Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:07 AM - Re: "Magic Bike"gets Damaged (pat ladd)
2. 04:43 AM - Re: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone (Jack B. Hart)
3. 05:05 AM - Re: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone (John H Murphy)
4. 05:10 AM - Re: Re: Kolb Firefly (N27SB@aol.com)
5. 05:16 AM - Re: Kolb Firefly (lucien)
6. 05:56 AM - Re: Kolb Firefly (Ralph B)
7. 06:29 AM - Re: "Magic Bike"gets Damaged (jimhefner)
8. 08:25 AM - Re: Flight report (R. Hankins)
9. 08:28 AM - Federal Funding (Mark Vaughn)
10. 08:55 AM - Re: Federal Funding (Robert Laird)
11. 09:08 AM - Noise canceling earbuds update (Richard Pike)
12. 09:31 AM - Re: Kolb Firefly (jim)
13. 09:50 AM - Re: Federal Funding (Mark Vaughn)
14. 10:28 AM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
15. 10:31 AM - Re: Federal Funding (Ralph B)
16. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: Federal Funding (Robert Laird)
17. 10:58 AM - Re: Federal Funding (Robert Laird)
18. 11:19 AM - Re: Federal Funding (Mark Vaughn)
19. 11:30 AM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (Paul Petty)
20. 11:34 AM - Re: Ms Dixie First flight (Paul Petty)
21. 11:39 AM - Kolb pre-flight check list (Paul Petty)
22. 12:07 PM - Re: Kolb Firefly (Paul Petty)
23. 12:22 PM - Re: Kolb pre-flight check list (David Key)
24. 12:58 PM - Re: Kolb pre-flight check list (Bob Noyer)
25. 01:03 PM - Oil caps (Richard Girard)
26. 01:49 PM - Re: Kolb pre-flight check list (planecrazzzy)
27. 02:11 PM - Re: Oil caps (N27SB@aol.com)
28. 04:35 PM - Mark 3 classic landing speed (Tim Warlick)
29. 04:39 PM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (John Hauck)
30. 05:34 PM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (Richard Pike)
31. 05:35 PM - Re: Federal Funding (Ralph B)
32. 06:03 PM - Re: Re: Federal Funding (Ed Chmielewski)
33. 06:25 PM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (possums)
34. 06:34 PM - Builders Plans (Rick2)
35. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Federal Funding (Robert Laird)
36. 06:55 PM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (Tony Oldman)
37. 07:48 PM - Re: Re: Federal Funding (Richard Girard)
38. 08:43 PM - Re: Re: Federal Funding (DAquaNut@aol.com)
39. 08:44 PM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (Denny Rowe)
40. 10:33 PM - Re: Re: Federal Funding (Robert Laird)
41. 10:51 PM - Re: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone (The BaronVonEvil)
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: "Magic Bike"gets Damaged |
It is with a heavy heart>>
Hard luck Dennis,
thats is really sad news. Your only consolation is that you did all the
right things ( except putting the oil cap on of course) and when the cap hit
the fan your reactions were the best possible.
The decision to land has to be the right one. You didn`t have enough
information to risk trying anything else. You flew the plane, sorted out a
landing spot and , until you actually touched down, carried out an entirely
safe routine.
The fact that the surface was not as it appeared was not something you could
do anything about.
The biggest plus is of course that no-one was hurt. Not event the Magic
Bicycle sustained serious damage, and recovering the plane by
helicopter...Well.. thats style.
Reel Cool, man
Cheers
Pat
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: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone |
At 05:44 PM 7/2/07 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I need to wear a helmet while flying out of a Ultralight park here in Boulder
City, NV. Any recommendations as to a comfortable helmet that I can wear with
my David Clark Headphones?
>
John,
Are we talking about a hard or soft helmet?
Jacl B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone |
Hard.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=121959#121959
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: Kolb Firefly |
In a message dated 7/3/2007 2:49:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jim@tru-cast.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
You can carry extra fuel in an ultralight (e.g., in a portable gas can),
you just can't have more than 5 gal tank available to the engine during
flight
Jim,
Can you quote the Reg that states this? I would like to carry extra fuel on
some of my flights but did not think that it was Part 103.
steve
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 Firefly |
jhankin(at)planters.net wrote:
> I have some questions for the list.
>
> I have a Firefly that is a fat ultralight.
>
> How hard would you think it would be to sell after January 31, with no
> airthworthiness certification or N-number?
> This is the last date to do this.
>
> Would the Firefly be worth more with the airworthiness certification and
> N-numbered?
>
> If I am going to do this it will cost me $600. for a DAR.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jimmy Hankinson
> 912-863-7384
> Firefly #035,
> JYL (Sylvania)
> Pegasus Field (Home)
> 2000 Feet X 100 Feet- Grass
> Rocky Ford, Georgia
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
> --
How fat is it? It's possible that it might still have good resale if you could
make it fit within 103. I've seen a bit of demand for true 103 machines spike
a bit since the "grandfather" ELSA time bomb countdown has neared.
