Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:35 AM - FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Richard Girard)
2. 03:46 AM - Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
3. 03:49 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Dana Hague)
4. 04:12 AM - Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
5. 04:35 AM - Re: Firestar project (Dana Hague)
6. 04:45 AM - Re: Firestar (pj.ladd)
7. 05:05 AM - Firestar project (william sullivan)
8. 06:21 AM - Re: Firestar project (John Hauck)
9. 08:10 AM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Ron)
10. 10:39 AM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Russ Kinne)
11. 10:44 AM - Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (Jeremy Casey)
12. 10:51 AM - Kolb-List Fat Firestar ROTAX GURU (BMWBikeCrz@aol.com)
13. 11:50 AM - Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (N27SB@aol.com)
14. 01:18 PM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (John Hauck)
15. 02:24 PM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Jim ODay)
16. 03:06 PM - Cleaning up a Mark-III (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
17. 05:10 PM - Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (ElleryWeld@aol.com)
18. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Bryan Dever)
19. 05:52 PM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (N27SB@aol.com)
20. 06:25 PM - Re: Firestar project main spar attachment (Richard Girard)
21. 06:46 PM - Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III (John Hauck)
22. 06:49 PM - Firestar project (william sullivan)
23. 06:51 PM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (John Hauck)
24. 06:55 PM - 912ULS Mag Drop (John Hauck)
25. 06:56 PM - Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III (Steven Green)
26. 07:50 PM - Re: Firestar project (DAquaNut@aol.com)
27. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (possums)
28. 11:19 PM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Dan G.)
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: | FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The facts,
ma'am, just the facts."
(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to
determine the applicability of this part.
(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the
Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject
only to the provisions of this part.
Here's where you can find them:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14
Rick
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
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.
>>
They are in the UK, which is why the limiting weight for an ultralight
here is the MTOW. For calculation purposes there is a standard weight
for the pilot and passenger.
Cheers
Pat
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 11:59 PM 1/29/2008, Ron wrote:
>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...
I wish it were so:
=A7 103.3 Inspection requirements.
(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle
to determine the applicability of this part.
(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of
the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is
subject only to the provisions of this part.
-Dana
--
A rolling stone .... kills worms
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 |
The FAA set some max and stall speed limits >>
Really? You have max speed limits?. Here we have many ultralight types with
top speeds over a 100mph. One making 130 I believe. Stall speed is the main
performance regulator, 35.
Cheers
Pat
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
At 07:06 AM 1/30/2008, pj.ladd wrote:
>The FAA set some max and stall speed limits >>
>Really? You have max speed limits?. Here we have many ultralight types
>with top speeds over a 100mph. One making 130 I believe. Stall speed is
>the main performance regulator, 35.
Pat, for "true" ultralights the maxes are 24 knots stall and 55 knots level
flight at WOT... but the Part 103 regulations are so loose (including no
license or registration) that there are many advantages to this category,
IF you can meet the 254 lb empty weight limit. For "Light-Sport Aircraft"
(comparable to your microlight category) it's 1320 lbs empty, 45 knot stall
and 120 knot max.
-Dana
--
For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.
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 |
|
check King George III's notes on that. >>
Hi Bill,
I liked that.
We do have a different attitude here than in the US. Long may it
continue, for both of us. To some extent I think it is a function of
the size of the US. There are lots of places in the States where I am
sure you could get away with minor infrigments of regulaions all your
life. We are just too small for that to work. Unfortunately the more
people that exist in a confined space the more regulation it takes to co
exist.
We have just introduced a virtual regulation free category for a/c
weighing less than 115Kg which is rather like your ultralight rules and
it will be interesting to see what that produces. Our `microlight`
category rules are stringently drawn where it matters, MTOW and stall
speed being paramount. The MTOW weight has been raised steadily as
things have progressed and we have moved closer to parity with the rest
of Europe. It is rather like yacht racing .If you want development in a
certain directio then you change the rules .By defining waterline
length, the sail area, etc. This approach has seen many microlights here
with top speeds around and above 100 mph with 2 up with a 11 litre per
hour fuel burn,when crjuising.They still retain the slow speed handling
and stall characteristics which keep the planes within the flying
capabilities of the average low hours pilot.The new Dynamic has been
clocked at 120kt at 5500rpm and on properly calibrated runs at 131kt .
Pretty nifty.Mind you it is priced at =A367,650 for the 912 version
plus =A33000 for the 912S ready to fly which is a bit salty for my
taste.
