Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:19 AM - Firestar project (william sullivan)
2. 04:21 AM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Dana Hague)
3. 04:21 AM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Dana Hague)
4. 04:21 AM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Dana Hague)
5. 04:40 AM - Re: Firestar project (John Hauck)
6. 05:26 AM - Re: Firestar project (Richard Pike)
7. 05:37 AM - Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Rex Rodebush)
8. 07:03 AM - Re: speeds (Russ Kinne)
9. 07:46 AM - Re: Re: For all 912 users (Vic Peters)
10. 07:52 AM - Seafoam Approaches (The Kuffels)
11. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
12. 08:18 AM - Re: FAA Grants Extension... (lucien)
13. 08:20 AM - Dead Stick approaches (Jason Omelchuck)
14. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: For all 912 users (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
15. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Richard Girard)
16. 08:59 AM - 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (grantr)
17. 09:04 AM - Here, try this!!! (Mike Welch)
18. 10:08 AM - Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Thom Riddle)
19. 10:18 AM - Regular Unleaded (jim)
20. 10:22 AM - Re: Re: speeds (Dana Hague)
21. 10:25 AM - Re: speeds (Rex Rodebush)
22. 10:28 AM - Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (Richard Girard)
23. 10:37 AM - Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (beauford T)
24. 10:49 AM - Re: Regular Unleaded (herb)
25. 11:07 AM - Re: Re: speeds (Jack B. Hart)
26. 11:29 AM - Re: Regular Unleaded (John Hauck)
27. 11:34 AM - Re: Regular Unleaded (Ben Ransom)
28. 11:43 AM - Re: Re: speeds (N27SB@aol.com)
29. 12:13 PM - Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (grantr)
30. 12:55 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (jim)
31. 01:42 PM - Replacing Hoses on a Rotax (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
32. 02:26 PM - Re: Replacing Hoses on a Rotax (John Hauck)
33. 02:35 PM - Re: Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Robert Laird)
34. 03:34 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (TK)
35. 04:00 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (Ben Ransom)
36. 05:02 PM - Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Ralph B)
37. 05:21 PM - Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (Richard Girard)
38. 05:38 PM - Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (Dana Hague)
39. 05:53 PM - Re: Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Dana Hague)
40. 05:56 PM - Re: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia (robert bean)
41. 06:08 PM - Re: Re: speeds (Dana Hague)
42. 06:08 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (Dana Hague)
43. 06:59 PM - Re: Firestar project (DAquaNut@aol.com)
44. 07:22 PM - Re: Re: FAA Grants Extension... (Robert Laird)
45. 07:41 PM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Dan G.)
46. 08:07 PM - Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (JetPilot)
47. 08:15 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com)
48. 08:16 PM - Re: Dead Stick approaches (JetPilot)
49. 08:17 PM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (John Hauck)
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: | Firestar project |
Thanks for the advice on the FAA extension, but I'm going for 103 legal, even
if I have to fill the wings and tires with helium. I've had it for a week, and
I finally got around to sitting in it. Strange thing is that it fits me perfectly.
The previous owner was about 5" taller than me, and I have no idea where
his knees were.
After I tried weighing it, I started cleaning and throwing out unnecessary
junk. Radio brackets, mouse nests in the cables, and who knows what else. Couldn't
weigh them- no scale small enough.
Weather permitting, engine work today. The local snowmobile dealer says they
might have the carb mounting rubber and filter. If not, order and wait. also
a gas filter and plugs.
Question: On the "B" gear box there are two holes- one each side and about
3/4 of the way up. Are they supposed to be open, or plugged?
Bill
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 10:26 PM 1/23/2008, John Hauck wrote:
>When the aircraft is flying at 1g, in a glide, it is not pitching if the
>airspeed is held constant.
It is if it's in a banked turn. (It pitches relative to its own lateral
axis, not relative to the horizon).
-Dana
--
Starve a feeding bureaucrat...vote Libertarian.
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 01:45 AM 1/24/2008, The Kuffels wrote:
><< Since you're _accelerating_ downward your descent rate will continue to
>increase, as will your airspeed. >>
>
>Taint so on the second part. Your decent rate will increase slightly
>until the vertical component of your drag cancels the loss of vertical
>lift (if you turn long enough)...
What causes this additional vertical component of drag?
-Dana
--
Starve a feeding bureaucrat...vote Libertarian.
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 10:26 PM 1/23/2008, John Hauck wrote:
>When the aircraft is flying at 1g, in a glide, it is not pitching if the
>airspeed is held constant.
It is if it's in a banked turn. (It pitches relative to its own lateral
axis, not relative to the horizon).
-Dana
--
Starve a feeding bureaucrat...vote Libertarian.
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: Firestar project |
Bill S:
Go here to get, at no charge, all the manuals for your engine.
http://www.kodiakbs.com/tiintro.htm
Not saying you can't do it, but I know of no one that has come close to
legal ultralight weight for a Firestar.
john h
mkIII
Question: On the "B" gear box there are two holes- one each side
and about 3/4 of the way up. Are they supposed to be open, or plugged?
Bill
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: Firestar project |
Open. Saves weight.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
william sullivan wrote:
> <snip>
> Question: On the "B" gear box there are two holes- one each side and
> about 3/4 of the way up. Are they supposed to be open, or plugged?