The other alternative is experimental amateur built which will is and will be available,
assuming you can satisfy the requirements (if you can show the plane
was built by an amateur, etc.). Resale there will probably be better than if
it's unregistered, but probably not as good as gELSA.
My FSII is experimental a/b, but at the time I bought it barely commanded the same
price as unregistered. ELSA seems to be doing better resale-wise, because
of the transferrable ability to do the annual CI, though. Having to get the annual
signed off by an AnP on my plane is a definite pain in the ---.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=121962#121962
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 Firefly |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can carry extra fuel in an ultralight (e.g., in a portable gas can),
you just can't have more than 5 gal tank available to the engine during
flight.
------------------------------------------
Jim, Part 103 limits it to 5 gallons. The rules are not clear enough to say more
than 5 gallons on board. I think they say "a 5-gallon capacity".
With Sport Pilot and ultralight registration, the FAA will say there are no more
excuses for overweight ultralights. The only true ultralights that make weight
are single PPC's with 5-gallons/503 or smaller engine, and single fixed-wings
with a 447 or smaller and 5-gallons. My Firestar fits this last category, but
is overweight.
Sport Pilot registration puts a whole new twist on entering airports for ultralights.
They can ban them for safety reasons even if they get federal funding.
Even if an ultralight makes weight and is legal, they have not been inspected
and the pilots don't need proof of training. This in itself will pose a safety
issue for an airport. I'm sure we will be hearing more about this issue after
the deadline.
Ralph B
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=121964#121964
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: "Magic Bike"gets Damaged |
Dennis, I'm very sorry to hear this, but am happy you and Michael walked away unhurt.
Tough luck!! Good luck with the repairs.
--------
Jim Hefner
Tucson, AZ
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=121971#121971
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: Flight report |
Arty,
I would love to be there on labor day, but Dayna is due the second week of Sept.
I'll have to take a rain check this year. I missed seeing you at Powers.
Are you heading to Arlington?
John,
It isn't too hard to find a camping spot above the surf line, but I'm not clear
on the local laws regarding landing on the beach. We chose a cove with no road
access to land on for that reason. I know vehicles are allowed on the beach
further south, but you have to look out for ATV's. I will look into it and
get back to you.
Do not archive
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=121998#121998
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 |
|
How does some one determine if a field has received or is receiving
federal funding ?
Is there a list of fields some place for the public to review??
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Firefly
Per FAA Order 8700.1 Dated 2/9/1996, Chapter 62:
In short, if they received federal funds they are supposed to permit
Ultralight activity, but they can deny UL if mixing cannot be done
safely.
Advisory Circular 150/5190-5 of June 10, 2002 is specifically on
exclusions. I doubt LAX permits ULs, and rightfully so.
7. OPERATION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
FROM AIRPORTS.
A. Aeronautical Activity. Ultralight vehicle operators
usually require the approval of airport authorities before
conducting operations from an airport. Operation of
ultralight vehicles is considered an aeronautical activity
much the same as parachute jumping.
B. Use of Airports. Federally funded airports must
accommodate ultralight operations if this can be done safely.
This does not mean that airport authorities must allow
ultralights to operate from the runways; rather, the airport
should set aside a special location for ultralight operations.
It is acceptable for airport authorities to establish policies,
including reasonable training requirements, that they believe
are necessary to provide safe accommodations to ultralight
vehicles. If an airports authorities believe it is unsafe to
accommodate ultralights at the facility, they may request
Flight Standards input in the assessment of the safety of
proposed operations.
(1) When assessing the safety of ultralight vehicle
operations from airports, the inspector should bear in mind
the operating characteristics of ultralight vehicles, the lack
of pilot certification standards, and the fact that these vehicles
must yield right-of-way to aircraft under all circumstances.
If the safety of conventional aircraft operations
would be compromised, the inspector should give a negative
finding to the Airports Division. When possible, inspectors
should assist in developing alternative methods to accommodate
ultralight operations.
(2) Nonfederally funded airports are not required to
accommodate ultralight operations. The FAA has no
authority in these situations; however, inspectors should
encourage ultralight operators and airport management to
consider alternative methods.
-----------------------------------------
Ive always heard that if an airport recieves any form of assistance
from the gov. in the form of money, they can not disallow any one , who
is
legal, the priviledge of landing there! Is that the case or not???
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
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: Federal Funding |
By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights. (If a
private airport, designated for public use, has never taken federal or
state funding, then they have the right to deny services, but how will
you know until you land there?) If a public airport owner can make a
case to the FAA to disallow certain aircraft for particular reasons,
then portions of or all services can be denied. That information, as
far as I understand it, is supposed to be published in the AFD
(Airport/Facility Directory) for public use airports, so, if you're
at all concerned, then refer to the AFD for the airport you're
interested in.
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Mark Vaughn <knowvne@aol.com> wrote:
>
> How does some one determine if a field has received or is receiving
> federal funding ?
>
>
> Is there a list of fields some place for the public to review??
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com>
>
>
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Sent: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Firefly
>
>
>
>
> Per FAA Order 8700.1 Dated 2/9/1996, Chapter 62:
>
>
> In short, if they received federal funds they are supposed to permit
>
>
> Ultralight activity, but they can deny UL if mixing cannot be done
> safely.
