Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:33 AM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
2. 04:35 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (N27SB@aol.com)
3. 05:22 AM - Cable thimbles (Edward Bonsell)
4. 05:53 AM - Re: Cable thimbles (Richard Pike)
5. 06:45 AM - Re: Cable thimbles (Richard Girard)
6. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Ron)
7. 10:30 AM - Re: Firestar project (R. Hankins)
8. 11:21 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
9. 11:39 AM - M3X update (icrashrc)
10. 11:44 AM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
11. 11:49 AM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
12. 11:53 AM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
13. 11:56 AM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
14. 12:04 PM - Re: M3X update (robert bean)
15. 12:05 PM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
16. 12:23 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (possums)
17. 12:51 PM - Re: M3X update (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
18. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Richard Pike)
19. 01:00 PM - Re: Firestar project (Ralph B)
20. 01:34 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Bryan Dever)
21. 01:35 PM - Big Island Volcano Flights (Dave Bigelow)
22. 01:56 PM - Re: Firestar project (lucien)
23. 02:30 PM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
24. 02:51 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (Arksey@aol.com)
25. 03:13 PM - Re: Big Island Volcano Flights (John Williamson)
26. 03:21 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (John Hauck)
27. 03:28 PM - Re: M3X update (John Hauck)
28. 03:53 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Ben Ransom)
29. 04:04 PM - Re: Big Island Volcano Flights (John Hauck)
30. 05:11 PM - Re: Regular Unleaded (Steve Garvelink)
31. 05:44 PM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
32. 05:55 PM - A quick overview of how sport pilot came to be (Richard Girard)
33. 06:26 PM - Re: Firestar project (Richard Pike)
34. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Russ Kinne)
35. 06:48 PM - Re: M3X update (N27SB@aol.com)
36. 06:55 PM - Re: M3X update (John Hauck)
37. 07:05 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Richard Girard)
38. 07:17 PM - Re: M3X update (John Hauck)
39. 07:39 PM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
40. 08:47 PM - login ... (artdog1512)
41. 10:26 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (robert bean)
42. 10:38 PM - Re: Big Island Volcano Flights (Dave Bigelow)
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: Firestar project |
I would not worry a bit about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight. Sure, there well
be many that say " Its not legal " , or " The law is the law ".... etc.
etc. But you will see those same people going slightly over the speed limit
and not thinking twice about it.
15 pounds is inconsequential given a 254 pound limit. I say only an anal idiot
would worry about 15 pounds, lets put this into perspective. Its only 6 % over
the limit.
If you were driving 58 MPH in a 55 MPH Zone, which is 6 % over the limit, and someone
complained that you were speeding, what would you say ??? If you given
a ticket for doing 58 MPH in a 55 zone, I guarantee that you would be telling
everyone you knew what BS it was to get a ticket for just 3 MPH over... Just
about as stupid as worrying about 15 pounds, or 6 % extra on an ultralight
no ?
As far as safety, you are far more likely to hurt someone else by doing 58 MPH
in a 55 Zone in your car than you ever would be to hurt anyone or anything by
having 15 extra pounds on an ultralight. So its nothing short of hypocritical
for people say " The law is the law ", unless they never break the speed limit
by more than 3 MPH, there is far more danger in that.
People tend to get super anal when it comes to aviation, and yes they are idiots.
In reality if you are the type that is super paranoid, super legal, and worried
about causing an accident, NEVER go more than 3 MPH over the limit, because
this is something that is far more likely to hurt yourself and others than
having 15 extra pounds on your Firestar.
Anyone on this list that never drives 3 MPH over the limit ? I didn't think so...
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=160801#160801
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: Firestar project |
In a message dated 1/28/2008 3:34:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
I say only an anal idiot would worry about 15 pounds
I think you are missing the point here Mike, To me, it is not a matter of
right or wrong, but rather a challenge. I enjoy the challenge of putting
somethng together that performs well and meets the guidelines of a category.
Sometimes the FAA gives you limits and sometimes nature or physics does. Now
if
the category is poorly defined or has loopholes then I have no problem
exploiting them.
Now is almost 254# like almost not pregnant? The tires almost needed to be
replaced / I almost replaced them
I hope to have Firefly on Floats #2 less than 338# done for SnF 08, Hope to
see you there,
Anal and not so bright in Florida, :-)
Steve B
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 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 |
|
Hi All,
I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made cables did
you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind them off?
Thanks,
Ed
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: Cable thimbles |
Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the cable
passes over the cut.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Edward Bonsell wrote:
> <ebonsell@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind
> them off?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
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: Cable thimbles |
Ed, I use my Felco F-9 cable cutters to trim the ears. I cut from the inside
of the thimble out and there is no burr left to dress where the cable
touches.
If you haven't made cables before, go to AC 43.13-1B "Aircraft Inspection,
Repair and Alteration Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices" pages
7-32 and 7-33 for instruction on how to use Nicopress ovals. Use the proper
tool and inspect each swage with the proper gauge.
