Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:07 AM - Firestar project (william sullivan)
2. 05:36 AM - Firestar (william sullivan)
3. 06:05 AM - Re: Firestar (N27SB@aol.com)
4. 07:36 AM - Re: Firestar project (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
5. 07:57 AM - Firestar project (Jack B. Hart)
6. 07:59 AM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
7. 08:21 AM - Re: Firestar project (olendorf)
8. 08:25 AM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
9. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (John Hauck)
10. 08:48 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (John Hauck)
11. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Richard Girard)
12. 10:05 AM - Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic (Richard Girard)
13. 10:33 AM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
14. 10:40 AM - Re: Firestar project (Ralph B)
15. 10:41 AM - Re: Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic (JetPilot)
16. 10:52 AM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
17. 11:11 AM - Re: Firestar project (Denny Rowe)
18. 11:27 AM - Re: Firestar project (John Hauck)
19. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Denny Rowe)
20. 11:48 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Denny Rowe)
21. 12:06 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Richard Girard)
22. 12:18 PM - Re: Firestar project (Denny Rowe)
23. 01:01 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Jack B. Hart)
24. 01:12 PM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
25. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Richard Pike)
26. 01:25 PM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
27. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Russ Kinne)
28. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Jeremy Casey)
29. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Richard Pike)
30. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Bob Noyer)
31. 02:19 PM - Re: login ... (Bob Noyer)
32. 02:25 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Denny Rowe)
33. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Kolbdriver)
34. 02:48 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Jack B. Hart)
35. 04:20 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (possums)
36. 04:56 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (beauford T)
37. 06:06 PM - "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (N27SB@aol.com)
38. 06:06 PM - "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (N27SB@aol.com)
39. 08:06 PM - Re: Firestar project (WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com)
40. 08:39 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (DAquaNut@aol.com)
41. 09:04 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Ron)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Firestar project |
I guess I stirred the pot a little. Here is what I'm trying to do. After looking
very closely at the Firestar, I got the impression that the previous owner
was a little slack on his maintenance. Castle nuts with no cotter pins, safety
wire missing, a bunch of bent spare landing gear, the ASI static hose had fallen
off- he commented the speed reading was 20mph off, and so forth. I would
rather make my own mistakes, than wonder about what I haven't found. So, if I
have to thoroughly go over it, I may as well get as close to legal as common sense
dictates. If there is a conflict between law and common sense, go with the
common sense. I am going to be training on a grass field, so the soft turf tires
are going to stay. No reason to get hurt over a couple of pounds weight.
Same thing for the full enclosure- no distractions. The ten gallon tank is eventually
going to be replaced, as I don't like the color of the plastic- looks
too old. Do these things get brittle? The gas cap
did, and I fixed it with some hot glue. It will be replaced with a five gallon,
when convenient.
One thing no one mentioned regarding weight- I am about 170 dressed, and my
wife is about 50 pounds heavier. I would think the powers that be would be more
interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded instead of a couple
of pounds over. Luckily, the Firestar is capable of the difference.
Next question- The Mark III pictures (nice) show the tail wheel being about
at the center of the rudder. A picture of Ellery's showed about the same. Mine
is much closer to the rear of the rudder. Since mine has to be re-worked (a
little twisted, and worn cable hole) should I shorten the strut, or does it matter?
The tail wheel is all worn on the left side.
By the way, when I was in the trucking business, we worried more about "Was
it safe",
more than "Is it a couple of pounds over".
Bill Sullivan (old Firestar)
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 |
|
My wife reads this, so before I get in trouble- she is only 35 pounds heavier
than me. I had to say that so I can live to finish the Kolb.
Regarding the difference between English regulations and American regulations-
we have a slightly different attitude towards government here- check King
George III's notes on that. No offence, but we just think like that and it works.
Bill Sullivan, hoping to be still
here after the wife reads this.
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 |
|
William, Have her read Jet Pilot's post on the insignificance of 15 pounds
and see if that helps you out. (-:
Steve
do not archive
In a message dated 1/29/2008 8:37:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
williamtsullivan@att.net writes:
My wife reads this, so before I get in trouble- she is only 35 pounds
heavier than me. I had to say that so I can live to finish the Kolb.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: Firestar project |
Bill
First and foremost safety IS your major concern. What you do about the
planes over weight condition is your business but if you get caught
don't come crying to us. If your going to fly it as a ultralight there
are some red flags you really should look out for. If you have two seats
get rid of one. It you have more than a 5 gallon tank change it to one 5
gallon tank. I for one can't tell a firestar from a firefly without
seeing two seats or two five gallon tanks so change the name to a
firefly.