>
>
> Advisory Circular 150/5190-5 of June 10, 2002 is specifically on
>
>
> exclusions. I doubt LAX permits ULs, and rightfully so.
>
>
> 7. OPERATION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
>
>
> FROM AIRPORTS.
>
>
> A. Aeronautical Activity. Ultralight vehicle operators
>
>
> usually require the approval of airport authorities before
>
>
> conducting operations from an airport. Operation of
>
>
> ultralight vehicles is considered an aeronautical activity
>
>
> much the same as parachute jumping.
>
>
> B. Use of Airports. Federally funded airports must
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations if this can be done safely.
>
>
> This does not mean that airport authorities must allow
>
>
> ultralights to operate from the runways; rather, the airport
>
>
> should set aside a special location for ultralight operations.
>
>
> It is acceptable for airport authorities to establish policies,
>
>
> including reasonable training requirements, that they believe
>
>
> are necessary to provide safe accommodations to ultralight
>
>
> vehicles. If an airport's authorities believe it is unsafe to
>
>
> accommodate ultralights at the facility, they may request
>
>
> Flight Standards' input in the assessment of the safety of
>
>
> proposed operations.
>
>
> (1) When assessing the safety of ultralight vehicle
>
>
> operations from airports, the inspector should bear in mind
>
>
> the operating characteristics of ultralight vehicles, the lack
>
>
> of pilot certification standards, and the fact that these vehicles
>
>
> must yield right-of-way to aircraft under all circumstances.
>
>
> If the safety of conventional aircraft operations
>
>
> would be compromised, the inspector should give a negative
>
>
> finding to the Airports Division. When possible, inspectors
>
>
> should assist in developing alternative methods to accommodate
>
>
> ultralight operations.
>
>
> (2) Nonfederally funded airports are not required to
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations. The FAA has no
>
>
> authority in these situations; however, inspectors should
>
>
> encourage ultralight operators and airport management to
>
>
> consider alternative methods.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
> Ive always heard that if an airport recieves any form of assistance
>
>
> from the gov. in the form of money, they can not disallow any one , who
> is
>
>
> legal, the priviledge of landing there! Is that the case or not???
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
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: | Noise canceling earbuds update |
Flew the MKIII for while this morning, tried out the noise canceling
earbuds, and there was a plus and a minus.
The plus was that they really do cancel out the noise. Turning the ANR
switch off and on shows that the ANR function removes the deeper rumble
of the prop, and part of the engine noise. It makes the engine noise
seem smaller and further away, if that makes any sense.
For comparison, tried various combinations, just the Flightcoms without
the earbuds, the earbuds without the Flightcoms, the earbuds with the
ANR turned off, etc., the earbuds knock out about as much noise as the
Flightcom headset, but each has a different quality. Once you put the
headsets over the ears with the earbuds in, it cuts down the total noise
a lot more, as you would expect. I think it is about the same effect you
would get if you put in a pair of tapered soft foam hearing protectors,
and then put on your headsets. Once you have both the earbuds and the
headsets on, turning on the ANR cuts the prop noise out of the mix, and
also makes the engine a bit quieter. And since I had my .mp3 player
along, plugging it in and adding some Moody Blues to the mix was also a
plus... The total amount of aircraft noise making it to my ears was low
enough that you could listen to music without having to turn it up much.
The minus was that I could not hear the tower, approach or ATIS. Didn't
have any friends to yak at, but I suspect that 122.75 wouldn't work
either. The earbuds did not allow what was coming out of the Flightcom
speakers to make it into my ears. So I think what I will do next is make
an adapter plug and jack so that I can unplug the headset/speaker side
of the Flightcoms, leave the mic plugged in, and plug the earbuds into
the aircraft jack where the Flightcoms normally go and try that. Use the
earbuds for aircraft radio audio and see what happens. If I can figure
out how to make it work at all, it ought to be quite good.
Whoops, better make that adapter with a Y-setup, or the mp3 player will
get left out. Can't be having that, ya know...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firefly |
AC 103-7 States, in part:
b. Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity.
( 1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to
control capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the capacity
if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.
. . . So carrying extra fuel is permitted, so long as it is not usable in flight.
As long as the extra fuel is not plumbed into the aircraft fuel system I think
you'll be OK.
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122009#122009
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: Federal Funding |
Interesting...
I would have never guess the AFD would have listed such info... I'll
take a look...
Thanks
Mark Vaughn
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com>
Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:55 am
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Federal Funding
By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights. (If a
private airport, designated for public use, has never taken federal or
state funding, then they have the right to deny services, but how will
you know until you land there?) If a public airport owner can make a
case to the FAA to disallow certain aircraft for particular reasons,
then portions of or all services can be denied. That information, as
far as I understand it, is supposed to be published in the AFD
(Airport/Facility Directory) for public use airports, so, if you're
at all concerned, then refer to the AFD for the airport you're
interested in.
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Mark Vaughn <knowvne@aol.com> wrote:
>
> How does some one determine if a field has received or is receiving
> federal funding ?