> Bill
> *
>
>
> *
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
It's been awhile but I'll add my 2 cents worth.
Anytime you change directions you produce acceleration. It may not be much or
enough to feel or register but it's there. Whether it's on a merry-go-round or
on a bike going around a corner. If you're sitting in a centrifuge and are
going around at 1 rpm you will still have slightly over 1 g on you as it is a
function of radius and rpm squared. Even though your speed is constant your direction
vector is changing.
Rex Rodebush
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160179#160179
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 |
|
Seems I've recently read an awful lot of semi-conflicting things
about speed, acceleration, etc.
Well FWIW, unless they've changed things since my student days,
acceleration is a CHANGE in velocity. A car doing a steady 60MPH
down the highway has NO acceleration. If the speed is changed, it
accelerates or decelerates.
An aircraft in steady cruise flight has NO acceleration or
deceleration unless its speed is changed.
Sure seem to be an awful lot of experts out there.
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: For all 912 users |
Thanks to whom ever posted the tip about screwing the dial indicater
into the drive reduction box to check prop flange runout.
Rick I think.
I thought thats not going to work (metric). I happen to have a mag base
and went right out to check it out. Made in Taiwan it said and screwed
right in.
To bad I had already spent an hour and a half a week ago trying to mount
the damn thing.
Vic
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: | Seafoam Approaches |
Rex,
<< Whether it's on a merry-go-round or on a bike >>
Which are not changing altitude so there is a constant 1g load
vector vertically. This is not true for an airplane in a
descending turn. Take the 1g load vector on the wings at zero
bank. Now rotate the wing and change nothing else. The wing is
still seeing only a 1g load but now the vector is split into
horizontal and vertical components to produce the turn and resist
descent.
Go fly and try it for yourself.
And I swear any future comments by me on this topic will be off list.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to qualify
a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More importantly
has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is that
if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance on
the plane.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman@hughes.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:21 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAA Grants Extension...
>
> Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now
> building, in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I
> missed the boat or is the extension your talking about changing the way a
> completed aircraft is now registered? I do want to be able to work on the
> aircraft myself and be able to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160121#160121
>
>
>
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: FAA Grants Extension... |
NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote:
> The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
> built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to qualify
> a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
> kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More importantly
> has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
>
> My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
> Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is that
> if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance on
> the plane.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ---
After the deadline, the only version of ELSA that will exist is the "approved kit"
one, where the manufacturer first makes an SLSA version, etc.
Basically, the requirements for making these are the same as SLSA, since manufacturers
will have to go through the SLSA process to begin with.
So I don't see too many of these appearing in the future or ever.
There are one or two here and there, but I don't remember which they are.
I don't believe Kolb is going to go the ELSA route with their kitplanes (smart
move), so EAB looks like it'll remain the option with them.
As for EAB, the annual condition inspection is the only thing that requires either
the repairman's cert or an AnP. Any and all maintenance can be done my anyone
in the usual way. This is also true for ELSA, since it's also an experimental
certification.
ELSA seems to give a higher resale because of the ability to do the annual CI's
on them after taking the 16 hour class.
SLSA is more like a dwarven Standard category with reduced certification/maint/annual
requirements.
The Kolb flyer looks like Kolb's SLSA entry, but the kitplanes look like they're
remain EAB.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160218#160218
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: | Dead Stick approaches |
Larry C wrote:
That aspect is one that most do not see as a
problem, but it is as real as not making the runway. With 2600 feet of
runway I managed to slip enough altitude that I landed in a safe spot. I
have to admit that at first I "mushed" it to lose altitude, then decided
that a slip would work better and be safer as well. It never occurred to me
to use something as simple as your method. I will keep it in mind and
utilize it when that situation comes up again. I do however doubt that I
will give a RATS ASS if I do happen to exceed one G.
Thanks again
Larry C
I own a MKIII but do not have much time in one. I have found one other
option of loosing altitude is the "dive". The MKIII is so draggy that I can
point the nose at the ground (no flaps) and run her up to 80mph, then when I
am on glide path pull her back to my approach of 55mph and she slows right
down again. Obviously this is not something that should be done from 5000
feet when trying to choose a landing spot, but if you are at 1000 feet and
find your self a little high on final, it seems to work.
Jason
MKIII
Portland OR
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: For all 912 users |
VIC
All you have to do is ASK and you would have gotten an answer :o) do not
archive
In a message dated 1/24/2008 10:48:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
vicsvinyl@verizon.net writes:
Thanks to whom ever posted the tip about screwing the dial indicater into
the drive reduction box to check prop flange runout.
Rick I think.
I thought thats not going to work (metric). I happen to have a mag base and
went right out to check it out. Made in Taiwan it said and screwed right in.
To bad I had already spent an hour and a half a week ago trying to mount the
damn thing.