Rick Girard
On Jan 28, 2008 7:51 AM, Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
>
> Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the cable
> passes over the cut.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Edward Bonsell wrote:
> > <ebonsell@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> > cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind
> > them off?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
Wait a minute the speed limit is the minimum you can go, not the maximum. :-)
Ron (Arizona)
do not archive
=======================
---- JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
============
I would not worry a bit about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight. Sure, there well
be many that say " Its not legal " , or " The law is the law ".... etc.
etc. But you will see those same people going slightly over the speed limit
and not thinking twice about it.
15 pounds is inconsequential given a 254 pound limit. I say only an anal idiot
would worry about 15 pounds, lets put this into perspective. Its only 6 % over
the limit.
If you were driving 58 MPH in a 55 MPH Zone, which is 6 % over the limit, and someone
complained that you were speeding, what would you say ??? If you given
a ticket for doing 58 MPH in a 55 zone, I guarantee that you would be telling
everyone you knew what BS it was to get a ticket for just 3 MPH over... Just
about as stupid as worrying about 15 pounds, or 6 % extra on an ultralight
no ?
As far as safety, you are far more likely to hurt someone else by doing 58 MPH
in a 55 Zone in your car than you ever would be to hurt anyone or anything by
having 15 extra pounds on an ultralight. So its nothing short of hypocritical
for people say " The law is the law ", unless they never break the speed limit
by more than 3 MPH, there is far more danger in that.
People tend to get super anal when it comes to aviation, and yes they are idiots.
In reality if you are the type that is super paranoid, super legal, and worried
about causing an accident, NEVER go more than 3 MPH over the limit, because
this is something that is far more likely to hurt yourself and others than
having 15 extra pounds on your Firestar.
Anyone on this list that never drives 3 MPH over the limit ? I didn't think so...
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=160801#160801
--
kugelair.com
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: Firestar project |
I flew my overweight, overspeed, over fuel capacity KXP as an ultralight since
1999. I stayed to the spirit of the law; no brakes, no electric start, empty
weight of 292# with a 503. I stayed out of trouble, gave way to GA aircraft in
the pattern etc. If not for the sport pilot rule change shining the spotlight
on all of us, I probably would still be flying that way.
Over time, I made many small changes. I added side doors, a little carpeting,
extended range tanks, radio and GPS mounts and battery, new wheels, tires, and
brakes. Gradually, I moved further and further away from being an ultralight.
When sport pilot came out, I decided to take the opportunity to legitimize my
unregistered aircraft and quit looking over my shoulder.
It is a personal decision that you must make for yourself. If you are only going
to fly around the local patch and nearby non-controlled fields, you will PROBABLY
never get checked. If you ever want to take your plane to a fly-in or
have a cross-country adventure, your odds of getting caught go up. Just don't
kid yourself that you are an ultralight. If you are overweight, or have a top
speed over the limit, or a stall speed above the limit, you are flying an unregistered
aircraft. It is kind of like driving around without a drivers license.
Unless you get pulled over, or have an accident, everyone just assumes you
are legal, but it gets tiring keeping one eye glued to the rear-view mirror.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160868#160868
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: Firestar project |
15 pounds is inconsequential given a 254 pound limit. I say only an anal
idiot would worry about 15 pounds>>
I am all for pushing the limits a bit but if the law says `that is the
limit` then that is it.
I am sure it must be something similar in the US but here in the |UK the
whole point of a weight limit is not that it is dangerous to exceed the
limit ot that it will make your flying less safe it is the simple fact that
above a certain weight the plane is no longer classed as an ultralight and
must then conform to the same rules as GA..
That automatically means that you are no longer entitled to the breaks in
the maintenance schedules which are enjoyed by the ultralight category. You
will have to pay a `certified` mechanic to carry out anything but the
smallest job on the plane
The flying medical which for an ulralight pilot here is signed off by your
local doctor for about 20 will revert to a full light aircraft category
medical by an `approved` doctor and will be around 180/200. . Most
important of all is the fact that your insurance will be invalid. Of course
if you are the type who habitually drives a car without insurance then there
is no point in talking and you should be locked up for the general good of
society.
The comparison to breaking the speed limit is puerile. Your car license and
insurance will not become invalid if you go over 30 mph.
The rules and regs governing ultralights have been hard fought for here in
the UK and probably in the USA too. Because ultralight pilots generally have
stuck to the rules and been professional in their conduct they are now
welcomed by nearly all airfields, big and small. That was not the case a few
years ago when we were looked on as hairy arsed. bikers of the sky.
If the weight limit is too low, and as our planes have become more
sophisticated, acquired bigger engines, electronics etc., that may well be
so then get the legislation changed, as we have here, not just pretend it
doesn`t exist. The FAA isnt going to go away but they could ground everyone
with a stroke of the pen.
Life is not a box of chocolates. It is more like a jar of jalapenos.
Something you eat today may come back and roast your bum tomorrow.