>
>
>
> Is there a list of fields some place for the public to review??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> From: Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com>
>
>
>
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
> Sent: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Firefly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per FAA Order 8700.1 Dated 2/9/1996, Chapter 62:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In short, if they received federal funds they are supposed to permit
>
>
>
> Ultralight activity, but they can deny UL if mixing cannot be done
> safely.
>
>
>
> Advisory Circular 150/5190-5 of June 10, 2002 is specifically on
>
>
>
> exclusions. I doubt LAX permits ULs, and rightfully so.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. OPERATION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
>
>
>
> FROM AIRPORTS.
>
>
>
> A. Aeronautical Activity. Ultralight vehicle operators
>
>
>
> usually require the approval of airport authorities before
>
>
>
> conducting operations from an airport. Operation of
>
>
>
> ultralight vehicles is considered an aeronautical activity
>
>
>
> much the same as parachute jumping.
>
>
>
> B. Use of Airports. Federally funded airports must
>
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations if this can be done safely.
>
>
>
> This does not mean that airport authorities must allow
>
>
>
> ultralights to operate from the runways; rather, the airport
>
>
>
> should set aside a special location for ultralight operations.
>
>
>
> It is acceptable for airport authorities to establish policies,
>
>
>
> including reasonable training requirements, that they believe
>
>
>
> are necessary to provide safe accommodations to ultralight
>
>
>
> vehicles. If an airport's authorities believe it is unsafe to
>
>
>
> accommodate ultralights at the facility, they may request
>
>
>
> Flight Standards' input in the assessment of the safety of
>
>
>
> proposed operations.
>
>
>
> (1) When assessing the safety of ultralight vehicle
>
>
>
> operations from airports, the inspector should bear in mind
>
>
>
> the operating characteristics of ultralight vehicles, the lack
>
>
>
> of pilot certification standards, and the fact that these vehicles
>
>
>
> must yield right-of-way to aircraft under all circumstances.
>
>
>
> If the safety of conventional aircraft operations
>
>
>
> would be compromised, the inspector should give a negative
>
>
>
> finding to the Airports Division. When possible, inspectors
>
>
>
> should assist in developing alternative methods to accommodate
>
>
>
> ultralight operations.
>
>
>
> (2) Nonfederally funded airports are not required to
>
>
>
> accommodate ultralight operations. The FAA has no
>
>
>
> authority in these situations; however, inspectors should
>
>
>
> encourage ultralight operators and airport management to
>
>
>
> consider alternative methods.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ive always heard that if an airport recieves any form of
assistance
>
>
>
> from the gov. in the form of money, they can not disallow any one ,
who
> is
>
>
>
> legal, the priviledge of landing there! Is that the case or not???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
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: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
Friends -
Thank you all for your kind posts, regarding my unfortunate mud landing.
Your sentiments and encouragement helps a lot to know that I am truly
among friends!
To address a few questions:
(Larry Bourne) << I would've thought the lakes were plenty solid by
now.>> Goes to show ya - looks can be deceiving. What appeared to be a
solid, dry lake bed was in fact NOT! This might be a good time to
repeat some very sage words of advice from John Williamson: "Do not land
anywhere you don't want to be broken down at." The alternative would've
been landing on the rough, beside the lake bed. But after seeing it
from the ground, I am certain I would have damaged the plane worse had I
landed there. Very bumpy - bent cage, for sure.
("jam-n") << can u tell us about the helicopter? what was hrly rate? how
did they do it, any pix? >> After realizing that there was no way in
hell to retrieve the plane from the mud by land (was about a quarter
mile from the nearest shore), I simply looked in the Yellow Pages for
Helicopters-R-Us. (Actually, AeroWest Helocopters.) From their home
base at Double Eagle airport in Albuquerque, my plane was about 60 miles
away. Their rate was $850 per hour. I gave the pilot a GPS coordinate
over the phone, and they were there at 8 am the next morning. Fastest
$1500 I had ever spent! I do have pictures of the recovery operation.
I do not really wish to post them on the Matronics Photoshare site,
however. Does anyone have a website that you might allow me to post
these pictures on?
(David Key) << You bet I'll be checking mine and I'm going to mark a
mark on the can and cap so I know.>> Excellent idea, David. A red line
on the cap and tank would verify that the oil cap is fully tightened.
(Arty) << Do you use a checklist? >> Yup. But regarding checking the
oil, it simply says, "Verify proper oil level." I think I'll modify it
to read, "... and make sure the oil cap is TIGHTLY SECURED, idiot."
(See David Key's excellent suggestion, above!)
(John Hauck) << What kind of prop were you flying? What kind of damage
to the blades. >> I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably
thinking, John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol'
oil cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.) Looking at the
damage to the leading edge of the blade that took the oil cap, it made a
one inch gouge, and the laminations were beginning to separate on the
adjacent surfaces. Thus, the severe vibration. It appears repairable -
I will send it back to Powerfin for their assessment. Another blade was
folded in half (destroyed) as the plane was set down on the ground by
the helicopter. It was pointed straight down and took all the load.
This was also when the rudder received its damage.