There, I think I said that without sticking my foot in my mouth like I
did on my last post.
Do not archive
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: william sullivan
To: kolb list
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Firestar project
I guess I stirred the pot a little. Here is what I'm trying to do.
After looking very closely at the Firestar, I got the impression that
the previous owner was a little slack on his maintenance. Castle nuts
with no cotter pins, safety wire missing, a bunch of bent spare landing
gear, the ASI static hose had fallen off- he commented the speed reading
was 20mph off, and so forth. I would rather make my own mistakes, than
wonder about what I haven't found. So, if I have to thoroughly go over
it, I may as well get as close to legal as common sense dictates. If
there is a conflict between law and common sense, go with the common
sense. I am going to be training on a grass field, so the soft turf
tires are going to stay. No reason to get hurt over a couple of pounds
weight. Same thing for the full enclosure- no distractions. The ten
gallon tank is eventually going to be replaced, as I don't like the
color of the plastic- looks too old. Do these things get brittle? The
gas cap did, and I fixed it with some hot glue. It will be replaced with
a five gallon, when convenient.
One thing no one mentioned regarding weight- I am about 170 dressed,
and my wife is about 50 pounds heavier. I would think the powers that be
would be more interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded
instead of a couple of pounds over. Luckily, the Firestar is capable of
the difference.
Next question- The Mark III pictures (nice) show the tail wheel
being about at the center of the rudder. A picture of Ellery's showed
about the same. Mine is much closer to the rear of the rudder. Since
mine has to be re-worked (a little twisted, and worn cable hole) should
I shorten the strut, or does it matter? The tail wheel is all worn on
the left side.
By the way, when I was in the trucking business, we worried more
about "Was it safe",
more than "Is it a couple of pounds over".
Bill Sullivan (old
Firestar)
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: | Firestar project |
Bill,
The FAA set some max and stall speed limits for the ultra light vehicle as
well as fuel capacity and empty weight limits. The last two are easily
verified on the ground, where as, the speed limits are not. To get around
this problem the FAA came up with a set of design conditions, so that if
they were met, you can fly above both speed limits and remain legal. They
published these design conditions as AC 103-7 Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4.
I have filled out a copy of these documents and carry them with me to
fly-ins. If the FAA wants to ramp check my FireFly, they are considered
sufficient proof that it is legal. If you would like to review the
documents, they can be found at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
On the subject of illegal flying I am neutral. I have known pilots who have
let their medicals lapse or who have lost there medical and continue to fly.
They fly from pastures and non-controlled airports. Most everyone knows
who they are, and no one says a thing because everyone knows they are going
to get old too. The ultra light vehicle is a way out for these folks. The
pilots I worry about are high confidence low hour pilots, who like low and
slow. Some of their rank will be lost no matter what they fly or their
licence status.
Fly safe,
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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 |
Hi Bill,
First of all, not your fault about what this has turned into, you asked a very
legitimate question and as much as we might bicker, no one is going to hold you
responsaible !
I'm glad you are going to do what is right for you, and keep your plane as strong
as you need it. The 10 gallons is a bit much, and a very obvious violation
in both the letter and spirit of the law, I would change that. Exceeding something
by 6 % is nothing, exceeding by 100 % is another matter :) Of course,
Richard Pike will probably want to take the gas out of your new tank, and
if it is a pint over 5 gallons, tell you to change it as you are still illegal
hahaha. Anyways, do what is safe, but keep your plane strong and durable,
trying to shave to much weight off leads to shortcuts that can be dangerous.
As far as the tailwheel, call Kolb and ask them what it is supposed to be. I
know some people cut the long tailwheel strut shorter on the MK III, but I would
never do that. That tailwheel rod is the shock absorber for the tial of the
plane, shortening it will subject the tail, and its support structure to much
more shock loads on the ground and could eventually make something more important
fail. I have an extra tail rod if mine ever bends....
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=161082#161082
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 |
> ... The ten gallon tank is eventually going to be replaced, as I don't like the
color of the plastic- looks too old. Do these things get brittle? The gas
cap did ... Bill Sullivan (old Firestar)
Yes, the gas tanks get brittle. When I cracked the cap on my tank I thought that
if the cap is brittle the tank must be too. I tested it by pushing my thumb
on the top corner and it went right through. So absolutely replace it.
Do you still have the fiberglass tailwheel rod? You probably do especially if your
tailwheel is wearing on one side. If you do I would suggest you get an aluminum
rod and replace it. You will need to heat the steel to soften the epoxy
to remove the old one.