Vic
do not archive
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: FAA Grants Extension... |
To market a qualifying kit after 01-31-2008 the manufacturer must build one
aircraft and document it per ASTM F37 requirements as an S-LSA. Then they
can sell kits that can be certificated as E-LSA per FAR 21.191i(2). The kit
must be presented to the DAR or FAA rep in EXACTLY the same configuration as
the qualifying S-LSA. Once you have the experimental certificate in your
hand, you can do anything that falls within the LSA definition All that is
required is a log book entry and putting the aircraft back into phase 1
flight testing for 5 hours. I verified this with Edsel Ford, director of the
Light Sport branch in Oklahoma City, a couple of months ago.
At this time M-Squared and Quad City Ultralights are the only companies
selling qualifying kits, I think. Vans should have the RV-12 out any time
now. I don't know of any others.
Rick Girard
On Jan 24, 2008 9:54 AM, Richard & Martha Neilsen <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
wrote:
> NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
>
> The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
> built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to
> qualify
> a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
> kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More
> importantly
> has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
>
> My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
> Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is
> that
> if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance
> on
> the plane.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Lewis" <cktman@hughes.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:21 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAA Grants Extension...
>
>
> >
> > Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now
> > building, in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I
> > missed the boat or is the extension your talking about changing the way
> a
> > completed aircraft is now registered? I do want to be able to work on
> the
> > aircraft myself and be able to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
> >
> > Rick Lewis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160121#160121
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
I guess this is where I get my flying from.
My great grandfather is the person in front of the wing with the suit and hat on.
He is the 4th person from the left.
This picture information from the website says this was taken in 1904. Thats really
strange and cool since the Wright brothers flew 1st in 1903. This plane has
the horizontal stabilizer in the rear like modern planes vs. the front like
the Wright flyer of 1903 and 1904 and 1905.
I wish I could find out more abut this picture and the airplane.
Any historians know anything about the picture?
http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/meta/html/dlg/vang/meta_dlg_vang_cly058-82.html?Welcome
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160234#160234
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/1904_biplane_207.jpg
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: | Here, try this!!! |
NOTE: NEW SUBJECT LINE
<<>>
Jason
MKIII
Portland O
MY thoughts EXACTLY, Jason. When I was taking flight instruction years ago,
I was on final once "way too high"!! At my present approach, there was just
NO way I was going to be able to land. I was not sure what to do, so my instructor
said "Here, try this!!", and proceeded to push the nose forward and decend
immediately!! In a matter of about 4 seconds I was on a perfect glidepath
to land.
That moment was very inspirational to me. It was the time when I finally realized
it was supposed to be me that was controlling the airplane, and not the
other way around. With hundreds of hours of experience now, I have come to enjoy
flying "my way" (the safe way).
Mike Welch
Building Kolb MkIII
Do Not Archive
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
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: FAA Grants Extension... |
Rick,
...At this time M-Squared and Quad City Ultralights are the only companies selling
qualifying kits, I think. Vans should have the RV-12 out any time now. I don't
know of any others....
Many, but not all, of the SLSA manufacturers are selling ELSA kits. For example,
Allegro, Rans (S-7), Zlin Savage....
--------
Thom Riddle
N221FA Allegro 2000 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I
have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Buddha
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160253#160253
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: | Regular Unleaded |
I was tired of the spills and hassel every time I fueled my Firefly. After I bought
a 100 gal gasboy tanker for fueling my cross-country bird with regular unleaded,
I decided to give regular unleaded a try in the Firefly to see if I could
standardize on one fuel in my hangar.
Everybody I know uses Premium unleaded (91 octane) auto fuel in the Rotax 503 engines.
The owner of a Rotax Repair Station said he used premium unleaded fuel,
but that regular unleaded (87 octane) meets the Rotax fuel grade specification.
The Rotax manual says to use minimum 90 RON fuel. But the RON method of octane
measurement is not used in the United States. In the US, a different method entirely
is used, called the CLC method. The number that results from this method
is the average of the RON octane number and the MON octane number, so (RON
+ MON)/2 = CLC octane number. This is the number that you will find printed on
a yellow label on gas pumps in the United States which indicate (R+M)/2.
91 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane, so the 87 CLC octane of regular unleaded
exceeds the 90 RON specified by Rotax.
Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used Regular unleaded
with no problems. Does anybody else out there use regular unleaded? Ever
had any problems?
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160256#160256
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 |
|
At 09:57 AM 1/24/2008, Russ Kinne wrote:
>
>Seems I've recently read an awful lot of semi-conflicting things
>about speed, acceleration, etc.
>Well FWIW, unless they've changed things since my student days,
>acceleration is a CHANGE in velocity. A car doing a steady 60MPH
>down the highway has NO acceleration. If the speed is changed, it
>accelerates or decelerates.
>An aircraft in steady cruise flight has NO acceleration or
>deceleration unless its speed is changed.
An object (e.g. an aircraft) traveling in a curve at a constant speed is
experiencing acceleration at 90=B0 to its direction of travel at any moment.
Acceleration IS a change in velocity, since velocity is a vector quantity,
defined as speed in a certain direction. Speed is a scalar quantity, which
doesn't include a direction vector. So technically in a turn, the velocity
changes while the speed stays constant.
-Dana
--
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced...
Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.
-- Cherokee saying
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 |
|
Russ,
You are correct if the car is going in a straight line. If you take a sharp corner
keeping your speed the same you will feel side acceleration g's.