Cheers
Pat
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 |
|
Life has gotten in the way of both building and updating the website on the M3X
so I thought I would post a few pics. I'm starting with the overhead console
we made. Those of you at the homecoming may have seen this.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160879#160879
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00748_159.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00746_444.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00740_184.jpg
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 |
|
Here's a pic of the Kevlar panel we laid up to mount all the under seat components
on.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160880#160880
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00758_155.jpg
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 |
|
Here's the foam and glass center console. Note the built in GPS. This is the main
reason we made the overhead console. Once we built in the GPS there was nowhere
for the accessory and ignition switches.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160881#160881
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1389_126.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00727_988.jpg
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 |
|
Here's the instrument pod. We laid up a Carbon/blue Kevlar panel to use instead
of the horrid but functional aluminum panel provided.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160884#160884
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00803_109.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00802_731.jpg
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 |
|
M3X out sunbathing
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160885#160885
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1385_126.jpg
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 |
|
looks great. Can almost hear you making brrrm-brrrrm noises.
BB
do not archive
On 28, Jan 2008, at 2:37 PM, icrashrc wrote:
>
> Life has gotten in the way of both building and updating the
> website on the M3X so I thought I would post a few pics. I'm
> starting with the overhead console we made. Those of you at the
> homecoming may have seen this.
>
> --------
> Scott
>
> www.ill-EagleAviation.com
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160879#160879
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00748_159.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00746_444.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00740_184.jpg
>
>
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: Firestar project |
pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> I am all for pushing the limits a bit but if the law says `that is the
> limit` then that is it.
>
> Pat
Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58 MPH, and if due
to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be changed, then legislation should
be introduced, don't pretend it does not exist. Sound familiar ???
You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by speeding than by being
15 pounds overweight in with your ultralight. As for image, no one will
ever know if your ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier for
others to see you speeding.
When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply the same standard
to every day life, its just plain stupid and hypocritical to worry about
15 pounds overweight in an ultralight and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit
or more on a regular basis and think its OK.
You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more importantly,
you are unable to recognize which is more important and more likely to result
in damage to property and others, which is the basis for ALL these rules we live
by.
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=160887#160887
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: Firestar project |
At 07:27 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 1/28/2008 3:34:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
>I say only an anal idiot would worry about 15 pounds
The thing is that after Jan 31, your fat ultralight will stand out a lot
more that it use to "without N-numbers". Use to be hardly anyone had them,
even the two seaters. Now - you will be a lot more conspicuous out there on the
tarmac.
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 |
|
Scott
Looks super.
I see in one of your photos you put what looks like a 2X4 over the torque
tube. You probably just put this in to protect the torque tube while you
were working on things but try this. I got a aluminum tube that I cut length
wise and then bent into a U shape. Then with spacers I mounted this U shaped
aluminum piece over the torque tube. It fits close enough to be covered by
the Kolb upholstery, strong enough that I can support my weight without
collapsing on the torque tube and is very light weight. I got the idea for
this every time I got in the factory plane they would said "don't lean on
that tube".
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "icrashrc" <icrashrc@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: M3X update
>
> Life has gotten in the way of both building and updating the website on
> the M3X so I thought I would post a few pics. I'm starting with the
> overhead console we made. Those of you at the homecoming may have seen
> this.
>
> --------
> Scott
>
> www.ill-EagleAviation.com
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160879#160879
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00748_159.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00746_444.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00740_184.jpg
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Consistent? It appears to me that your talking points are mixing apples
with oranges with bananas.
I seriously doubt that any of us care whether any of the rest of us are
actually Part 103 legal or not, the issue is what happens if you get
ramp checked by FSDO and you are not Part 103 legal. The FSDO guy is not
going to be interested in your likelihood of doing greater damage to
life and property because you are 15 pounds overweight, his job is to
enforce the law as written, so IMO, your comparison to driving 15 over
the speed limit is irrelevant to the issue.
As far as being hypocritical to drive slightly over the speed limit as
opposed to being slightly overweight, I could care less if you drive the
speed limit or not. Because in the real world that I live in, the rules
are written not so much to keep us safe, but to quiet the squeaking
wheels. In Sullivan county where I live, the county commissioners
determine the speed limits, and any yahoo who lives on a county road and
gets a burr under his seat because somebody drives down "his road"
faster than he likes, can write his commissioner a letter and get the
speed limit lowered to 25 mph. Consequently I live in a county with lots
of 45 mph capable roads posted at 25. Do I think the people who drive 40
are hypocrites? No, only the idiot who wrote the letter to his
commissioner who drives 40. Do I think the speed limit rules are written
to keep us safe? Maybe in your world, around here they are written to
pacify Uncle Fester. (And no, I'm not ranting because I got busted <grin>)
Do I think folks ought to push the limits on Part 103 regs? Only if they
are willing to have a deep wallet if The Man catches them out. In which
case, fly it however fat, fast, or far you want, I could care less if
your "ultralight" is part 103 legal or not.
Which is the impression I got of what the other listers were saying: As
long as you're willing to pay the piper, you can dance any way you like.