Bucking the system of course takes place with minor things but it is not
too difficult in the event of a crunch (Which WILL be investigated) to
calculate if you were overweight on take off. If you were. Your
insurance will be invalid on the plane, yourself, any 3rd party
involved. So if you go down in a field and kill somebodies Aberdeen
Angus Prize Bull you, or your widow, will have a lot o money to find.
Cheers
Pat
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: | Firestar project |
Everybody keep talking- I'm learning! Thanks for all the information.
My wife would be flying alone. It is only a single seat. This is an old Firestar,
and I still haven't found a serial number. I suspect it is an early one.
The landing gear legs measure 1" where they go into the socket. It has a two
blade 66" Warp Drive prop, no brakes, full enclosure, minimal instrumentation,
a BRS, full size wings, and 15-6.00x6 tires with tubes on tubeless aluminum
rims. No flaps or flaperons. Fiberglass tailwheel strut with about a 4" plastic
wheel. Ten gallon tank. The tank is going to be switched out to 5 gallon, and
that should save a pound or so. Someone said the original had Azusa nylon wheels
with 4" tires. Does anyone know the weight savings by switching?
Keep in mind that this is my first aircraft project, and I find it an intellectual
challenge to trim weight, as well as a lot of fun. I need all the advice
you can give me. I do not have the current knowledge or experience to work
the numbers.
I didn't mention a couple of things. It came through with 2 sets of struts-
one set of round aluminum that I believe are original; and a second set that
are streamlined steel(?) that are twice as heavy, but I didn't stick a magnet
to yet. I'm using the round ones for the weight.
Extra speed does not matter. Range does not matter- only local flying is anticipated,
an hour or so at a time. Safety in handling is a priority- our first
ultralight.
Another question- The wings have three holes at the front attachment point
for changing the angle, and the former owner recommended the middle hole. Any
opinions?
Another thing to keep in mind is that I am not an engineer. My background is
more of welding and fabricating with heavy steel. That is why I'm having fun
with all this, and my back hasn't hurt doing it. Love the Kolb, even without
getting it off the ground!
Bill Sullivan
antique Firestar
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 |
Bill S:
What is your aviation background, i.e., flying experience?
I know you said you planned only to fly locally for an hour at a time.
I said the same thing before I flew my first Kolb 24 years ago. That
lasted two weeks and I had begun my cross country career.
Another thing to remember. Take a look around and see how many folks
are flying with Azusa nylon wheels. Probably not more than a couple out
of the thousands that have been sent out with kits over the many years
Kolb has been producing kits. There is a reason for that. They are
built light and weak. Brakes, I flew without them for several years.
Even did a flight from Alabama to New York State and back without them.
However, it was a pain in the ass and brakes, later on, made my aircraft
much, much safer.
Guess it all depends on what you want. If you are like most of us, you
will want to improve your airplane and not degrade it attempting to
reduce weight.
As far as meeting the FAR 103 requirement of 254 lbs, that one is going
to be extremely tough to make with a Firestar. You can go to a smaller,
lighter engine. The FS was designed to fly on 35 hp. It will probably
fly on half that. I think you will be degrading performance and the
fun of flying a sporty airplane.
Good luck,
john h
mkIII
Another thing to keep in mind is that I am not an engineer. My
background is more of welding and fabricating with heavy steel. That is
why I'm having fun with all this, and my back hasn't hurt doing it. Love
the Kolb, even without getting it off the ground!
Bill Sullivan
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Thanks for the quote.
Heck I don't remember seeing that before, Not surprising as I have yet to operate
under FAR 103 however still even though its worded vaguely (shall, upon
Request, allow the Administrator, or his designee ) and of course on purpose that
way. None of us have given away any of out constitutional rights. I rather
contest that later in court if they want to than to have them bust me right there
and then on a real violation.
What happens if I deny their request, what can they do? Has anyone ever got busted?
It also does not give a time frame as to when one must comply with the request,
what happens if I say "come back next week I don't have time for it right now"
and then fly off? Where do I even have to tell them who I am or any other information?
I agree its better to be within the rules than to have to put up with
the Gestapo but we do have the choice of not having to. Remember its a rule
not a Law!
Ron (Arizona)
===========
---- Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com> wrote:
============
Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The facts,
ma'am, just the facts."
(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to
determine the applicability of this part.
(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the
Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject
only to the provisions of this part.