You will feel g's if you slow down, go faster, or just change directions. Ask
the guy who is feeling 6 g's in an Air Force centirfuge. His speed is the same
but he is constantly changing directions.
Rex Rodebush
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160257#160257
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: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
Grant, That's the Curtiss Golden Flyer built by the Curtiss-Hemming Co., or
a copy of it. The year is wrong as Curtiss didn't fly until 1908 in the
"June Bug" built by Alexander Graham Bell's Aerial Experiment Association.
Here's a better picture of the aircraft at the 1909 air race at Reims,
France:
http://www.earlyaviators.com/ecurti01.htm
Rick Girard
On Jan 24, 2008 10:57 AM, grantr <grant_richardson25@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I guess this is where I get my flying from.
>
> My great grandfather is the person in front of the wing with the suit and
> hat on. He is the 4th person from the left.
>
> This picture information from the website says this was taken in 1904.
> That's really strange and cool since the Wright brothers flew 1st in 1903.
> This plane has the horizontal stabilizer in the rear like modern planes vs.
> the front like the Wright flyer of 1903 and 1904 and 1905.
>
> I wish I could find out more abut this picture and the airplane.
>
> Any historians know anything about the picture?
>
>
> http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/meta/html/dlg/vang/meta_dlg_vang_cly058-82.html?Welcome
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160234#160234
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/1904_biplane_207.jpg
>
>
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: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
The Airplane is a Curtiss Pusher...
Read up on Glenn Curtiss and you will learn more about it.
beauford
FF076
Do not Archive
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Kolb-List: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia
I wish I could find out more abut this picture and the airplane.
Any historians know anything about the picture?
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/1904_biplane_207.jpg
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: Regular Unleaded |
Jim
Regular car gas is the same as Hi test...except for "marketing
Additives" and anti knock goodies(slows the burn rate) . Gotta be a
very small percentage of the total. . Herb
do not archive
At 12:15 PM 1/24/2008, you wrote:
>
>I was tired of the spills and hassel every time I fueled my
>Firefly. After I bought a 100 gal gasboy tanker for fueling my
>cross-country bird with regular unleaded, I decided to give regular
>unleaded a try in the Firefly to see if I could standardize on one
>fuel in my hangar.
>
>Everybody I know uses Premium unleaded (91 octane) auto fuel in the
>Rotax 503 engines. The owner of a Rotax Repair Station said he used
>premium unleaded fuel, but that regular unleaded (87 octane) meets
>the Rotax fuel grade specification.
>
>The Rotax manual says to use minimum 90 RON fuel. But the RON
>method of octane measurement is not used in the United States. In
>the US, a different method entirely is used, called the CLC method.
>The number that results from this method is the average of the RON
>octane number and the MON octane number, so (RON + MON)/2 = CLC
>octane number. This is the number that you will find printed on a
>yellow label on gas pumps in the United States which indicate (R+M)/2.
>
>91 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane, so the 87 CLC octane
>of regular unleaded exceeds the 90 RON specified by Rotax.
>
>Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used
>Regular unleaded with no problems. Does anybody else out there use
>regular unleaded? Ever had any problems?
>
>--------
>Jim
>N. Idaho
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160256#160256
>
>
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 |
|
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An object (e.g. an aircraft) traveling in a curve at a constant speed is
experiencing acceleration at 90 to its direction of travel at any
moment.
Acceleration IS a change in velocity, since velocity is a vector quantity,
defined as speed in a certain direction. Speed is a scalar quantity, which
doesn't include a direction vector. So technically in a turn, the velocity
changes while the speed stays constant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dana,
This only so if your reference point is on the ground.
But if your reference point is in the plane, it is the earth that is
accelerating. This is why John's G meter read 1g over a constant speed
flight path. The G meter could care less about what the earth was doing or
the G meter's relation ship to the earth. It only reads what is being
experienced by the aircraft. In this case the velocity vector is in a
constant magnitude and direction relative to the aircraft, therefore the G
meter reads a constant value and the wing experiences a constant load. This
goes to support the fact that if you fly at constant speed/velocity that is
best glide, there is no danger of stalling for tearing the wings off the
plane. The pilot still bears the responsibility of not decelerating too
rapidly upon touch down.
This has been a fun subject to help combat the weather.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
do not archive
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: Regular Unleaded |
> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used
Regular unleaded with no problems. Does anybody else out there use regular
unleaded? Ever had any problems?
>
> --------
> Jim
Jim in Idaho
All the Rotax engines except the 912 (turbo), 912ULS four strokes, 618 and
532 two strokes are authorized to operate on 87 octane auto fuel. Ain't no
more power in a gal of regular than there is in a gal of super hi-test.
Wish I could run 87 in my912ULS.
john h
mkIII
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Regular Unleaded |
Curious about this myself, and ignorant, so...
How do we know that 91 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane?
Looking at this strictly from the math point of view, if
(RON+MON)/2=CLC, MON could be very high and RON very low to produce a
nice looking CLC. i.e. CLC printed at US pumps of 87 could be RON of
86 and MON of 88, unacceptable per Rotax spec. Or, it could be RON 90,
MON 84 giving CLC 87 and we're good.