If not, then get legal. And that's not hypocrisy, that's reality.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com wrote:
>
>> I am all for pushing the limits a bit but if the law says `that is the
>> limit` then that is it.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>
>
> Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58 MPH, and if
due to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be changed, then legislation should
be introduced, don't pretend it does not exist. Sound familiar ???
>
> You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by speeding than by
being 15 pounds overweight in with your ultralight. As for image, no one will
ever know if your ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier
for others to see you speeding.
>
> When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply the same standard
to every day life, its just plain stupid and hypocritical to worry about
15 pounds overweight in an ultralight and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit
or more on a regular basis and think its OK.
>
> You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more importantly,
you are unable to recognize which is more important and more likely to result
in damage to property and others, which is the basis for ALL these rules we
live by.
>
> 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=160887#160887
>
>
>
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: Firestar project |
"Possums" at 07:27 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>
> The thing is that after Jan 31, your fat ultralight will stand out a lot more
that it use to "without N-numbers". Use to be hardly anyone had them, even the
two seaters. Now - you will be a lot more conspicuous out there on the tarmac.
They will stand out and it will be difficult to make friends with pilots who have
gone though the process as they know who is illegal and may not say anything
to cause trouble. When the ultralight pilot that flies that 400 lb machine starts
bragging about his pilot skills and how he avoided going through all that
"hoop-jumping" is when it will get "testy".
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160896#160896
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: Firestar project |
>They will stand out and it will be difficult to make friends with pilots
who have gone though the process as they know who is illegal and may not say
anything to cause trouble.
Where is all of this "Follow the rules exactly" attitude coming from all of
a sudden? It seems to me that the vast majority of folks flying on the 2
seat exemption were not following the rules for many years. Everyone knew
it, nobody cared. How many of the 2 place pilots were using them only for
training flights? When I wanted to find an instructor, I called more than
a dozen pilots on the exemption list before finding someone actually using
their plane to train. Now that the 2 place guys are legal, it seems that
many have adapted a different outlook. A 275lb Firestar is no more or less
legal after January 31st than it was before. I find it interesting that
pilots who decide not to transition are being "cast out" by the same
community that have been flying under the radar for years. I truly feel
that if the FAA does crack down on fat single place UL's, it will be because
of the complaints of pilots that did make the transition, not because the
FAA really wants more enforcement. Sad.
P.S. I'm sure someone is going to point out that there is no longer such a
thing as a fat UL. My answer is...... from a legal stand point, there never
was.
Bryan D
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: | Big Island Volcano Flights |
Here is a link to some photos I took on two recent cross country flights to Kilauea
Volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii in my HKS powered Firestar II.
The flights were from my grass strip at the 4,000 foot level of Mauna Kea on the
west side of the Island over the 6,000 foot saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna
Loa. It takes about an hour each way with 30 minutes time at the volcano.
The whole flight takes 2:30 minutes with 3.5 gallons of gas remaining out of
10 gallons at takeoff. The HKS engine has been running flawlessly - good thing
too, if you take a good look at the terrain!
The radiated heat from the lava lake feels like standing in front of a fireplace,
even at 200-500 feet above the lave pools.
Also, some good glider shots, if that interests anyone.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16867421@N07/sets/
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160901#160901
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: Firestar project |
[quote="indyaviator(at)gmail.com"]
> They will stand out and it will be difficult to make friends with pilots who
have gone though the process as they know who is illegal and may not say anything
to cause trouble.
>
>
Where is all of this "Follow the rules exactly" attitude coming from all of a sudden?
It seems to me that the vast majority of folks flying on the 2 seat exemption
were not following the rules for many years. Everyone knew it, nobody cared.
How many of the 2 place pilots were using them only for training flights?
When I wanted to find an instructor, I called more than a dozen pilots on
the exemption list before finding someone actually using their plane to train.
Now that the 2 place guys are legal, it seems that many have adapted a different
outlook. A 275lb Firestar is no more or less legal after January 31st than
it was before. I find it interesting that pilots who decide not to transition
are being "cast out" by the same community that have been flying under the
radar for years. I truly feel that if the FAA does crack down on fat single
place UL's, it will be because of the complaints of pilots that did make the
transition, not because the FAA really wants more enforcement. Sad.
P.S. I'm sure someone is going to point out that there is no longer such a thing
as a fat UL. My answer is...... from a legal stand point, there never was.
Bryan D
> [b]
If you read the forward to the original SP NPRM, there were repeated references
to "fat-UL" and "fat ultralights" - the recognition being that, though illegal,
a "fat-UL" had a kind of status and there was a cottage industry in US light
aircraft supporting them.
This is really kind of how America works - bad or useless laws tend not to bring
on the maximum possible punishment for every concievable infraction and we should
be very glad that this is so. Instead, they are eventually amended to be
either more appropriate or enforceable (or both).
Now, it's interesting that the original writers of SP were actually sensitive to
this aspect of "fat-UL"; the original effort was a rule set that was appropriate
for this class of aircraft to get legal and have at least some minimal standards
of construction, etc., to insure at least some minimal standard of safety.