I have the original blueprints and manual if you need some info I can photograph
some sections and send them to you.
--------
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop
Schenectady, NY
http://KolbFirestar.googlepages.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161090#161090
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 |
Richard Pike wrote:
>
>
> I don't want cops or FSDO guys to be judges, I want them to uphold the law.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard,
Worrying about 15 pounds over in an ultralight is about as uptight as you can get.
As far as cops go, judgment is an essential part of their job, I'm glad
most are fair and reasonable. If cops charged people for every non consequential
way in which we broke the law, be it 3 MPH over, signaling for 4.8 seconds
instead of 5, this world would be a horrible place to live. Thank god most
cops don't think like you do.
I think anyone reading this thread can now see where you are coming from. So if
you believe the smallest inconsequential transgression should be prosecuted,
and if you believe that everyone driving 58 in a 55 zone should be cited and
prosecuted, then by all means make sure your ultralight is not even one pound
over weight, and also while you are at it, do a precise measurement of the capacity
of the gas tank, after all, the sides might have bulged, and the new capacity
might be one pint over 5 gallons, which would be about 6 % over, and after
all, the law says a capacity 5 gallons no more !
Richard, whenever you ride in a car with your friends, make sure you start telling
them that they are breaking the law and should slow down if you see them going
3 MPH over the speed limit, you might learn something by their reactions
:). Learn some judgment and common sense, its important in life, and even more
important in flying ....
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=161092#161092
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
> As far as the tailwheel, call Kolb and ask them what it is supposed to
be. I know some people cut the long tailwheel strut shorter on the MK III,
but I would never do that. That tailwheel rod is the shock absorber for
the tial of the plane, shortening it will subject the tail, and its support
structure to much more shock loads on the ground and could eventually make
something more important fail. I have an extra tail rod if mine ever
bends....
>
> Mike
Mike B:
I like a short tail wheel strut. Much more positive control on the ground.
To top that off, I don't use the 7075 aluminum rod, but .120" 4130 heat
treated to RC48. Probably more gentle on the tail section than the standard
Kolb buggy whip aluminum rod.
Yes, I have torn up the tail section more times than I would like to admit,
because it is a major job to remove and repair. I don't believe the short
stiff tail wheel strut is responsible for the failures, but the 100+ lbs of
weight on the tailwheel caused by shifting my main gear 8" forward.
Plus..........a lot of hours in more than ideal "putting green" conditions.
We've got the tail section problem corrected and have not had any problems
back there in many, many hours.
As far as recommending some one break the law and encourage new guys to fly
illegally, I do not agree with that. I feel the Kolb List is not the
correct place to coach folks on how to successfully fly illegal airplanes.
Might be a good idea to take this kind of correspondence back copy. If you
all disagree with me, fine, but that is the way I feel about the situation.
In nearly 40 years flying professionally and flying Kolbs, I don't recall
approval of exceeding limits or busting regs by Army or civilian
authorities. Do I always fly around like Miss Goody, Goody Two Shoes? Not
hardly, but I ain't gonna encourage anyone else to do it. Have fun, fly
safe.
Take care,
john h
My mkIII - Flying legal for the past 16 years, 2,734.0 hrs. Plan on putting
a lot more hours on her.
My US and FS - 1,520.0 hours flown illegally.
Other's legal and illegal Kolbs - Have to dig out the log books for
that......................
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
you might learn something by their reactions :). Learn some judgment and
common sense, its important in life, and even more important in flying ....
>
> Mike
Thanks, Mike B:
I am going to take your advice to heart.
john h
mkIII - The new, mellow guy on the block. ;-)
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Mike, If you can't quit this diatribe, could you at least relabel it as "BS
rant about nothing" or something similar. Some of us would like to hear
about Bill's Firestar and not your philosophy.
Rick
do not archive
On Jan 29, 2008 10:22 AM, JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Pike wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't want cops or FSDO guys to be judges, I want them to uphold the
> law.
> > Richard Pike
> > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> Richard,
>
> Worrying about 15 pounds over in an ultralight is about as uptight as you
> can get. As far as cops go, judgment is an essential part of their job,
> I'm glad most are fair and reasonable. If cops charged people for every non
> consequential way in which we broke the law, be it 3 MPH over, signaling for
> 4.8 seconds instead of 5, this world would be a horrible place to live.
> Thank god most cops don't think like you do.
>
> I think anyone reading this thread can now see where you are coming from.
