63 mphi, 2,222 propeller rpm, and 68 inch
diameter propeller for the FireFly. Then I changed the pitch for a two
blade propeller until the engine was putting out 38 hp. This produced a
thrust of 166.5 pounds with a propeller efficiency of 73.6%.
Leaving all other inputs constant I changed from a two to a three blade
propeller and adjusted the pitch until three blade propeller produced the
same thrust. Propeller efficiency fell to 69.6% and the engine power to
produce the same thrust went up to 40.2 hp. Adding another blade to
propeller produced an efficiency of 64.3% and an engine hp requirement of
43.5 hp.
Then I changed tactics. I kept the initial conditions, thrust and
efficiencies constant as I added blades. To do this you have to shorten the
blade length and adjust pitch. What I found was that to maintain 73.6% at
166.5 pounds of thrust the three blade propeller diameter turned out to be
57.6 inches and the four blade came out at 52 inches.
To go the constant 68 inch diameter route, it indicates a 4.1 to 9.3%
increase in fuel burn. To go with constant efficiency with no increase in
fuel burn, one must be prepared to shorten the blades. If length can absorb
max engine hp, it is difficult to beat a two blade propeller. The inertia
is lower, weighs less, and in most cases is less expensive.
Try the program for your intended setup and see how it comes out.
For what it is worth.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
--
kugelair.com
Message 54
| 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: E-LSA before and after 1-31-08 |
Vic, Let's start from the beginning. Have you registered your aircraft?
Rick
On 3/28/07, Vic Peters <vicsvinyl@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Now you've all got me confused. I've never understood lawyer speak or
> FAR's
> If I don't finish my Extra by Feb. 08 besides hanging myself
> what are my options then?
> Does it have to be finished to be documented?
>
> Vic
> 912 UL Extra
> Maine
> do not archive
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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! --
|