The rule that eventually resulted did NOT turn out that way for a variety of reasons,
but it could have if it'd stuck to its original intent.
SP was promulgated NOT because of abuse of the existing system or because of problems
with public safety, but a) because FnAA did not or could not enforce its
own rules and b) apparently because of special interest pressure.
History is our best teacher on this and hopefully we'll all learn from it the next
time something like this comes around...
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160907#160907
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 |
|
Rick,
That's actually a vacuum bagged Kevlar piece. It attaches to both the center console
and another composite piece that covers the A-frame section of the cage
between the seats.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160917#160917
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 |
In a message dated 1/24/2008 1:19:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jim@tru-cast.com writes:
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
Hi Jim,
I have been using 87 octane in my 503 with no problem...just fly and use
it up...if you let it set around along time it will lose some octane....Just
set it on a 2 cycle forum at the sport expo, Phil Lockwood put it on and he
confirmed it...
Jim swan firestar ll and enjoy flying it. michigan
do not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Big Island Volcano Flights |
Dave,
Thanks for posting the great photos!
Hawaii will be the only state I won't be able to fly the Kolbra to so I appreciate
the chance to see what I will be missing.
do not archive
--------
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, 912ULS
http://home.tx.rr.com/kolbrapilot
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160924#160924
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: Firestar project |
I decided to take the opportunity to legitimize my unregistered aircraft
and quit looking over my shoulder.
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
Roger H:
Exactly the way I felt flying my US and FS. Both were too fat, too fast, and
way too much fuel. Always had that nagging, uncomfortable feeling that all
was not right. What a tremendous feeling of relief and peace when I
registered my mkIII, got a private ticket, and started flying legally. No
more looking over my shoulder all the time, or for that matter, any time.
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 |
|
> looks great. Can almost hear you making brrrm-brrrrm noises.
> BB
Scott and Gang:
I echo Beanie Weanie's sentiments also. Looks good. Got to get a look at
some of their stuff last year at London.
BTW: What are those big things on the little wheels? ;-)
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
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: | Re: Firestar project |
Seems like you're suggesting everyone should be okay with individuals
deciding what acceptable risk is, such as driving 58 and/or flying 15
lbs over. Or is it 16, or in reality 25? That might be kinda fun, and
then maybe 10gallons and an occasional passenger should be fun too.
Perhaps the counter to this is that you are simply asking for common
sense. Well that's great too, but I think you gotta admit the UL thing
got way out of whack. So rules, with clear definitions, are necessary.
I have the impression that most of the aviation community is glad to
have the whole thing clarified. The only way to keep it clear is to
occasionally ramp check and fine someone "pushing the limits",
regardless of whatever their "good judgement" may be. Same
non-hypocritical reason I'm glad to see a cop pull over some free spirit
(aka fill-in-the-blank) on the road. I also agree with the other
comments that I'm tired of flying looking over my shoulder, which in one
real example meant my high-minded airport manager could have kicked me
out. With an N number he's gotta welcome me just like the King Air.
Now that I think is pretty fun.
-Ben
JetPilot wrote:
>
> Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58 MPH, and if
due to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be changed, then legislation should
be introduced, don't pretend it does not exist. Sound familiar ???
>
> You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by speeding than by
being 15 pounds overweight in with your ultralight. As for image, no one will
ever know if your ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier
for others to see you speeding.
>
> When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply the same standard
to every day life, its just plain stupid and hypocritical to worry about
15 pounds overweight in an ultralight and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit
or more on a regular basis and think its OK.
>
> You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more importantly,
you are unable to recognize which is more important and more likely to result
in damage to property and others, which is the basis for ALL these rules we
live by.
>
> Mike
>
>
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: Big Island Volcano Flights |
> Here is a link to some photos I took on two recent cross country flights
to Kilauea Volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii in my HKS powered Firestar
II.
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
Hey Dave B:
You gonna have'ta tighten up a bit. Every shot through the windshield
indicated you were way out of trim. ;-)
Great shots. I am envious. Would like to fly my airplane over that area.
In fact, would be fun doing the Hawaiian Islands in a mkIII.
john h
mkIII
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: | Regular Unleaded |
You guys need to start looking very closely at your fuel suppliers a lot are
adding 10% ethanol to there fuel. Recently all of the pantry kangaroo
stores in Tennessee started adding 10% to there stores. I am not sure if
this is every where they are but they have 1600 stores nation wide.
Srglink
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tony Oldman
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Regular Unleaded
In Newzealand I think we use the RON system. I have always either used 91
lead free or avgas or a mixture of both . 500 plus hrs on 503s no problems.
Only difference is that the 503 seems to run cooler on avgas and idle a
little smoother .No performance difference.
Tony
MK111 classic
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: 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 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: Firestar project |
Ralph B wrote:
>
>
> . When the ultralight pilot that flies that 400 lb machine starts bragging about
his pilot skills and how he avoided going through all that "hoop-jumping"
is when it will get "testy".