-Ben
herb wrote:
>
>
> Jim
>
> Regular car gas is the same as Hi test...except for "marketing
> Additives" and anti knock goodies(slows the burn rate) . Gotta be a
> very small percentage of the total. . Herb
>
> do not archive
>
>
> At 12:15 PM 1/24/2008, you wrote:
>>
>> I was tired of the spills and hassel every time I fueled my Firefly.
>> After I bought a 100 gal gasboy tanker for fueling my cross-country
>> bird with regular unleaded, I decided to give regular unleaded a try
>> in the Firefly to see if I could standardize on one fuel in my hangar.
>>
>> Everybody I know uses Premium unleaded (91 octane) auto fuel in the
>> Rotax 503 engines. The owner of a Rotax Repair Station said he used
>> premium unleaded fuel, but that regular unleaded (87 octane) meets
>> the Rotax fuel grade specification.
>>
>> The Rotax manual says to use minimum 90 RON fuel. But the RON method
>> of octane measurement is not used in the United States. In the US, a
>> different method entirely is used, called the CLC method. The number
>> that results from this method is the average of the RON octane number
>> and the MON octane number, so (RON + MON)/2 = CLC octane number. This
>> is the number that you will find printed on a yellow label on gas
>> pumps in the United States which indicate (R+M)/2.
>>
>> 91 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane, so the 87 CLC octane of
>> regular unleaded exceeds the 90 RON specified by Rotax.
>>
>> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used
>> Regular unleaded with no problems. Does anybody else out there use
>> regular unleaded? Ever had any problems?
>>
>> --------
>> Jim
>> N. Idaho
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160256#160256
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
All of this Nuts and Bolts, facts and figures are interesting however, if I
take my little Firefly out and stick his little nose towards the ground, wri
ng
him out with a bunch of bank and pull back on the stick the results are not
only fun but very effective in changing direction and losing altitude with
very little gain in the weight I feel in my seat. It is nice to know why th
is
happens by the numbers but I suggest that you go out and try it.
In a message dated 1/24/2008 2:08:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jbhart@onlyinternet.net writes:
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An object (e.g. an aircraft) traveling in a curve at a constant speed is
experiencing acceleration at 90=B0 to its direction of travel at any
moment.
Steve
Firefly 007/Floats
do not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
Wow thats really cool!! Thanks for the information.
I saw where this plane cost around $4500 to $6000 new back then. I seriously doubt
my great grandfather or any of the farmers in Clay county could have afforded
that in 1908.
My great grandfather did work at a saw mill at one time in his life losing part
of his arm in an accident. Maybe some of them built the plane.
No one know anything about that picture except that my great grandfather is in
it.
Gosh I can wait to start flying my Kolb! :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160285#160285
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: Regular Unleaded |
>From http://www.csgnetwork.com/octaneratecalc.html
Gasoline pumps typically post octane numbers as an average of two different values.
Often you may see the octane rating quoted as (R+M)/2. One value is the research
octane number (RON), which is determined with a test engine running at
a low speed of 600 rpm. The other value is the motor octane number (MON), which
is determined with a test engine running at a higher speed of 900 rpm. If,
for example, a gasoline has an RON of 98 and a MON of 90, then the posted octane
number would be the average of the two values or 94.
Because of the different measurement RPMs, I would guess that the RON will always
be higher than the MON.
--------
Jim
N. Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160294#160294
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: | Replacing Hoses on a Rotax |
Kolb Friends -
The time has come for me to replace some of the rubber fluid lines on my
912ul. This would include the fuel, oil, and coolant hoses. These are
the original hoses that came with the engine from the factory over 5
years ago, and they are showing signs of deterioration (cracks, splits,
etc.)
Looking in the Rotax catalog, I found the following prices on
replacement sets of fluid lines:
"Fuel Hose Assembly" - $223.
"Oil Tube" - $56.
"Coolant Hose" - $53.
Yikes!
Are there any acceptable "Auto Parts Store equivalent" hoses that I can
use instead?
When Rotax warns us to only use "Genuine Rotax parts" on our engines, I
can understand if they're referring to the hardware. But it seems that
fuel hoses, etc., could be replaced with "generic" products, and not
compromise the integrity or reliability of the engine. Does anyone
agree? Has any body done this?
Thanks for your opinions -
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
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: Replacing Hoses on a Rotax |
> Are there any acceptable "Auto Parts Store equivalent" hoses that I can
> use instead?
>
> Dennis Kirby
Dennis K:
I use 1" ID heater hose, 1/4" black neoprene fuel line. I like Gates, but
other name brands are just as good.
Oil line I get from Travis at TNK. He has access to that nice blue line.
Remember, the oil line is primarily vacuum on the intake side and 3 to 5 psi
on the outlet side. I think the most important factor is hose that can
handle the temps, up to 300F working temp, not ultimate, and will hold its
shape in bends without crimping. Give Travis a call on the blue hose. If
you do, you can join the blue oil hose gang at Monument Valley in May. It
is almost as prestigeous as the Black Hat Gang at MV. ;-)
john h
mkIII with blue oil hose and black hat.
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: FAA Grants Extension... |
Pure flight of fancy here, but.........