Here's where you can find them:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14
Rick
--
kugelair.com
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Ron
I appreciate your position. We live in the Land of the Free -- we're
free to tangle with the Feds in court, go up against their M OST
talented lawyers, have them jerk us around for several years until
we've spent all our money and a whomping big bunch of time (during
which we can't fly at all) and then lose the case. Count on it.
A disgusting situation but there it is. In my very amateur opinion
On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:58 AM,Ron wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quote.
> Heck I don't remember seeing that before, Not surprising as I have
> yet to operate under FAR 103 however still even though its worded
> vaguely (shall, upon
> Request, allow the Administrator, or his designee ) and of course
> on purpose that way. None of us have given away any of out
> constitutional rights. I rather contest that later in court if they
> want to than to have them bust me right there and then on a real
> violation.
> What happens if I deny their request, what can they do? Has anyone
> ever got busted?
> It also does not give a time frame as to when one must comply with
> the request, what happens if I say "come back next week I don't
> have time for it right now" and then fly off? Where do I even have
> to tell them who I am or any other information? I agree its better
> to be within the rules than to have to put up with the Gestapo but
> we do have the choice of not having to. Remember its a rule not a Law!
>
> Ron (Arizona)
>
> ===========
> ---- Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ============
> Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The
> facts,
> ma'am, just the facts."
>
> (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part
> shall, upon
> request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the
> vehicle to
> determine the applicability of this part.
>
> (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon
> request of the
> Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is
> subject
> only to the provisions of this part.
> Here's where you can find them:
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
> c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14
> :2.0.1.3.16&idno=14
>
> Rick
>
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
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: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
> "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
<snip>
Wings are going to be 22' just like Firefly/Slingshot...7 full ribs
instead of the 5 on a Firefly. Single lift struts. incidence and
decalage rigged like the Slingshot to get the 3 point stance up with the
lower AOA of the wing. Flip-over Slingshot-like canopy. Will have
longer than stock Firestar legs...most likely straight like the Kolbra
instead of bent like the Slingshot. Have a 503 to put on it but am
trying to talk myself into the HKS.
Jeremy Casey
The cage was a Kitfox Series 5 project that I decided not to build...got
my money back out of it and sent it on its way.
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: | Kolb-List Fat Firestar ROTAX GURU |
Hi all ... Kinda getting a little terse around here ....
Hopefully we all can step back and take a deep breath ...
My Firestar IS now legal ... now I have to go to school to keep it so :-( and
now "the man" knows way more about me and my little plane than I ever
Intended ! Kinda like when we have to surrender our cash and guns ... God dont
let
Hillary win ...
I have asked and gotten some good information but need spicifics on
firestar strutts need actual info on making streamlined adjustable strutts ...
also need info on a provision 8 377 case can I mate it to a provision 4
gearbox somehow can I still use the points ignition can I use a provision 4
crankshaft ...
Also can I use a 447 top end on the cases ...?
Thanks! Dave
**************
Start the year off
right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
In a message dated 1/30/2008 1:44:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy@kilocharlie.us writes:
Have a 503 to put on it but am
trying to talk myself into the HKS.
Sounds good, did you make provisions for the added weight of the HKS?
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 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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
> A disgusting situation but there it is.
Russ K:
What is disgusting about breaking the law, trying to beat the rap, spending
all your money doing it, and have the Feds eat you for lunch?
Seriously, if you break the law, Part 103, which in my opinion is spelled
out so that even I can understand it, you gonna pay the consequences. I
don't see anything vague about the FAA asking to inspect my unregistered
airplane and me complying.
I flew heavy ULs for a while, was not comfortable doing it, and experienced
a great sense of relief when I started flying my experiemental homebuilt
that was legal with inflight hull and liability insurance. Previously, I
was flying with no insurance because I was illegal and none was available
for an unregistered airplane.
Cost much more to fly now, but probably a lot cheaper in the long run.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
I agree with what John H said. I flew my fat UL in 2005 and was always worried
about having a forced landing in a bean field and some good Samaritan calling
911 and the sheriff showing up with the next call to the FAA.
I know the rules, I would get penalized with a suspension and having to answer
the violation question forever on insurance applications.
I parked it till I was able to get legal and what a relief. I fly now with the
hope someone does call 911 if I have a forced landing. They can help haul me
or my plane out of the field, depending on what gets damaged.
Fly safe.