>
>
I never talked about 400 pounds or two seats, I very clearly said 15 pounds which
is 6 %, which is the entire point of what I have been saying. If you cant
read a couple numbers and figure out a very simple point, then you are not the
brightest bulb in the bunch...
The statement that " 15 pounds overweight is going to Stand Out ". A 15 pound
ultralight wont stand out any more than the guy going 58 MPH instead of 55 MPH.
Can you tell if an ultralight is 15 pounds overweight just by looking at
it ? So how does that qualify as " Standing out " ??? So your statement that
a 15 pound overweight ultralight would stand out and make everyone look bad
is nothing short of ridiculous.
Bottom line here , is that only emotional, not so intelligent people get worked
up and anal about aviation, while ignoring the fact that they themselves do
the same thing on an everyday basis in their cars, where there are far greater
risks of hurting someone.
Richard Pike wrote:
>
>
> The FSDO guy is not
> going to be interested in your likelihood of doing greater damage to
> life and property because you are 15 pounds overweight, his job is to
> enforce the law as written, so IMO, your comparison to driving 15 over
> the speed limit is irrelevant to the issue.
>
>
The traffic laws are written for 55 MPH on some roads, so do you think the cop
is going to care if you were only 6 % over, which is 3 MPH, but according to you,
his job is to enforce the law as written according to your logic, and use
no good judgment. I guarantee you if you got a ticket for going only 3 MPH over
the limit, you would be bitching about it and saying how " stupid " the cop
was.
No difference for the person that has a problem with 6 % over weight ultralight,
worrying about an extra 15 pounds its just plain stupid...
So maybe some of you should go tell all your friends that drive cars that they
are illegal, irresponsible, and making everyone look bad if they go 3 MPH over
the posted limit. After all, the law is the law... See what kind of reception
you get.
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=160957#160957
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: | A quick overview of how sport pilot came to be |
First. The call for a simple class of aircraft with a simple set of rules
was made by Paul Poberezny as early as 1954, just after the EAA was formed
and just after the experimental amateur built category was established. It's
nothing new.
This call was issued again in the late 90's. By now U.S. law said that where
jobs could be done by private industry they had to be. But how to cast it as
something political will could get behind? Nobody cared about using driver's
licenses as a medical, nobody cared about "fat ultralights", although the
term was around. Nobody cared about the escalating cost of flight
instruction. Let them fly cake, or whatever.
Then came 09-11-2001 and someone came up with the idea of letting Congress
(the opposite of Progress, as Mark Twain noted 100+ years before) in on the
"secret".
Hey guys and gals, step away from the money buffet for just a second. There
are upward of 30,000 aircraft, UNREGISTERED and UNACCOUNTED for, out there
SOMEWHERE!
Holy Cripes, somebody has to do something.
So into this nexus stepped the ASTM. They formed committee F37 and those who
stepped up to join were veterans of the hang gliding and ultralight
communities. Self regulation had worked reasonably well for those two, why
not here? Many of those who joined up also knew there were a bunch of cheap
European aircraft waiting just across the pond.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that's the reason, the Cessna 120, 140
and 150 were snubbed with the 600 Kg upper weight limit. If they had been
included, LSA would have died right there and a big opportunity to make a
little cash would have died with it.
These same people had also seen the gaggle of Quicksilver clones come and go
in the early eighties. They had seen the USHGA create a rating system and an
observer / examiner system in the late 70's and ultralight organizations
attempt the same with the same results. One guy got a card, rated all his
buddies, who rated all their buddies, ad infinitum.
So the plan became, first transition the instructors, then the pilots, then
the aircraft.
We are three days away form the end of that progression now. With the
exception of the recently announced extension of the time to get E-LSA
certification, provided you started the process by having your aircraft put
on the registry by the original date. According to my DAR the deadline for
certification is now 1-31-2010, again provided your aircraft is on the
registry by midnight Thursday.
Many of you have raised the issue of why not having E-LSA extended
indefinitely. It was those Quicksilver clones, pure and simple. No more
backyard engineers. Want to sell an E-LSA? Now there is an organized plan.
FAR 21.191(i)2.
First create an S-LSA. Why? Because the two pieces of documentation you have
to actually show someone are a flight manual and a maintenance manual. The
rest is by the delegation option, unless your aircraft starts hurting or
killing a lot of people. Then someone will come knocking to look over your
documentation.
Notice there is no 51% rule. Leave off the radio knob and let the new owner
put it on. You can even give him the screwdriver. It's an E-LSA. Solves a
lot of headaches the growth of builder's assistance companies have caused.
Why have the option to make an S-LSA an E-LSA, ala FAR 21.191(i)3? Because
there will be orphaned fleets. Originally the FAA just wanted to pull their
airworthiness certificates if the manufacturer or distributor bit the dust.
Talk about watching your dreams turn into a nightmare. Dear Sir, Your
airplane is no longer legal, please stop flying it. So that's the reason for
that.
Most of this has been covered by Earl Lawrence of the EAA, some has been
extemporized by me. But it's mostly accurate and you got it for free. What
the heck.