.... it seems to me that if the EAA really wanted to do something
useful to it's newly minted LSA crowd, they'd petition the FAA so
that, once a kit plane was finished and gotten it's airworthiness and
registration, that they then give the builder the option to make it an
E-AB or an E-LSA (assuming it's within the LSA performance envelope).
I'm sure someone will point out that a kit plane not built to ASTM
spec may get an airworthiness, but the FAA will want an A&P inspecting
it every year, to make sure it's safe. But, if you take a E-LSA/ASTM
kit plane, get it built to spec and then get the airworthiness, from
that point on, just about anything could change on it since it's
experimental. So, what's the difference between an E-AB and a heavily
modified E-LSA? If you say you need an A&P to inspect one kind, then
why is a 16-hour class okay for the other?
So, I think there's some bad faith here by the FAA (uh, -more- bad
faith; I'm still pissed about how future UL pilots are gonna get
trained), because the logic of it is faulty.
-- Robert
On 1/24/08, lucien <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net wrote:
> > The end of the exemption for transitioning illegal airplanes to LSA kit
> > built is drawing to a close. Does anyone know what has to be done to qualify
> > a plane as a LSA kit built? I assume the kit builders need to certify the
> > kits in some way. Has any kit builder certified their kits? More importantly
> > has Kolb certified any of their kits. Do they have plans to do so?
> >
> > My understanding is that Kolb aircraft will have to be registered as
> > Experimental Amateur Built after 1/31/08. The only down side of E-AB is that
> > if you sell the plane only a certified A&E can do annuals and maintenance on
> > the plane.
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> > Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
> >
> > ---
>
>
> After the deadline, the only version of ELSA that will exist is the "approved
kit" one, where the manufacturer first makes an SLSA version, etc.
> Basically, the requirements for making these are the same as SLSA, since manufacturers
will have to go through the SLSA process to begin with.
>
> So I don't see too many of these appearing in the future or ever.
>
> There are one or two here and there, but I don't remember which they are.
>
> I don't believe Kolb is going to go the ELSA route with their kitplanes (smart
move), so EAB looks like it'll remain the option with them.
>
> As for EAB, the annual condition inspection is the only thing that requires either
the repairman's cert or an AnP. Any and all maintenance can be done my anyone
in the usual way. This is also true for ELSA, since it's also an experimental
certification.
>
> ELSA seems to give a higher resale because of the ability to do the annual CI's
on them after taking the 16 hour class.
>
> SLSA is more like a dwarven Standard category with reduced certification/maint/annual
requirements.
>
> The Kolb flyer looks like Kolb's SLSA entry, but the kitplanes look like they're
remain EAB.....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160218#160218
>
>
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: Regular Unleaded |
jim wrote:
> Rotax.
>
> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used Regular unleaded
with no problems. Does anybody else out there use regular unleaded?
Ever had any problems?
>
> --------
> Jim
> N. Idaho
>
>
Jim,
Got 775 hr.s on my FireFly using only regular octane 87 with no
ethanol. Same engine, not tear down, just flying using good oil.
Concerned about when the time comes and regular isn't available without
ethanol where I'm at!
Terry - Firefly #95
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: Regular Unleaded |
Do you have specific concerns wrt ethanol in a 2-stroke?
I've been using 91 octane mogas, sometimes with ethanol. I've not been
aware of any problems other than if gas gets older than a couple months
the engine is hard to start and I don't trust it. I've assumed gas goes
stale mostly because of other ingredients, not ethanol.
-Ben
TK wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
>> Rotax.
>>
>> Late last fall and during a couple short flights this winter I used
>> Regular unleaded with no problems. Does anybody else out there use
>> regular unleaded? Ever had any problems?
>>
>> --------
>> Jim
>> N. Idaho
>>
>>
>
> Jim,
>
> Got 775 hr.s on my FireFly using only regular octane 87 with no
> ethanol. Same engine, not tear down, just flying using good oil.
> Concerned about when the time comes and regular isn't available
> without ethanol where I'm at!
>
> Terry - Firefly #95
>
>
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: FAA Grants Extension... |
Rick Lewis wrote:
> Please educate me on this. I want to register my Kolb, that I'm now building,
in the experimental light sport aircraft catagory. Have I missed the boat or
is the extension your talking about changing the way a completed aircraft is
now registered? I do want to be able to work on the aircraft myself and be able
to fly it in the sport plane catagory.
>
> Rick Lewis
Rick, there is no deadline for Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB). If you built
it, you can register and repair it without taking a repairman course.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160332#160332
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: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
A quick correction. While the aircraft is a Golden Flyer, it was made by the
Herring-Curtiss Co.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Jan 24, 2008 12:22 PM, beauford T <beauford173@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> The Airplane is a Curtiss Pusher...
>
> Read up on Glenn Curtiss and you will learn more about it.
>
> beauford
> FF076
> Do not Archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Subject: Kolb-List: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia
>
> I wish I could find out more abut this picture and the airplane.
>
> Any historians know anything about the picture?
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/1904_biplane_207.jpg
>
>
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: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
At 01:22 PM 1/24/2008, beauford T wrote:
>
>The Airplane is a Curtiss Pusher...
>
>Read up on Glenn Curtiss and you will learn more about it.