(Ralph B.) << The plane can be repaired. This can give you an
opportunity to add some additional strength to the wings if you need it.
>> Actually, the wings suffered zero damage ... an advantage of going
over in soft mud.
(Ed Diebel) << I used to think if I had a 4-stroke my worries would be
over, but the last three incidences that I know of have involved 4-
strokes. >> Ed, if this story adds to your confidence in two-stroke
engines, then power to you, Amigo! But the real shortcoming here was in
fact the nut behind the control stick. ;-\
Again, I appreciate all your positive messages! I hope to be back in
the air in time for next Spring's flying season.
Dennis K.
do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
"By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights."
These rules were written before Sport Pilot and the FAA has ignored overweight
ultralights for many years. Everyone knows that an ultralight is a single seat
no more than 254 lbs empty weight, flies no faster than 63mph, and has a 5-gallon
fuel capacity.
Under the new rules, any aircraft (air vehicle) that doesn't meet this standard
should be registered with the FAA. This means all overweight fixed-wings, trikes,
and PPC's.
After the deadline, the FAA will be able to keep overweight unregistered ultralights
out of airports. Already we are seeing signs going up at our airports stating
this.
If your machine is overweight and not registered after the deadline, your flights
may be limited to private fields only.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122020#122020
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
valid FAR 103 ultralight."
BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
really curious!
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Ralph B <ul15rhb@juno.com> wrote:
>
> "By default, any airport designated as public is required to allow any
> aircraft to use it's services. This includes ultralights."
>
> These rules were written before Sport Pilot and the FAA has ignored overweight
ultralights for many years. Everyone knows that an ultralight is a single seat
no more than 254 lbs empty weight, flies no faster than 63mph, and has a 5-gallon
fuel capacity.
>
> Under the new rules, any aircraft (air vehicle) that doesn't meet this standard
should be registered with the FAA. This means all overweight fixed-wings, trikes,
and PPC's.
>
> After the deadline, the FAA will be able to keep overweight unregistered ultralights
out of airports. Already we are seeing signs going up at our airports
stating this.
>
> If your machine is overweight and not registered after the deadline, your flights
may be limited to private fields only.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> 20 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122020#122020
>
>
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: Federal Funding |
Mark --
Below is a snapshot of a A/FD entry for an airport just south of me... note
the "no touch and go nighttime lngs"... that's a restriction that either
they asked the FAA for, or the FAA told them they had to abide by. I've
seen other A/FD entries for "No ultralight activities" but can't put my
finger on one right now.
As I mentioned, if an airport owner can make a good case, the FAA will add
the restriction. Sometimes, the FAA sees an issue (like a noise sensitive
area) and will compel the airport to comply and will publish it in the A/FD,
as shown in this excerpt.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
Hmmmmm
Does having to Relieve ones self in the worst way qualify as an
emergency??? hahahahahaha 8-)
Thanks for the example..
Mark Vaughn
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com>
Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Federal Funding
Mark --
Below is a snapshot of a A/FD entry for an airport just south of me...
note the "no touch and go nighttime lngs"... that's a restriction that
either they asked the FAA for, or the FAA told them they had to abide
by. I've seen other A/FD entries for "No ultralight activities" but
can't put my finger on one right now.
As I mentioned, if an airport owner can make a good case, the FAA will
add the restriction. Sometimes, the FAA sees an issue (like a noise
sensitive area) and will compel the airport to comply and will publish
it in the A/FD, as shown in this excerpt.
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
Dennis,
Your welcome to use our MSN site for the pics. Just join and have at it. Pics load
really fast on this site.
and it's free!
http://groups.msn.com/login_info.msnw?referer=join&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups%2Emsn%2Ecom%2FAerialWorld%2F%5Fjoin%2Emsnw%3F&commname=Aerial%20World
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122031#122031
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ms Dixie First flight |
Well gang we have come down off cloud nine and are ready to make a second flight
after some adjustments and tweeking. We plan to get to the airport really early
and get this done and take her around the patch a time or 2. I will shoot
some better video this time. Hope everyone has a great 4th of july and safe flights
and holiday.
do not archive
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122032#122032
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kolb pre-flight check list |
Can we start a thread on this subject? I would like to know what items you guys
check and in what order. Right now we look over EVERYTHING! And are prbobably
over looking something. Need some standards.
do not archive
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122034#122034
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: Kolb Firefly |
This is all interesting. Untill my inspection I was under the impression that during
the Phase 1 test period, NO passengers were allowed. The DAR made me read
and sign a paper that stated i understood the operating limitations. I read
them carefully and came across one paragraph that caught my eye. It makes referance
to the "no pax" rule with one exception, and that is in referance to "only
if nessary for phase 1 flight testing". So i said Oh! so if Charley needed
me to ride along for a certian reason then were legal right? He said yes sir but
get your stories straight in advance LOL! Bottom line is you can put a human
in the other seat if it is needed for phase one flight testing. Just make sure
both of you tell the same story as to what you were doing and why when questioned
after you get out of ICU hehe.