Rick Girard
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: Firestar project |
Mike, you really need to relax and take more deep breaths -
Irrespective of whether or not I think a cop is stupid for writing a ticket if
I am only 3 over, his job is to enforce the law, not be a judge. I don't want
a cop who acts as judge, because then he might judge to ignore his buddy doing
whatever, while he busts some guy (like me) whose look he doesn't like. He might
even decide that being judge is not enough, and decide to become the executioner
as well.
I don't want cops or FSDO guys to be judges, I want them to uphold the law. Years
ago, I read that the best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them 100%.
An enraged populace will then throw out the bums that made them. Which could
improve much of what's wrong with this country at present...
I really find it amusing that you assume I would tell my friends that drive cars
3 over that they are illegal and irresponsible. I guess you failed to process
what I said about local county commissioners, idiotically posted 25 mph roads
and Uncle Fester. Or my indifference to those who break idiotic rules as long
as they are willing to pay the piper. And that is not hypocrisy, or mere talk.
Check the pictures of my non-Kolb toys. Do you really think I worry about 3
over? I act like any rational 61 year old ought to act, and if the Cops find
me to be remiss in my actions, (so far so good...) then that's what traffic court
is for.
PS: Dude, you really need to lighten up. Or maybe fewer Gummy Worms and red Kool-Aid...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160970#160970
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/big_bike_large_782.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020698_large_146.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020693_large_109.jpg
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: Firestar project |
Jetpilot, please don't jump all over Ralph B when he makes an
innocent comment about a HYPOTHETICAL pilot in a 400lb 'ultralight'
Every reader must know he was kidding about the 400lbs -- we all know
what he meant,
and he wasn't expecting anyone to take him literally
On Jan 28, 2008, at 8:41 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> Ralph B wrote:
>>
>>
>> . When the ultralight pilot that flies that 400 lb machine starts
>> bragging about his pilot skills and how he avoided going through
>> all that "hoop-jumping" is when it will get "testy".
>>
>>
>
>
> I never talked about 400 pounds or two seats, I very clearly said
> 15 pounds which is 6 %, which is the entire point of what I have
> been saying. If you cant read a couple numbers and figure out a
> very simple point, then you are not the brightest bulb in the bunch...
>
> The statement that " 15 pounds overweight is going to Stand Out
> ". A 15 pound ultralight wont stand out any more than the guy
> going 58 MPH instead of 55 MPH. Can you tell if an ultralight is
> 15 pounds overweight just by looking at it ? So how does that
> qualify as " Standing out " ??? So your statement that a 15 pound
> overweight ultralight would stand out and make everyone look bad is
> nothing short of ridiculous.
>
> Bottom line here , is that only emotional, not so intelligent
> people get worked up and anal about aviation, while ignoring the
> fact that they themselves do the same thing on an everyday basis in
> their cars, where there are far greater risks of hurting someone.
>
>
> Richard Pike wrote:
>>
>>
>> The FSDO guy is not
>> going to be interested in your likelihood of doing greater damage to
>> life and property because you are 15 pounds overweight, his job is to
>> enforce the law as written, so IMO, your comparison to driving 15
>> over
>> the speed limit is irrelevant to the issue.
>>
>>
>
>
> The traffic laws are written for 55 MPH on some roads, so do you
> think the cop is going to care if you were only 6 % over, which is
> 3 MPH, but according to you, his job is to enforce the law as
> written according to your logic, and use no good judgment. I
> guarantee you if you got a ticket for going only 3 MPH over the
> limit, you would be bitching about it and saying how " stupid " the
> cop was.
>
> No difference for the person that has a problem with 6 % over
> weight ultralight, worrying about an extra 15 pounds its just plain
> stupid...
>
> So maybe some of you should go tell all your friends that drive
> cars that they are illegal, irresponsible, and making everyone look
> bad if they go 3 MPH over the posted limit. After all, the law is
> the law... See what kind of reception you get.
>
> 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=160957#160957
>
>
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 |
|
John, is it just me or did your statement have a certain hidden Freudian
meaning?
Steve B
Firefly 007/Floats
do not archive
In a message dated 1/28/2008 6:29:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck@elmore.rr.com writes:
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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 |
|
Oh shit.
Leave it to Beaver.
Oops, there I go again. ;-)
john h
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
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: Firestar project |
Please, guys, take it outside. Enough of this is way too much. As is often
asked by someone or other, what is there about Kolbs here?
Rick
Do not archive
do not repeat
do not pass go
do not collect $200
do not forsake me oh my darling................
On Jan 28, 2008 8:23 PM, Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
>
> Mike, you really need to relax and take more deep breaths -
>
> Irrespective of whether or not I think a cop is stupid for writing a
> ticket if I am only 3 over, his job is to enforce the law, not be a judge. I
> don't want a cop who acts as judge, because then he might judge to ignore
> his buddy doing whatever, while he busts some guy (like me) whose look he
> doesn't like. He might even decide that being judge is not enough, and
> decide to become the executioner as well.