> So if you believe the smallest inconsequential transgression should be
> prosecuted, and if you believe that everyone driving 58 in a 55 zone should
> be cited and prosecuted, then by all means make sure your ultralight is not
> even one pound over weight, and also while you are at it, do a precise
> measurement of the capacity of the gas tank, after all, the sides might have
> bulged, and the new capacity might be one pint over 5 gallons, which would
> be about 6 % over, and after all, the law says a capacity 5 gallons no more
> !
>
> Richard, whenever you ride in a car with your friends, make sure you start
> telling them that they are breaking the law and should slow down if you see
> them going 3 MPH over the speed limit, you might learn something by their
> reactions :). Learn some judgment and common sense, its important in life,
> and even more important in flying ....
>
> 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=161092#161092
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic |
" A man who won't change his mind, or the subject.
Rick
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Mike, If you can't quit this diatribe, could you at least relabel it as "BS rant
about nothing" or something similar. Some of us would like to hear about Bill's
Firestar and not your philosophy.
>
> Rick
> do not archive
>
>
>
Well rick, for claiming not to like this subject and not wanting it on the list,
you have taken every opportunity to join in. So according to you, its OK for
you and people that share your opinion to post and continue this subject ( Richard
Pike ), but not others..
Looks like you are one of those " Do as I say , not as I do people ". Very lame.
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=161123#161123
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Even if the ultralight is 15 lbs overweight and you seem happy flying on 5 gallons
of fuel, more power to you. As for me, I like the idea of being able to carry
the extra 6 gallons so I can be go places. Can't do that in a legal ultralight
or one that's already 15 lbs overweight, unless you've got your fuel stops
very carefully planned. Therein lies the difference between a legal machine
and an illegal one.
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161124#161124
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: Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic |
If you don't like the subject, then don't join in on the discussion. It is very
obvious that you are unable to defend your position with any kind of logic
or reason, so now you are resorting to posting a pure personal attack in hopes
of distracting everyone from what we are discussing, and turning this into nothing
but bashing and ugliness.
What you are trying to do here is very obvious... And very distasteful.
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=161125#161125
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 |
Range has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. If you read my
first post on this subject, I said that having an N number would be the best way
to do it, but this is NOT a discussion on if William should N Number his plane
or not. This is TWICE in a row that you have obviously not read, and been
unable to follow the very simple idea of this whole thread. Why would anyone
listen to a guy that cant grasp a simple concept, and posts answers that do
not apply to the subject at hand ?
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=161128#161128
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
All,
I am impressed that this particular Firestar is so close (15lbs) to the
UL limit of 254. I say go for it, put in a five gallon tank and take
out everything you can and see if you can get it legal, maybe lighter
wheels, brakes? and tires are in order. Other than fuel and weight, all
Firestars should be Part 103 legal so give it a good effort and see if
you can get it legal.
Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3, N616DR
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 |
Denny:
I think the problem is the FS is way too fast and will not fit the
matrix to make it a legal UL even if it only weighs 254 or less, and has
5 gal fuel capacity.
The FF barely makes it, and only because of the matrix. Main reason the
FF has two lift struts per wing panel, to increase the drag component.
john h
mkIII
I say go for it, put in a five gallon tank and take out everything
you can and see if you can get it legal,
Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3, N616DR
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 |
> Range has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. If you
> read my first post on this subject, I said that having an N number would
> be the best way to do it, but this is NOT a discussion on if William
> should N Number his plane or not. This is TWICE in a row that you have
> obviously not read, and been unable to follow the very simple idea of this
> whole thread. Why would anyone listen to a guy that cant grasp a simple
> concept, and posts answers that do not apply to the subject at hand ?
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Mike,
It makes me very nervous that someone of your disposition is flying jets.
Range has everything to do with the legal, illegal debate and this Firestar
project.
Now lets see if you can grasp a simple concept.
Denny
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 |
John H,
If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a
light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit. Surely
that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they
add to make the Fly compliant?
Someone want to do the math for this one?
Denny
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: | Re: Firestar project |
What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to
Firefly dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord,
to think what his might bring to the discussion :-) ) to get the 24 knot CAS
requirement, but you would sure be losing weight.
Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.
Rick
On Jan 29, 2008 1:47 PM, Denny Rowe <rowedenny@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> John H,
> If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a
> light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit.
> Surely
> that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut
> they
> add to make the Fly compliant?
> Someone want to do the math for this one?
>
> Denny
>
>
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 |
-----Other than fuel and weight, all Firestars should be Part 103
legal so give it a good effort and see if you can get it legal.
Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3, N616DR
Whoops,I should have wrote all 377 and 447 powerd Firestars in the
above, obviously a 503 powered Firestar would not make compliance.Denny
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 02:47 PM 1/29/08 -0500, you wrote:
>
>John H,
>If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a
>light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit. Surely
>that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they
>add to make the Fly compliant?
>Someone want to do the math for this one?
>
Denny,
If Bill is serious about this, he can change to a 28 hp engine and save at least
40 pounds. With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly,
so it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements. If Bill's
Firestar has a 447 mounted and he changes engines, he will be giving up enough
hp so that he can fly with reduced drag and not exceed the max speed requirement.
To run the numbers, all one has to do it to follow:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
Taken from that page:
40 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 12.4
38 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 11.8
28 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 8.7
To get Bill's Firestar to comply with upper speed limit one would have to knock
off 3.7 drag units from my FireFly.
Drag Unit Reduction from FireFly
Single strut per wing => 0.8
Go to full enclosure => 2.0
Larger wing drag =>-0.25
Fair landing gear legs => 0.4
------
Total Reduction 2.95
This would give total drag factor of 8.6 which is very close to 8.7. Bill may
have to leave fairings off the landing gear legs. According to this his Firestar
should top out at 55 knots. I have found this graph to be conservative, so
I expect it would do better than this.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: Firestar project |
[quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]
What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly
dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think
what his might bring to the discussion :-) ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement,
but you would sure be losing weight.
Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.
Rick
> [b]
Rick
That is the worst idea I have heard to date, why would you shorten the wings,
and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed
? Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow
down as much as before in a forced landing. So you are suggesting that Bill
go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten
it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like that.
I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the worse
suggestions I have seen to date.
I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. " Sir, your plastic
fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit,
so I am going to have to violate you.. " Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH in
a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...
To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more
dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be. This
is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment
and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by a
couple percent. We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment in
the world as it is.
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=161173#161173
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: Firestar project |
I have a very good friend who has the amazing ability to misunderstand
and misconstrue anything said to him. Are you a relative of his?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
JetPilot wrote:
> <snip> Of course, Richard Pike will probably want to take the gas out of your
new tank, and if it is a pint over 5 gallons, tell you to change it as you are
still illegal hahaha.
>
> Mike
>
> -
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 |
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne wrote:
>
>
> Denny,
>
> If Bill is serious about this, he can change to a 28 hp engine and save at least
40 pounds. With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly,
so it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements. If Bill's
Firestar has a 447 mounted and he changes engines, he will be giving up enough
hp so that he can fly with reduced drag and not exceed the max speed requirement.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see what
the max speed of the ultralights are ? Your suggestion is nothing short of irresponsible.
Most people must be reading this and laughing at you, they just
aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public suggestion as I am.
Having more power = more options available when things go bad, which means
more safety. Steeper climb = More altitude and more options if the engine quits
at the end of the runway.
Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest putting
to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points in numbers.
This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in climb, and more
dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a little.
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=161178#161178
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Mike
Rick's not the only one, by far, who's sick your pontificating.
Lighten up! We read the list to learn something useful, not to get
an earful of your personal opinions-- e.g, the Gospel according to
Mike --
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:31 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>> Mike, If you can't quit this diatribe, could you at least relabel
>> it as "BS rant about nothing" or something similar. Some of us
>> would like to hear about Bill's Firestar and not your philosophy.
>>
>> Rick
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Well rick, for claiming not to like this subject and not wanting it
> on the list, you have taken every opportunity to join in. So
> according to you, its OK for you and people that share your opinion
> to post and continue this subject ( Richard Pike ), but not others..
>
> Looks like you are one of those " Do as I say , not as I do people
> ". Very lame.
>
> 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=161123#161123
>
>
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 |
>
> That is the worst idea I have heard to date, why would you shorten the wings,
and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed
? Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow
down as much as before in a forced landing. So you are suggesting that Bill
go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten
it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like
that. I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the
worse suggestions I have seen to date.
>
> I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. " Sir, your plastic
fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit,
so I am going to have to violate you.. " Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH
in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...
>
> To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more
dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be. This
is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment
and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by
a couple percent. We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment
in the world as it is.