Also see http://tinyurl.com/37zdoz ; Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome still flies
theirs (a very similar but later model). Twenty feet high the length of
the runway is as far as they ever take it during their airshows, but it's
an awesome sight.
-Dana
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de
Saint-Exup,ry
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: FAA Grants Extension... |
At 05:32 PM 1/24/2008, Robert Laird wrote:
>.... it seems to me that if the EAA really wanted to do something
>useful to it's newly minted LSA crowd, they'd petition the FAA so
>that, once a kit plane was finished and gotten it's airworthiness and
>registration, that they then give the builder the option to make it an
>E-AB or an E-LSA (assuming it's within the LSA performance envelope).
>...If you say you need an A&P to inspect one kind, then
>why is a 16-hour class okay for the other?
It's hard to guess why the FAA does many things, but in this case I'd guess
that they figured LSA's are slow, simple aircraft, unlikely to do much
damage if they hit anything, with the basic structure originally, at least,
made to some standard... and thus simple to inspect.
An E-AB, OTOH, can be ANYTHING... bigger, heavier, faster, the potential to
do more damage, an possibly untested structure, so they hold it to a higher
standard. Note that the builder, at least, can get a repairman certificate
(which, if I'm not mistaken, includes the inspection authority) for that
particular aircraft without even taking the 16 hour class.
-Dana
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de
Saint-Exup,ry
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: 1904 photo of a biplane in Georgia |
Thanks for the link.
For a great video of the curtiss:
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/action_footage.htm
BB
On 24, Jan 2008, at 8:29 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 01:22 PM 1/24/2008, beauford T wrote:
>> <beauford173@verizon.net>
>>
>> The Airplane is a Curtiss Pusher...
>>
>> Read up on Glenn Curtiss and you will learn more about it.
>
> Also see http://tinyurl.com/37zdoz ; Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome still
> flies theirs (a very similar but later model). Twenty feet high
> the length of the runway is as far as they ever take it during
> their airshows, but it's an awesome sight.
>
> -Dana
> --
> "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
> nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -
> Antoine de Saint-Exup,ry
>
>
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 |
|
At 02:09 PM 1/24/2008, Jack B. Hart wrote:
>This only so if your reference point is on the ground.
>
>But if your reference point is in the plane, it is the earth that is
>accelerating. This is why John's G meter read 1g over a constant speed
>flight path. The G meter could care less about what the earth was doing or
>the G meter's relation ship to the earth.
It doesn't matter what your reference point is, you can't ignore the Earth,
since the aircraft is being attracted to it by gravity. That force is part
of the vector sum of forces on the aircraft, which must equal zero or else
the aircraft accelerates in the direction of the imbalance-- downward and
inward in the case of coordinated 1g banked turn.
The laws of physics don't vary, but experimental error does.
-Dana
--
The gene pool has no lifeguard.
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: Regular Unleaded |
At 06:57 PM 1/24/2008, Ben Ransom wrote:
>Do you have specific concerns wrt ethanol in a 2-stroke?
>I've been using 91 octane mogas, sometimes with ethanol. I've not been
>aware of any problems other than if gas gets older than a couple months
>the engine is hard to start and I don't trust it. I've assumed gas goes
>stale mostly because of other ingredients, not ethanol.
There are concerns about ethanol's compatibility with rubber parts such as
seals, fuel pumps, and carburetor parts.
Gas goes stale because some of the more volatile components evaporate
out. That's one reason I use avgas in my Cuyuna (that and concerns about
alcohol); avgas is much better controlled as to vapor pressure so it stores
much better... I believe it's supposed to remain good for 2 years.
-Dana
--
The gene pool has no lifeguard.
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: Firestar project |
Bill,
You can save 2 lbs. or more going with 4" Azusa wheels ,but the ground
handling wont be as forgiving.
Ed D.
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Grants Extension... |
I'm not suggesting 16-hr repairman courses for E-AB... you've
concluded the opposite of what I meant... One of the main advantages
of E-LSA is that you don't need an A&P, just a 16-hour course to do
the annual condition inspection. A E-LSA can be bought and sold,
bought and sold, bought and sold, and the current owner can do the
annual inspection as long as he took the course and got his repairman
cert for that current plane. What I'm saying is, if you had a kit
plane -- a Kolb for example -- that didn't have an approved S-LSA
"template", then you have no choice but to get it certified as an
E-AB... thus depriving the owner of selling it to someone who doesn't
want to pay the A&P each year, that has already taken the LSA
repairman course. It would be an advantage of the original
builder/owner to be able to offer it up as an E-LSA rather than an
E-AB.
This isn't about E-ABs, this is about E-LSAs. I'm suggesting that a
kit built E-AB that falls inside the LSA category should be able to be
considered an E-LSA if the builder wants it that way (but no going
back). The way the FAA rules are now, you have to wonder why, say, a
RV-8 kit builder should be able to get it certified as an E-AB unless
Vans creates a factory-built RV-8 first.
Clear as mud? :-/
-- Robert
On Jan 24, 2008 7:50 PM, Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> At 05:32 PM 1/24/2008, Robert Laird wrote:
>
> >.... it seems to me that if the EAA really wanted to do something
> >useful to it's newly minted LSA crowd, they'd petition the FAA so
> >that, once a kit plane was finished and gotten it's airworthiness and
> >registration, that they then give the builder the option to make it an
> >E-AB or an E-LSA (assuming it's within the LSA performance envelope).