The regs gotta love em.
do not archive
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122039#122039
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: | Kolb pre-flight check list |
I'm going to add "Check Dennis Line" to my list. I made a line on my oil cap
that lines up with the container when the cap is tight. It should help
except if it's 360 degrees off.
do not archive
>From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty@myway.com>
>To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb pre-flight check list
>Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:39:20 -0700
>
>
>Can we start a thread on this subject? I would like to know what items you
>guys check and in what order. Right now we look over EVERYTHING! And are
>prbobably over looking something. Need some standards.
>
>
>do not archive
>
>--------
>Paul Petty
>Kolbra #12
>Ms Dixie
>912 UL 70" warp
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122034#122034
>
>
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: Kolb pre-flight check list |
yeah, I know...he's gonna spout some old GA stuff!
But regarding oil caps...I've had several GAs, both with small chains
on oil caps, and without The without one came off between JAX and
TPA. How did I know? Oil all over windscreen, oil temp increasing,
oil pressure heading for zero. Made straight in TPA honking 7700.
The fix; a pc of chain secured to lg screw-type hose clamp, other end
to small hole in edge of cap.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
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 |
|
Okay guys, I can understand scribe lines and check list items, but even
these are subject to human error.
After several people were killed in Variezes and LongEZs when one or both
fuel caps went through the prop, the solution was to attach the caps in such
manner that even if the cap comes off it can only go a few inches before it
is restrained. Both the fuel cap and oil cap on Meadowlark have a cable
restraint. Just something to consider.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb pre-flight check list |
Hey Paul,
Dig around in the archives....We did a thread on this a
couple of years ago....There's some good stuff in there....
What "I" found out was , because people have stuff that "I" don't....
and "I" have stuff they didn't.... I had to use the info to make a
custom fit for "My" bird....You'll probly need to do the same...
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN
.
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122049#122049
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 |
|
In a message dated 7/3/2007 4:04:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jindoguy@gmail.com writes:
Okay guys, I can understand scribe lines and check list items, but even
these are subject to human error.
After several people were killed in Variezes and LongEZs when one or both
fuel caps went through the prop, the solution was to attach the caps in such
manner that even if the cap comes off it can only go a few inches before it is
restrained.
For years on my EZ the procedure to refuel was to put the caps in the pilot
seat. This makes it uncomfortable to forget them. I use the same idea on my
Firefly. This goes for sparkplugs, wrenches, wingbolts or anything else that
you don't want to forget.
Steve
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: | Mark 3 classic landing speed |
To all,
I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e. 60
mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under power). I
have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full flaps, grass field
landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of you Mark 3 Classic
pilots use for a "normal" landing?
Tim Warlick
Mobile, AL
BMW R100 Powered
Kolb Mark 3 Classic
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
> (John Hauck) I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably
> thinking, John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol'
> oil cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.)
Dennis:
You are correct.
Had you been flying with a Warp Drive Prop, you would still be flying your Magic
Bike.
Some years ago I put an 18 inch piece of 1.5 inch exhaust pipe through my Warp
Drive. Pipe hit the leading edge of one blade. Was climbing out at full throttle
when the pipe let go. Put a small ding in the leading edge and produced
a new vibration. Flew 10 miles to Wetumpka Airport. Landed, checked the prop,
and for other damage, got back in the mkIII and flew 11.2 sm to Gantt IAP.
Another short story on my first off field landing in Alaska, 1994. Cut more alder
brush with the Warp Drive than a John Deere A with a 6 foot bush hog. No
damage to the prop blades, although they did turn green. Alder is a plant similar
to mature cotton. Very hard stalk and branches about as big as you little
finger.
Don't know for sure, but I'd bet a months retirement pay you could have flown back
to Sandia East or Double Eagle with a Warp Drive with no problems.
Laminated and wooden props will not take the abuse a solid carbon fiber Warp Drive
Blade will and keep on flying. That is why I fly with nothing but Warp Drive.
john h
PS: Now is a good time to upgrade. Daryl will give you $100.00 trade in for your
old prop.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122073#122073
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Normal being a runway where length is not a factor -
Solo, approach at 55, full flaps, partial power until just before
touchdown.
With a passenger, approach at 60, full flaps, partial power until just
before touchdown.
Normal into my place, which is a 750 foot strip that has the touchdown
end 20' lower than the top of the strip, with 300' high power lines 2/10
of a mile out from touchdown, and a go-around is not a good option -
Engine at idle crossing the powerlines, full flaps, airspeed at 60 solo
or two up, aim at the grass 100' before the end of the runway. Round out
and goose the throttle when you get that far so you can make it to the
runway. (At this point you are flying sort of uphill) The goal is to
land and stop in the first 300', but usually I settle for not having
anything bent...
I always use full flaps for everything so that the airplane will always
behave the same every time.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Warlick
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
To all,
I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e. 60
mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under power). I
have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full flaps, grass field
landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of you Mark 3 Classic
pilots use for a "normal" landing?
Tim Warlick
Mobile, AL
BMW R100 Powered
Kolb Mark 3 Classic
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: Federal Funding |
I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
valid FAR 103 ultralight."
BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
really curious!