>
> Mike
<snip>
With fear of stepping into someone else's fight...so all these Firefly's
with the shorter wings are BAD? Seems that a little higher wing loading
is a good, shall I say GREAT thing sometimes...like when there is a
little turbulence and/or thermal activity...by your reasoning we should
all be flying gliders...so they would have good engine out
characteristics ;-) That is a great characteristic, just not the only
one to consider in these great big balls of compromise that we call
airplanes...(or "vehicles" for you Part 103 folks...;-)
Jeremy "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" Casey
http://www.kilocharlie.us/superfly.htm
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: Firestar project |
Ok, I give up. I tried my best to explain the difference between dealing
with the law and the consequences of breaking it and my indifference to
what any of you choose to do about it, and that has been (deliberately?)
misconstrued.
I tried to point out (tongue in cheek) that I deal with idiot 25 mph
speed limits on 45 mph roads as I think best, am willing to take the
responsibility of getting busted for doing so, and even posted a picture
of my crotch rocket, and that has been (deliberately?) misconstrued.
Proverbs 26: 4 tells us "Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
lest you also be like him. " The next verse, Proverbs 26:5 says "Answer
a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Guys, I am done with trying to fulfill verse 5, and I leave it to you to
figure out how best to deal with verse 4.
The MKIII is coming into the garage tomorrow, some more mods to the
fuselage area, try to improve the airflow around the fuselage upper
rear, just ahead of the radiator, add a taper at the back end of the
fuselage, see if cleaning up that little flat area about 10" ahead of
the prop arc will do anything. Fix a glitch in the radio, different
intercom, etc.
Also bought myself a Hall wind meter, will be pulling off the VG's,
attaching the Hall to a lift strut, getting it pointed straight into the
relative wind at stall, and shooting some videos through stall to see
what this MKIII actually stalls at, power on and off, with and without
flaps, and satisfy myself as to just what she does. Then put the vg's
back on and do it all again. If I come up with anything worth sharing, I
might check back in this summer.
It's been a great ride, fair skies and tailwinds to you all,
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
JetPilot wrote:
>
> [quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]
> What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly
dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think
what his might bring to the discussion :-) ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement,
but you would sure be losing weight.
> Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>> [b]
>>
>
>
> Rick
>
> That is the worst idea I have heard to date, why would you shorten the wings,
and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed
? Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow
down as much as before in a forced landing. So you are suggesting that Bill
go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten
it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like
that. I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the
worse suggestions I have seen to date.
>
> I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. " Sir, your plastic
fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit,
so I am going to have to violate you.. " Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH
in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...
>
> To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more
dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be. This
is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment
and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by
a couple percent. We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment
in the world as it is.
>
> 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=161173#161173
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
Geez Louise, this here FarStar thread has become a hawser around our
lower alimentary outlet! Let's an- ull all this, before we say more
nasty things.
Don't have to kiss and make up, just kinda let the thread, already
unravelled, part, as we say in the Senior Service.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb, mostly legal 'cept fer the two holes
fer mah size 9.5 EEEEEE foot brakes to stick out.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not archive
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 |
|
Tim,
try:
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not archive
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
>
> Denny,
>
. With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly, so
it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements. >
Jack H
Jack,
I would think that a Firestar that is this close to 254 pounds would already
have a slower stall speed and lighter wing loading than a Firefly with its
much smaller wing area.
I doubt the engine size would need to be reduced to achieve legal UL speed
limits on paper as long as the few pounds could be removed elswhere.
Sincerely,
Denny
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 |
Gents,
If in outlook you will right click on his message.
Select Junk email
Then select add sender to blocked senders list
All of the list DH's Crap will go where it belongs..
In the junk mail folder.
I'm sure other email programs have similar options..
Mike
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russ Kinne
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project
Mike
Rick's not the only one, by far, who's sick your pontificating.
Lighten up! We read the list to learn something useful, not to get
an earful of your personal opinions-- e.g, the Gospel according to
Mike --
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:31 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>> Mike, If you can't quit this diatribe, could you at least relabel
>> it as "BS rant about nothing" or something similar. Some of us
>> would like to hear about Bill's Firestar and not your philosophy.
>>
>> Rick
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Well rick, for claiming not to like this subject and not wanting it
> on the list, you have taken every opportunity to join in. So
> according to you, its OK for you and people that share your opinion
> to post and continue this subject ( Richard Pike ), but not others..
>
> Looks like you are one of those " Do as I say , not as I do people
> ". Very lame.
>
> 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=161123#161123
>
>
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 |
At 01:21 PM 1/29/08 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see what
the max speed of the ultralights are ? Your suggestion is nothing short of
irresponsible. Most people must be reading this and laughing at you, they just
aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public suggestion as I
am. Having more power = more options available when things go bad, which means
more safety. Steeper climb = More altitude and more options if the engine
quits at the end of the runway.