> >...If you say you need an A&P to inspect one kind, then
> >why is a 16-hour class okay for the other?
>
> It's hard to guess why the FAA does many things, but in this case I'd guess
> that they figured LSA's are slow, simple aircraft, unlikely to do much
> damage if they hit anything, with the basic structure originally, at least,
> made to some standard... and thus simple to inspect.
>
> An E-AB, OTOH, can be ANYTHING... bigger, heavier, faster, the potential to
> do more damage, an possibly untested structure, so they hold it to a higher
> standard. Note that the builder, at least, can get a repairman certificate
> (which, if I'm not mistaken, includes the inspection authority) for that
> particular aircraft without even taking the 16 hour class.
>
> -Dana
> --
> "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
> left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de
> Saint-Exup,ry
>
>
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
I know this one has been beat to death - I would expect nothing less
from all of us on this list. Nevertheless, I still have enjoyed reading
it and it made me think a lot about good piloting skills. I agree with
Mike and Dana as far as the theory goes, but I also believe that Tom and
John's experience shows that for moderate bank angles the additional
g-load is near negligible. One thing I've noticed, by the way, is that
many of us tend to over estimate our bank angle. When I've done true
30-degree banks on the gyro it sure felt a lot steeper than that.
I suspect you may get the highest g-load when you pull-out of your
descent on the turn to final, also when you are least likely to have
your eyes on the g-meter - but a very smooth technique could minimize
that. I think that maintaining constant airspeed is a very important
discipline to develop. I know I will be practicing this technique next
time I can get flying.
Dan G.
503 F2
Tucson
The Kuffels wrote:
>
> Dana,
>
> << Since you're _accelerating_ downward your descent rate will
> continue to increase, as will your airspeed. >>
>
> Taint so on the second part. Your decent rate will increase slightly
> until the vertical component of your drag cancels the loss of vertical
> lift (if you turn long enough). But your airspeed is your velocity
> forward, almost orthogonal to vertical. In non-aerobatic flight it is
> a simple matter to adjust your airspeed and accept the resulting
> descent rate.
>
> And I say again, your vertical accelerations are a secondary effect.
> Even a 500 feet/min descent is less than 1 percent of your forward
> velocity at 60 mph. And a change in descent rate from 250 to 500
> ft/min is a change in your vertical velocity of less than 3 mph. This
> is well within the ability of any pilot to compensate as he maintains
> constant *forward* airspeed.
>
> High-g pullout examples don't apply here because they involve large
> changes in airspeed, power or vertical speed.
>
> Go try it for yourself. In a simulated turn to final, holding
> constant airspeed results in a 1g maneuver no matter what bank angle
> (within reason, say 60 degrees).
>
> Tom Kuffel
> Whitefish, MT
> Building Original FireStar
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
[quote="John Hauck]
Guess the only way to convince you is take you for a ride. ;-)
john h
mkIII[/quote]
I want a Ride !!!! I would love to see how John flys his Kolb from inside his
plane :)
This topic has been beat to death, but in this case its a good thing. I am willing
to bet there will be a lot of people practicing engine out turns to final
in the coming days. I know I will be trying it the next chance I get.
So if we all get some more practice, and get better and flying our Kolbs engine
out, its all good.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160362#160362
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: Regular Unleaded |
In a message dated 1/24/2008 6:35:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tkrolfe@toast.net writes:
Got 775 hr.s on my FireFly
Hi Terry,
Wow! I know you fly a lot, but that is a lot of hours. When did you start
flying that FireFly? I also use regular grade fuel per the Rotax 447
operators manual. Also, in NJ, all automobile pump gas is mandated to contain
up to
10% ethanol. So far I haven't had any problems using it and it does contain
ethanol.
One other item about fuel for 2-strokes. Most 2-cycle engine manufacturers
(leaf blowers and such) caution/recommend against using oil/mixed fuel after
it has sit for a couple of weeks. Well, I found this to be impractical to
do. I mean, what do you do with unused mixed fuel? You have to PAY to have it
disposed of, or maybe you could use it in your OLD car (not my new one).
Anyway, I disregarded the caution and used the old fuel. Guess what, in 13
years of flying, nary a problem cropped up. In fact, one buddy went on vacation
for three months, and when he returned, took his Kolb out for a flight with
old gas and no problem. Now, I am not recommending anyone follow our
practice, but we have had trouble free performance. So Far :)
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Measly 480 hrs since 94
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
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: Dead Stick approaches |
I do the same thing with My MK III when landing, if it is looking a bit high,
all I have to do is drop the nose, increase speed to 70 for a little high, 80
for way high, and it drops like a rock and before I know it I am no longer high
:)
On a draggy, light airplane like a Kolb, speed bleeds off almost instantly when
the nose is pulled up.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160363#160363
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
also when you are least likely to have your eyes on the g-meter
Dan G.
Dan G:
With a recording needle (don't know what the actual name fo the third
needle is) don't have to keep my eye on the g meter.
john h
mkIII
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! --
|