-- Robert
Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took it on the
inside of the glass:
WARNING
Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a registration
number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement action.
An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant
Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less than 254
pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for
deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level
flight, and:
Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.
If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be operated in accordance
with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be subject to enforcement
actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for each operation of this
aircraft.
Tom Blue, Caretaker
Red Wing Regional Airport
Ralph B
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
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: Federal Funding |
This "caretaker" sounds fascist IMHO. This is what happens when folks don't
speak out.
The vast majority of airports are UL-friendly, or at least tolerant. I
operate out of PTK (Pontiac, MI, tower-controlled) in GA aircraft, and there
are several ultralights based there. The UL guys go out of their way to
comply, some even use radios!
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb@juno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:35 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Federal Funding
>
> I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> valid FAR 103 ultralight."
>
> BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> really curious!
>
> -- Robert
>
> Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took it
> on the inside of the glass:
>
> WARNING
>
> Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a
> registration number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement
> action. An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
>
> Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single
> occupant
>
(Snip)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
At 07:27 PM 7/3/2007, you wrote:
>To all,
>
>I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
>paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e.
>60 mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under
>power). I have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full
>flaps, grass field landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of
>you Mark 3 Classic pilots use for a "normal" landing?
>
>Tim Warlick
What I do (especially on a short grass field) is to go ahead and lock my brakes
before I touch down. The tires will slide on the grass just fine.
On some fields you can't afford a "bounce" or for the plane to
"float" or a "go-a-round". The trick is that once the mains touch down there
is enough drag that the tail will stay up and the plane will quit
flying/floating even
at faster landing speeds. Don't worry, there is enough air on the tail
to keep you from nosing over, I promise.
It also works to stop floating on asphalt.
You'll need to learn to steer with you
brakes sooner or later anyway.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8022448200127542755&hl=en
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 |
|
I am new to this forum and will be picking up my plane kit this Thursday, July
5th. I am going to build the M3x and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are
working with me on the engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will
talk more on the engine situation as things progress.
My main concern for now is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of
plans early while they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will
be building, in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long
Ezy, which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was
a Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, that is if I can figure out the plans.
I have never seen such a poor excuse for plans as I have been given on this
aircraft. They are the most confusing piles of paper I have ever seen. They
leave me with a feeling of real concern as to weather the plans can be constructed
correctly or not. When I told Donnie about my concerns, he told me that
I would catch on. Really nice guy's there at Kolb and I sure don't want to
hurt ther feelings as they will bind over backwards to help anyone. Just what
am I missing here?
Thanks
Rick Lewis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122093#122093
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Federal Funding |
Interesting (if not a little disgusting)... but how, I wonder, does he
magically discern the weight of a single-seat UL, not to mention the
speed, etc...? And, does he not honor the FAA exemption for UL
trainers? There's no mention of that!
I'll bet his mistress is named Eva and he wears brown shirts, eh?
-- Robert
On 7/3/07, Ralph B <ul15rhb@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> valid FAR 103 ultralight."
>
> BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> really curious!
>
> -- Robert
>
> Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took it on
the inside of the glass:
>
> WARNING
>
> Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a registration
number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement action.
An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
>
> Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant
>
> Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
>
> Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
>
> If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less than 254
pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended
for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
>
> Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
>
> Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level
flight, and:
>
> Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.
>
> If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be operated in
accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be subject to enforcement
actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for each operation of
this aircraft.
>
> Tom Blue, Caretaker
> Red Wing Regional Airport
>
> Ralph B
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
I use full flap { flaps have been altered so do not probably give the
same effect as standard ones} approach speed of 55mph round out about 50
the air speed will drop off fast from that point and it will settle into
a 3 point landing nicely.
Landing roll within 200 ft { I have good brakes for short landings}
With two heavy bodies aboard I give the numbers all an extra 5 mph
.MK111 445 pounds emty and max take off of 1050 pounds . Here in
NewZealand it would appear our Ultralight rules are different than you
guys. With these weights I am still well within our limits.
Chears Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Warlick
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
To all,
I am still trying to perfect my landings. My current home base is a
paved 6000 ft runway. I normally do a "bomber" style landing (i.e. 60
mph with 1 notch of flaps and a slow gradual descent under power). I
have flown with John Hauck and his short field, full flaps, grass field
landing. What airspeed and flaps do the rest of you Mark 3 Classic
pilots use for a "normal" landing?
Tim Warlick
Mobile, AL
BMW R100 Powered
Kolb Mark 3 Classic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/07/2007 3:35 p.m.
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: Federal Funding |
Robert, There is no such thing as an unlicensed ultralight trainer after Jan
31, 2008. After that you have to find a Sport Pilot CFI and a certificated
LSA. If it's in the aircraft's operating limitations, an E-LSA can be used
for training until Jan 31, 2010. After that it will be only S-LSA that can
be used for training.
Rick
On 7/3/07, Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting (if not a little disgusting)... but how, I wonder, does he
> magically discern the weight of a single-seat UL, not to mention the
> speed, etc...? And, does he not honor the FAA exemption for UL
> trainers? There's no mention of that!