>
> I don't want cops or FSDO guys to be judges, I want them to uphold the
> law. Years ago, I read that the best way to get rid of bad laws is to
> enforce them 100%. An enraged populace will then throw out the bums that
> made them. Which could improve much of what's wrong with this country at
> present...
>
> I really find it amusing that you assume I would tell my friends that
> drive cars 3 over that they are illegal and irresponsible. I guess you
> failed to process what I said about local county commissioners, idiotically
> posted 25 mph roads and Uncle Fester. Or my indifference to those who break
> idiotic rules as long as they are willing to pay the piper. And that is not
> hypocrisy, or mere talk. Check the pictures of my non-Kolb toys. Do you
> really think I worry about 3 over? I act like any rational 61 year old
> ought to act, and if the Cops find me to be remiss in my actions, (so far so
> good...) then that's what traffic court is for.
>
> PS: Dude, you really need to lighten up. Or maybe fewer Gummy Worms and
> red Kool-Aid...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160970#160970
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/big_bike_large_782.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020698_large_146.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020693_large_109.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 |
|
Gang:
My reply was not intended to go back to the Kolb List, but it did.
As we would say in Vietnam: "20,000 xin loi" which means I am sorry 20
thousand times.
Now.........what were we talking about?
john h
mkIII
Oh shit.
Leave it to Beaver.
Oops, there I go again. ;-)
john h
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.
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 |
|
[/quote]
Scott and Gang:
I echo Beanie Weanie's sentiments also. Looks good. Got to get a look at
some of their stuff last year at London.
BTW: What are those big things on the little wheels? ;-)
john h
mkIII - Lover of big soft tires and interesting short, soft fields.[/quote]
John,
The big things hiding the little wheels are there at Pauls request. I figure it's
the least i could do considering all the work he's done. I'll be sure to leave
them at home if you and i go hunting for short, soft fields to land in.
:-)
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160995#160995
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 |
|
how do you get registered so i can "login" to the Kolb
website? .............. tim
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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: Firestar project |
Before I stumbled upon this discussion list I briefly attended a
generic ultralight list (maybe yahoo?)
After expressing my anticipation for the proposed SP rule, I was
called several unkind names.
Seems they didn't want to jump even the lowest hurdles to legality.
From my viewpoint, a PP,seeing
the onset of senile decrepitude, it was a welcome change.
All ya gotta do is build a 254# airplane. Lots of them have been
built so it is possible.
I think I want to build an ultralight canoe first.
BB
do not archive
On 28, Jan 2008, at 6:50 PM, Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> Seems like you're suggesting everyone should be okay with
> individuals deciding what acceptable risk is, such as driving 58
> and/or flying 15 lbs over. Or is it 16, or in reality 25? That
> might be kinda fun, and then maybe 10gallons and an occasional
> passenger should be fun too. Perhaps the counter to this is that
> you are simply asking for common sense. Well that's great too, but
> I think you gotta admit the UL thing got way out of whack. So
> rules, with clear definitions, are necessary.
>
> I have the impression that most of the aviation community is glad
> to have the whole thing clarified. The only way to keep it clear
> is to occasionally ramp check and fine someone "pushing the
> limits", regardless of whatever their "good judgement" may be.
> Same non-hypocritical reason I'm glad to see a cop pull over some
> free spirit (aka fill-in-the-blank) on the road. I also agree with
> the other comments that I'm tired of flying looking over my
> shoulder, which in one real example meant my high-minded airport
> manager could have kicked me out. With an N number he's gotta
> welcome me just like the King Air. Now that I think is pretty fun.
> -Ben
>
> JetPilot wrote:
>>
>> Well, if the law says 55, then thats it. Better not drive at 58
>> MPH, and if due to advances in cars, the 55 limit needs to be
>> changed, then legislation should be introduced, don't pretend it
>> does not exist. Sound familiar ???
>>
>> You are much more likely to do harm to property and life by
>> speeding than by being 15 pounds overweight in with your
>> ultralight. As for image, no one will ever know if your
>> ultralight is 15 pounds overweight or not, its far easier for
>> others to see you speeding.
>> When you get the emotion of aviation out of the picture and apply
>> the same standard to every day life, its just plain stupid and
>> hypocritical to worry about 15 pounds overweight in an ultralight
>> and then drive 3 MPH over the speed limit or more on a regular
>> basis and think its OK.
>>
>> You seem to have some issues with being consistent, and even more
>> importantly, you are unable to recognize which is more important
>> and more likely to result in damage to property and others, which
>> is the basis for ALL these rules we live by.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>
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: Big Island Volcano Flights |
> You gonna have'ta tighten up a bit. Every shot through the windshield
> indicated you were way out of trim.
Looks like you caught me standing on rudder to get pointed right for the pictures,
John. I've got ground bendable trim tabs on all three controls, and she flies
hands off (feet off too) with yaw string centered at cruise power. Should
have known there would be "eagle eyes" on the list. [Wink]
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161020#161020
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! --
|