---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 01/28/08: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:33:58 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "JetPilot" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:35:36 AM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:22:02 AM PST US From: "Edward Bonsell" Subject: Kolb-List: Cable thimbles 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:53:50 AM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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: > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:07 AM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 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: > > > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:04:44 AM PST US From: Ron Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project Wait a minute the speed limit is the minimum you can go, not the maximum. :-) Ron (Arizona) do not archive ======================= ---- JetPilot 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:30:33 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "R. Hankins" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:21:07 AM PST US From: "pj.ladd" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:39:28 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: M3X update From: "icrashrc" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:44:06 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: M3X update From: "icrashrc" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:42 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: M3X update From: "icrashrc" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:35 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: M3X update From: "icrashrc" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:56:23 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: M3X update From: "icrashrc" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:29 PM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: M3X update 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:05:00 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "JetPilot" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:23:06 PM PST US From: possums Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:33 PM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: M3X update 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:55:59 PM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ) 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:00:38 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "Ralph B" "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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:22 PM PST US From: "Bryan Dever" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:35:27 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Big Island Volcano Flights From: "Dave Bigelow" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:56:32 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "lucien" [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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:30:42 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: M3X update From: "icrashrc" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:51:09 PM PST US From: Arksey@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:13:06 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Big Island Volcano Flights From: "John Williamson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:03 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:28:36 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: M3X update > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:53:17 PM PST US From: Ben Ransom Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:37 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:30 PM PST US From: "Steve Garvelink" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:43 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "JetPilot" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:55:12 PM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:26:49 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project From: "Richard Pike" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:34 PM PST US From: Russ Kinne Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:05 PM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: M3X update 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:07 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: M3X update 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:38 PM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:34 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: M3X update 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:23 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: M3X update From: "icrashrc" [/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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:59 PM PST US From: artdog1512 Subject: Kolb-List: login ... 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:28 PM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:38:31 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Big Island Volcano Flights From: "Dave Bigelow" > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kolb-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.