>
> I'll bet his mistress is named Eva and he wears brown shirts, eh?
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On 7/3/07, Ralph B <ul15rhb@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> > have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> > any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> > valid FAR 103 ultralight."
> >
> > BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> > really curious!
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> > Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> > Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took
> it on the inside of the glass:
> >
> > WARNING
> >
> > Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a
> registration number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> > will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement
> action. An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
> >
> > Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
> single occupant
> >
> > Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
> >
> > Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
> >
> > If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less
> than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are
> intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
> >
> > Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
> >
> > Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power
> in level flight, and:
> >
> > Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated
> airspeed.
> >
> > If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be
> operated in accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be
> subject to enforcement actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for
> each operation of this aircraft.
> >
> > Tom Blue, Caretaker
> > Red Wing Regional Airport
> >
> > Ralph B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: Federal Funding |
In a message dated 7/3/2007 12:32:52 PM Central Standard Time,
ul15rhb@juno.com writes:
> After the deadline, the FAA will be able to keep overweight unregistered
> ultralights out of airports. Already we are seeing signs going up at our
> airports stating this.
>
> If your machine is overweight and not registered after the deadline, your
> flights may be limited to private fields only.
>
> Ralph
Ralph,
An aircraft that weighs more than 254 with a single seat is not an
overweight ultralight. It is an illegal aircraft , if you dont have a license
to fly and must be registered. On the other hand if the craft meets ALL
requirements for an ultralight then it should be legal as a true ultralight today
or
after the deadline. The FAA has had the authority ,all along, to keep (
overweight unregistered ultralights) from flying anywhere in the USA . It is
my understanding that FAR 103 will not change at all. I see " SPORT PILOT" as
the solution to force everyone to comply with the rules that have been in
place all along. Do the signs you are refering to address Legal Ultralights?
My original comment was pertaining to Legal Ultralights.
Ed Diebel<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's
free at
http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Oldman
.MK111 445 pounds emty and max take off of 1050 pounds
Chears Tony
Now thats a light Mk-3
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 470 pounds
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: Federal Funding |
Yup, well aware of that, but the sign exists now, so, I was just
wondering why the "caretaker" wasn't taking care of -current- UL
trainers.
On 7/3/07, Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert, There is no such thing as an unlicensed ultralight trainer after Jan
> 31, 2008. After that you have to find a Sport Pilot CFI and a certificated
> LSA. If it's in the aircraft's operating limitations, an E-LSA can be used
> for training until Jan 31, 2010. After that it will be only S-LSA that can
> be used for training.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On 7/3/07, Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting (if not a little disgusting)... but how, I wonder, does he
> > magically discern the weight of a single-seat UL, not to mention the
> > speed, etc...? And, does he not honor the FAA exemption for UL
> > trainers? There's no mention of that!
> >
> > I'll bet his mistress is named Eva and he wears brown shirts, eh?
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/07, Ralph B <ul15rhb@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure you're right, Ralph. My statement would be more accurate to
> > > have said: "...any airport designated as public is required to allow
> > > any FAA recognized aircraft to use it's services. This includes a
> > > valid FAR 103 ultralight."
> > >
> > > BTW, take a picture of one of those new signs and send it to me... I'm
> > > really curious!
> > >
> > > -- Robert
> > >
> > > Robert, here's your picture of the warning sign at the Red Wing airport.
> > > Here is what it says as it's hard to read with the way the camera took
> it on the inside of the glass:
> > >
> > > WARNING
> > >
> > > Any aircraft operating at the Red Wing Regional Airport not displaying a
> registration number nor meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle
> > > will be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration for enforcement
> action. An ultralight vehicle is defined as a vehicle that:
> > >
> > > Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
> single occupant
> > >
> > > Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only
> > >
> > > Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate, and:
> > >
> > > If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds, or if powered, weighs less
> than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are
> intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation.
> > >
> > > Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons.
> > >
> > > Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power
> in level flight, and:
> > >
> > > Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated
> airspeed.
> > >
> > > If your ultralight does not meet the above definition, it must be
> operated in accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be
> subject to enforcement actions ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for
> each operation of this aircraft.
> > >
> > > Tom Blue, Caretaker
> > > Red Wing Regional Airport
> > >
> > > Ralph B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122083#122083
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attachments:
> > >
> > >
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/airport_warning_sign_148.jpg
> > "Ya'll drop on in"
> > takes on a whole new meaning
> > when you live at the airport.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
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: Helmet choice - with David Clark headphone |
Hi John,
I believe David Clark does make a hard helmet for their headsets. The helmet is
actually two parts, a soft helmet and a hard outer shell that fits over it.
Like all David Clark items, they are good and David Clark is not afraid to tell
you that (Price!)
For myself I took a standard ultralight type helmet and carefully recontoured the
interior to fit the Head Band of my D/C headset. Its not perfect but it fits
me and is comforting to know my noggin has a bit of protection should I have
a brief period of unwanted excitement.
There may be other solutions for your headset/helmet dilemma but, I wouldn't expect
them to be cheap.
Good Luck
Carlos G
AKA
BaronVonEvil :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122116#122116
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! --
|