Jim
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161425#161425
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: | Cleaning up a Mark-III |
Richard Pike wrote: << 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, ... see if cleaning up that little flat area
about 10" ahead of the prop arc will do anything. >>
Kolb Friends -
I was thinking of trying to make improvements in this area as well.
I, too, built my Mark-III with the upper half of the rear fuselage pod
open. I believe this contributes to a large chunk of the overall drag
on my plane.
Earlier Mark-IIIs (like Hauck's) had fabric all the way up to the bottom
of the wing, like the Firestar. This configuration seems like it would
be less draggy, as the airflow coming around the fuselage sides would
follow a more streamlined and uniform path toward the prop. On my
Mark-III, the airflow spills around the aft edge of my doors, separates,
and (I'm sure) crates turbulent eddy currents (which equals gobs of
drag) in that whole area aft of the cabin. This was one of the design
improvement goals that New Kolb set out to achieve with the Xtra, I've
been told.
Would it help reduce drag by simply adding a flat panel to each upper
side of the fuselage cage, to keep the airflow moving? I'm thinking of
using 1/16" Lexan, attached using Adel clamps to the cage tubes in that
area.
Somebody on this List once said that the biggest ways to increase our
Kolbs' performance is to concentrate efforts on ways of reducing drag.
This fuselage panel thing seems to fall in that category. Opinions?
Thanks -
Dennis Kirby
912ul, Powerfin-72, in
Cedar Crest, NM
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: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
Jeremy
I have installed and set up two HKS Engines I dont think you will be
disapointed with one on your kolb there a very nice 4 stroker only my opinion
I had another airplane N941LA get its airworthyness today 6 more planes to
finish now
Ellery in Maine
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 1/30/2008 1:44:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
1planeguy@kilocharlie.us writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jeremy Casey <1planeguy@kilocharlie.us>
> "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
<snip>
Wings are going to be 22' just like Firefly/Slingshot...7 full ribs
instead of the 5 on a Firefly. Single lift struts. incidence and
decalage rigged like the Slingshot to get the 3 point stance up with the
lower AOA of the wing. Flip-over Slingshot-like canopy. Will have
longer than stock Firestar legs...most likely straight like the Kolbra
instead of bent like the Slingshot. Have a 503 to put on it but am
trying to talk myself into the HKS.
Jeremy Casey
The cage was a Kitfox Series 5 project that I decided not to build...got
my money back out of it and sent it on its way.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Over the years, there have been a few incidents and accidents involving fat
ultralights near my old field. If the sheriff is called out, he always
calls the faa. He says it is their call whether it is an airplane or an UL.
The FAA usually shows up and looks at the pile of tubes and fabric and says
"ultralight, no investigation" They never weigh them. If it has one seat,
5 galon tank and looks like an ultralight...case closed. They don't want to
do the paperwork.
That said, if the plane crashed somewhere it shouldn't be, like downtown or
a schoolyard, I am sure they would nail you to a cross.
If you crash an N numbered plane, isn't there always an investigation?
Bryan D
> I parked it till I was able to get legal and what a relief. I fly now
> with the hope someone does call 911 if I have a forced landing. They can
> help haul me or my plane out of the field, depending on what gets damaged.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Jim
>
> --------
> Jim O'Day
> Fargo, ND
> Firestar II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161425#161425
>
>
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
John, Things have changed, First Flight now offers insurance for
ultralights for about $360
a year. However I am sure that they still expect it to be a REAL Ultralight.
Steve
do not archive
In a message dated 1/30/2008 4:19:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jhauck@elmore.rr.com writes:
Previously, I
was flying with no insurance because I was illegal and none was available
for an unregistered airplane.
Cost much more to fly now, but probably a lot cheaper in the long run.
Take care,
john h
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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 main spar attachment |
William, I pulled out my Firestar's assembly manual and checked the Final
wing rigging and lift struts section (pages 32 and 33 on my manual, dated
1985, yours could be different).
There is no mention of three holes, just a single 5/16" hole. There is an
admonition to "maintain a healthy edge distance" when drilling this hole.
Perhaps this was a homegrown modification that gained traction later on, I
don't know.
In general empty holes are considered a place for cracks to start in
aircraft structures. Do you have any precision measuring capability? It
would be good to know just how much distance there is between the edges of
holes and the distance from each hole to the edge of the fitting. This area
is in compression during normal flight, but in a negative G situation there
is a possibility of a shear tear out when this area is loaded in tension.