>
>Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest putting
to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points in numbers.
This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in climb, and
more dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a little.
>
>Mike
>
Mike,
This has been a discussion about what can be done to make a Firestar a legal
ultralight vehicle. As my right, I have posted my opinion and you have
posted your opinion of my opinion, which is your right. I believe Bill is
capable of deciding for him self as to what he wants to do with my post.
You do not understand. I don't care if people laugh at me or not. I have
more faith in numbers than suppositions. The numbers, based on existing
wing and power loading, say that a Firestar can fly very safely with only 28
hp.
Your incessant claim of a requirement for power tends to lead me to believe
you use it as a crutch for your lack of adequate piloting skills or your
discomfort in flying in very very light aircraft. I find your heaviness, to
use one of your terms, "anal". Please lighten up, drink a beer with a
friend, find some companionship, or find medical help.
Just for your info, I have a 27hp MZ34 sitting on the table in my shop.
Today I finished the computations to see how the cg change in mounting it.
Even with a bulk head mount off the back, the cg moved forward and just one
inch. I believe it will cut close to 50 pounds off the FireFly. I will add
some weight back with a full enclosure so I can do more winter flying. If
and when it gets done, the FireFly will remain a true ultralight vehicle. It
will continue to be as safe as the person who flys it.
In answer to your question, during a ramp check a pilot of an ultralight
vehicle has to prove that the unregistered aircraft he is flying is an
ultralight vehicle. The FAA has deemed that a properly filled out AC 103-7
Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4 is sufficient proof.
Once again, Mike have a nice day and fly safe.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 03:20 PM 1/28/2008, you wrote:
>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.
Let me reply to my own post - That is, if you are 15 pounds
overweight and don't have
N-numbers, you are going to "stand out" in the crowd now - more that
before, and if
you don't have N-numbers you are more likely to be ramped checked
after Jan 31st.
Not that the 15lbs is any worse than we've all been doing for the
past 20 years, but
when we all were doing it and nobody had N-numbers - you were a lot
less likely
to be questioned.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
...so there...!
Seafoam anyone...?
beauford...
do not archive...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project
At 01:21 PM 1/29/08 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see
>what the max speed of the ultralights are ? Your suggestion is nothing
>short of irresponsible. Most people must be reading this and laughing at
>you, they just aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public
>suggestion as I am. Having more power = more options available when things
>go bad, which means more safety. Steeper climb = More altitude and more
>options if the engine quits at the end of the runway.
>
>Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest
>putting to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points
>in numbers. This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in
>climb, and more dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a
>little.
>
>Mike
>
Mike,
This has been a discussion about what can be done to make a Firestar a legal
ultralight vehicle. As my right, I have posted my opinion and you have
posted your opinion of my opinion, which is your right. I believe Bill is
capable of deciding for him self as to what he wants to do with my post.
You do not understand. I don't care if people laugh at me or not. I have
more faith in numbers than suppositions. The numbers, based on existing
wing and power loading, say that a Firestar can fly very safely with only 28
hp.
Your incessant claim of a requirement for power tends to lead me to believe
you use it as a crutch for your lack of adequate piloting skills or your
discomfort in flying in very very light aircraft. I find your heaviness, to
use one of your terms, "anal". Please lighten up, drink a beer with a
friend, find some companionship, or find medical help.
Just for your info, I have a 27hp MZ34 sitting on the table in my shop.
Today I finished the computations to see how the cg change in mounting it.
Even with a bulk head mount off the back, the cg moved forward and just one
inch. I believe it will cut close to 50 pounds off the FireFly. I will add
some weight back with a full enclosure so I can do more winter flying. If
and when it gets done, the FireFly will remain a true ultralight vehicle. It
will continue to be as safe as the person who flys it.
In answer to your question, during a ramp check a pilot of an ultralight
vehicle has to prove that the unregistered aircraft he is flying is an
ultralight vehicle. The FAA has deemed that a properly filled out AC 103-7
Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4 is sufficient proof.
Once again, Mike have a nice day and fly safe.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: | "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
In a message dated 1/29/2008 4:43:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy@kilocharlie.us writes:
"clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe"
Thanks for posting the pictures Jeremy,
How short are you going on the wings
What kind of struts
what kind of engine
What is that frame hanging from the ceiling?
Steve B
Firefly 007/Floats with small unsafe wings (-:
do not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
Oh, changed the Tagline in case anyone was interested in your project.
steve
In a message dated 1/29/2008 4:43:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy@kilocharlie.us writes:
"clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe"
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
In a message dated 1/29/2008 8:08:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
williamtsullivan@att.net writes:
One thing no one mentioned regarding weight- I am about 170 dressed, and my
wife is about 50 pounds heavier. I would think the powers that be would be
more interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded instead of a
couple of pounds over. Luckily, the Firestar is capable of the difference.
HI BILL SULLIVAN,
Does the above comment indicate that you might take your wife along as a
passenger??? Or were you just talking about the difference in weight if she
were to pilot it?
I had previously answered your original thread directly to you, but I'll
post this one for all to read.
Just for every one's information:
On June 30, 1989 I purchased a FireStar kit from old Kolb. The
specification list that came with the advertising brochure states the following:
Wing Span 27' 8"
Wing Area 149 sq ft
Length 20' 3"
Length folded 21' 3"
Height 5' 8" (same folded)
Width (folded) 66"
Load factor 4+, 2-
Reduction unit Rotax integral gearbox with vibration damper
Propeller 66 X 28
Fuel Capacity 5 gal
Rate of climb 1,000 FPM
Weight 264 lbs *
Engine Rotax 377
Take off distance 100 ft (grass)
Top speed 63 MPH (Partial enclosure)
*Needs parachute to be legal ultralight.
My kit came with the main landing gear legs only 1" in dia., where they went
into the airframe. The axle holder was a light weight welded piece using
small plastic wheels with no brakes. The windshield was a short one, about 1/3
coverage, and the center section cover was fabric, with a zipper to secure
the two halves.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Kit price on 6/30/89 $5695 included engine!!!
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
In a message dated 1/29/2008 4:49:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jbhart@onlyinternet.net writes:
Just for your info, I have a 27hp MZ34 sitting on the table in my shop.
Today I finished the computations to see how the cg change in mounting it.
Even with a bulk head mount off the back, the cg moved forward and just one
inch. I believe it will cut close to 50 pounds off the FireFly. I will add
some weight back with a full enclosure so I can do more winter flying. If
and when it gets done, the FireFly will remain a true ultralight vehicle. It
will continue to be as safe as the person who flys it.
In answer to your question, during a ramp check a pilot of an ultralight
vehicle has to prove that the unregistered aircraft he is flying is an
ultralight vehicle. The FAA has deemed that a properly filled out AC 103-7
Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4 is sufficient proof.
Once again, Mike have a nice day and fly safe.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Jack,
Now is as good a time as ever to thank you for taking the time to
document and share your experiments and findings to the list, as I know it takes
of your time. I for one have benefited from your documentations. I too want
to find a lighter alternative to the rotax. I have pondered the 1/2 VW ,but
need to know more about it. I have also looked at the MZ 34. You are NOT the
only one on this list that wants to be legal. I for one am not laughing at
you. I commend you for the way you handle things in a civil manner ! Please
keep us posted on the MZ 34 project! Reducing the FF weight by 50 lbs would
reduce stall speed by a good bit.
I hope the weather cooperates so everyone can go fly. That should
help everyone to be a little kinder to each other!
Ed FF 62 Do Not Archive !
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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 |
Folks
I have been reading this thread for a while and its quite entertaining, I am not
getting irate at anyone or anything, what for.
But, and this is very important to at least settle one aspect of this Mmmm lively
discussion. First there is that purported threat that the Gestapo will bust
you because your Airplane / Ultralight is obese.
So I am going to address just the legality of the subject.
First how will they tell if your craft is obese?
They can't unless you tell them or let them. You need to understand that your craft
is your private property and they have no right to weigh it without your
permission. So if your craft is obese do not talk about its weight or allow anyone
to weigh it in their presence, same is with the fuel tank. In America we
have rights, in AmeriKa we don't. I suggest that we all remember in which America
we want to live and in which America we do live. If its me I would simply
fly off in my obese ultralight and leave them behind. If you do have an obese
craft your worst enemy is what you say, so say nothing and tell them to get away
from your private property, and they *will*. As for the advisability of having
an obese craft I leave that up to each of us. Its better to be inside the
rules just so we can feel good. But I would not be worried that they are going
to weigh my airplane without my permission, they can't they have no right at
all, and in fact its against the law for anyone to mess with your private property.
You can call the cops on them if they bug you too much, which they won't
if you tell them to leave you alone. They are trained to know the law, and they
are also trained at how to elicit information from you by talking to you, so
don't talk...
Ron (Arizona)
Do not archive
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! --
|