This would be subject to just how much material is there.
I do not have 5 rib wing drawings, just the 7 rib. It shows the pin center
to edge as 5/16" or a .156" (5/32") edge margin.
By contrast Boeing specifies a default .35 edge margin unless otherwise
shown on the drawing.
This is one you might want to give the factory a call on and get their
blessing.
Rick
P.S. The pic is of the right wing attachment on mine. - Show quoted text -
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: Cleaning up a Mark-III |
> Earlier Mark-IIIs (like Hauck's) had fabric all the way up to the bottom
> of the wing, like the Firestar.
>
> Dennis Kirby
Dennis:
Sorry, but mkIII's have always be designed and kitted with the lower half of
the rear fuselage covered.
Seemed to me to be an ideal place to put a big fuel tank and get some use
out of that big empty space. We ended up with a nice 25 gal useable
aluminum tank.
Nope, that is an original Hauck design change, not Kolb.
john h
mkIII
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: | Firestar project |
Progress- I took off the tailwheel bracket in order to change the wheel and straighten
the clevis glued to the fiberglass strut. The clevis had been glued
on twisted, and the tail wheel was badly worn on one side. I heated the clevis
to soften the glue, and it went bang and gave a small jet of flame. Luckily,
I was wearing glasses and was off to one side. I twisted it gently and let it
cool down. Worked great. The tailwheel axle was held in by two aluminum rivets.
It was also rusted in place. I turned down and cut a 7/16" clevis pin into a
bushing driver, heated the axle brackets, and it slid out. Cleaned it up with
a Dremel. Travis at Kolb has it in stock. I have to repair the tubing where the
steering cables attach. They were almost worn through. Lots of detail work
on something this old. I also have to cut off the aluminum sleeve that holds one
wheel on, with a cotter pin through it. Siezed up on the steel axle. Travis
is sending some tube stock. Tip on jacking: This
plane has tubular axles. Stick a lon 5/8" bolt in the back of the axle, and use
an old Chevy truck jack. This is the jack with an internal screw, and has a
drop-down hook plate. Works great. Only problem was that the ice was slowly melting.
and the jack was sinking. I am jealous of all you indoor plane fixers.
Bill Sullivan
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Nope!
john h
mk III
If you crash an N numbered plane, isn't there always an
investigation?
Bryan D
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 |
|
Gang:
My idea of why the mag was dropping was correct.
After oiling the throttle clevis's, changing spark plugs, with no
improvement, I played with the enricher at 4000 rpm while performing the mag
check. Indication was lean condition at 4000 rpm.
Today, despite the wind and cold, I got the needles raised a notch, which
puts the clip in the bottom groove of the fuel needles. It worked. Now I
am a happy camper once again.
Proves not all 912 engines are created equal. I never encountered this
problem with my last 912ULS.
Didn't get to test fly because it was getting late by the time I finished
up.
These new generation Bing carbs are much easier to get to the top innards of
the carb to get at the fuel needles. The older ones were a little more work
intensive.
Always feels good to get those little problems solved.
john h
mkIII
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: Cleaning up a Mark-III |
Dennis,
My MKIII is also open behind cabin on the upper part. I discussed closing
it in with Mr. Kolb at TNK and what he thought the difference would be. He
thought the advantage would be very little for aerodynamics. If I ever do
any work in that area I will probably still close it in for the cargo space.
John H. and I flew within sight of each other for about 13 hours last May.
Both planes are Kolb Mark 3s with 912Ss and a lot of differences otherwise .
I used 0.25 - 0.5 gph less than he did. I realize this is apples and
oranges but I tend to agree with Mr. Kolb that enclosing the back is not
going to make a big difference in aerodynamics.
John H. We should have done a side by side full throttle run and compared
top speeds. Maybe next time!
Steven
Planning to fly this Sunday evening
> Earlier Mark-IIIs (like Hauck's) had fabric all the way up to the bottom
> of the wing, like the Firestar. This configuration seems like it would
> be less draggy, as the airflow coming around the fuselage sides would
> follow a more streamlined and uniform path toward the prop. On my
> Mark-III, the airflow spills around the aft edge of my doors, separates,
> and (I'm sure) crates turbulent eddy currents (which equals gobs of
> drag) in that whole area aft of the cabin. This was one of the design
> improvement goals that New Kolb set out to achieve with the Xtra, I've
> been told.
>
> Would it help reduce drag by simply adding a flat panel to each upper
> side of the fuselage cage, to keep the airflow moving? I'm thinking of
> using 1/16" Lexan, attached using Adel clamps to the cage tubes in that
> area.
>
> Somebody on this List once said that the biggest ways to increase our
> Kolbs' performance is to concentrate efforts on ways of reducing drag.
> This fuselage panel thing seems to fall in that category. Opinions?
> Thanks -
>
> Dennis Kirby
> 912ul, Powerfin-72, in
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
>
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 |
In a message dated 1/30/2008 7:05:46 A.M. Central Standard Time,
williamtsullivan@att.net writes:
Someone said the original had Azusa nylon wheels with 4" tires. Does anyone
know the weight savings by switching? Bill,
You should save a minimum of 2 lbs going to 4" Azusa from 6 "
Azusa. Very likely More especially if your 6" wheels are of the aluminum
variety. Personally ,even though I have the 4 " wheels, the 6'' wheels are my
preference as far as handling goes.
Ed FF62
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
At 05:51 PM 1/30/2008, you wrote:
>Over the years, there have been a few incidents and accidents
>involving fat ultralights near my old field. If the sheriff is
>called out, he always calls the faa. He says it is their call
>whether it is an airplane or an UL. The FAA usually shows up and
>looks at the pile of tubes and fabric and says "ultralight, no
>investigation" They never weigh them. If it has one seat, 5 galon
>tank and looks like an ultralight...case closed. They don't want to
>do the paperwork.
>
>That said, if the plane crashed somewhere it shouldn't be, like
>downtown or a schoolyard, I am sure they would nail you to a cross.
Here's my experience:
Have an incident where the sheriff is called out. He calls the FAA
and tells them that the pilot says it is
an ultralight. Look's like it's made of tubes & fabric. They tell the
sheriff to tell the pilot that they "won't
be coming out", no investigation.
However:
The next day the FAA calls me and the conversation goes something like this:
Mr. Sullivan, I am Mr. ___ with the FAA and am calling about your
incident in the lake
yesterday.
Yes Sir
Mr. Sullivan, where is your plane right now?
Sir, it's in my dad's barn in Powder Springs (about 20 west of
Atlanta). Directions follow.
Mr. Sullivan, where are you right now?
About 15 miles north of there in Kennesaw.
Mr. Sullivan I would like you to meet me there in 45 minutes.
Yes Sir.
-----------------
Since I've seen this all before, I managed to strip all the fabric
off the entire plane "before he
ever called". Also removed & moved the fuel tank/tanks. Removed and
disassembled the engine,
chute, seat etc. The wings were twisted anyway, as was the cage. The
engine (600 hrs) was full of
water along with the bearings etc. So it wasn't that big a deal.
He came - he looked - he said "yeah, I guess it was an ultralight".
Took some pictures and
went back to Atlanta.
No matter what they say - you crash it & they will come, at least
here. I've seen this happen twice.
They are very professional though.
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Sorry to hear about the wetter than planned end to the flight, but I am
assuming everyone was OK. I found the post very interesting. We've all
heard stories about investigation/enforcement, but I have not heard many
first hand accounts of how the process works.
This brings up a question that has been in my mind thru this and the
previous (un-named here) thread - How many of us have seen "ramp checks"
first hand? Is this common in some parts of the country? Do they ever
weigh planes? I'm not saying it is OK to break the rules if they are
not enforced - I'm just curious about how the system works.
Dan G.
Tucson
503 F2
(yes, it is a legal ELSA as of September last year)
possums wrote:
> Here's my experience:
> Have an incident where the sheriff is called out. He calls the FAA and
> tells them that the pilot says it is
> an ultralight. Look's like it's made of tubes & fabric. They tell the
> sheriff to tell the pilot that they "won't
> be coming out", no investigation.
>
> However:
> The next day the FAA calls me and the conversation goes something like
> this:
>
> Mr. Sullivan, I am Mr. ___ with the FAA and am calling about your
> incident in the lake
> yesterday.
>
> Yes Sir
>
> Mr. Sullivan, where is your plane right now?
>
> Sir, it's in my dad's barn in Powder Springs (about 20 west of
> Atlanta). Directions follow.
>
> Mr. Sullivan, where are you right now?
>
> About 15 miles north of there in Kennesaw.
>
> Mr. Sullivan I would like you to meet me there in 45 minutes.
>
> Yes Sir.
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! --
|