Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:42 AM - Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III (pj.ladd)
2. 03:23 AM - Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
3. 05:46 AM - Firestar project (william sullivan)
4. 06:40 AM - Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (lucien)
5. 07:12 AM - Re: Firestar project (lucien)
6. 07:22 AM - Not really kolb related (possums)
7. 07:53 AM - Re: Firestar project main spar attachment (Thom Riddle)
8. 09:19 AM - Re: Firestar project (JetPilot)
9. 09:34 AM - Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (JetPilot)
10. 09:39 AM - Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (JetPilot)
11. 09:44 AM - Hmmmmm (Richard Girard)
12. 09:48 AM - Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (Mnflyer)
13. 09:50 AM - Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (lucien)
14. 09:53 AM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (JetPilot)
15. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (robert bean)
16. 10:14 AM - Ramp Checks, was Re: Firestar project (Dana Hague)
17. 10:26 AM - Re: Not really kolb related (Ron)
18. 10:26 AM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Ralph B)
19. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Bob Noyer)
20. 10:40 AM - Re: Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (N27SB@aol.com)
21. 10:42 AM - Re: Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (John Hauck)
22. 10:44 AM - Re: Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (John Hauck)
23. 10:52 AM - Re: Hmmmmm (knowvne@aol.com)
24. 10:56 AM - Re: Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (robert bean)
25. 10:58 AM - Re: Re: Firestar project (Denny Rowe)
26. 11:00 AM - Re: Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (John Hauck)
27. 11:19 AM - Re: Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" (Jeremy Casey)
28. 11:24 AM - Re: Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (John Hauck)
29. 11:25 AM - Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Jim ODay)
30. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Richard Girard)
31. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
32. 12:24 PM - Your minimum hp take off and climb? (Eugene Zimmerman)
33. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
34. 12:27 PM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (knowvne@aol.com)
35. 12:33 PM - Re: Firestar project (pj.ladd)
36. 01:12 PM - Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? (jb92563)
37. 01:16 PM - Re: Here, try this!!! (jb92563)
38. 01:17 PM - Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? (jb92563)
39. 02:12 PM - Re: Your minimum hp take off and climb? (Bob Noyer)
40. 03:10 PM - Re: Firestar project (lucien)
41. 03:20 PM - Re: 912ULS Mag Drop (lucien)
42. 03:49 PM - Re: Not really kolb related (jb92563)
43. 04:09 PM - Re: Cable thimbles (TK)
44. 04:20 PM - Re: Big Island Volcano Flights (jb92563)
45. 04:24 PM - Re: Re: Not really kolb related (Bryan Dever)
46. 04:27 PM - Re: Cable thimbles (lucien)
47. 04:44 PM - Re: Your minimum hp take off and climb? (Eugene Zimmerman)
48. 05:01 PM - Re: Cable thimbles (Richard Girard)
49. 05:25 PM - Re: Cable thimbles (Dana Hague)
50. 05:32 PM - Re: Not really kolb related (Russ Kinne)
51. 06:06 PM - Re: Re: Not really kolb related (Bob Noyer)
52. 06:10 PM - Minimum horsepower take off? (Bob Noyer)
53. 06:10 PM - Re: Re: Not really kolb related (russ kinne)
54. 06:49 PM - Re: Re: Not really kolb related (Eugene Zimmerman)
55. 07:21 PM - Re: Cable thimbles (Richard Girard)
56. 07:30 PM - Re: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements (Ed Chmielewski)
57. 07:47 PM - Re: Re: Not really kolb related (Ed Chmielewski)
58. 08:10 PM - Re: Not really kolb related (henry.voris)
59. 09:32 PM - Re: Re: Not really kolb related (Denny Rowe)
60. 10:32 PM - Re: Not really kolb related (Ron)
61. 11:19 PM - Re: M3X update (icrashrc)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning up a Mark-III |
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.>>
Sounds a great idea John. Wish I could get away with that over here.
What did it do to your weight and C of G?
Pat
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 |
For "Light-Sport Aircraft" (comparable to your microlight category) it's
1320 lbs empty>>
Hi Dana,
I think our new sub 115Kg category will closely approximate your ultralight.
Not completely uncontrolled but much more so than our usual
`microlight`spec.
Our `microlights` are still well below the Sports category weight. My Xtra
has to be below 950lbs MTOW.
Fascinating how different countries have dealt with this problem. Some have
specified empty weight some MTOW some countries do not allow flight above a
certain height some do not allow it below a certain height. Switzerland
allowed no microlights at all until last year. Spain had no legal
microlights a few years ago but there were plenty flying. The legal spec was
so tight that no one could possible fly. Apparently all applications to fly
microlights finished up on the desk of a guy in the Spanish equivalant of
the FAA and he was a microlight pilot himself. He just `lost` them.
Apparently in Australia until a short time ago there were many pilots with
no pilots licence because they lived on large homesteads and and learned to
fly in the same way that they learned to drive a car. Their Dad taught them.
They were never `official` beacause they flew on and over their own land and
never landed at a `proper` airfield. However when they began to fly from
their own homesteads to the neighbours, and then on to the next one, and the
next, in increasing numbers the authorities lowered the boom on them. Good
while it lasted though.
No more posts from me for a couple of weeks as I am off to supposedly
`sunny` Tenerife in the morning. In fact Tenerife has rain and high winds
forecast for at least the next few days. Warm though, in the 70`s so that
will be OK
Cheers everybody
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: | Firestar project |
Pat, thanks for the information on the latest developments over there. I am new
to this, so the term "ultralight" means something different to all of us. Keep
the info coming.
As far as the three mounting hole at the front of the wings, they appear to
have a lot of stock around them. They are tarped in the back yard, and when the
weather is good I will get some measurements. Too windy yesterday. They appear
to be well made and cared for, and I don't know why they were for sale- no
damage except for 4 small (under 2") holes in the ailerons from shipping damage.
They are 5 rib. Some stray weight can be taken off them, like an antenna mount,
and something that I think is a fancy tie-down attachment. Paint and fabric
is very nice. The Millers are sending a patch kit.
By the way- I weighed it with wood strips on the rudder and elevator, and an
unknown weight of gas in it, maybe 4-5 gallons. Also, the wind was blowing.
And the scale read differently every time I bounced it. I just wanted a rough
idea how much to trim. Now I'm waiting for weather or parts.
Bill Sullivan
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
John Hauck wrote:
> 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
Sounds to me more like just some variation in the carbs rather than an engine difference?
I've encountered the same thing with the bings on my 2-strokes. Same jetting and
atmospheric conditions, but still slightly different resulting mixtures from
motor to motor. I just adjusted them as needed....
The bings on the 912 seem to work really well. The plane originally lived at 1500'
MSL and now lives at 7000' MSL; all I had to do was put the vent lines into
the air filters and lean out the idle mix about 1/2 turn to get a proper looking
plug....
BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I used it to diagnose
a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line change. Saves a lot of time
and head-scratching ;)
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161543#161543
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 |
My .02...
My personal preference nowadays is to be legal and that's always what I suggest
to others. OTOH, I try not to be anal retentive about the R&R's especially if
they keep me completely grounded with a perfectly good flying machine.
I like many of us flew illegally for a long time - I don't regret it because I
feel that I used my best judgment and flew only good equipment. But these days
I simply prefer to be legal for both safety and "Da Man" reasons.
Much as I hate to say it, it's really quite true: many of the R&R' we fly under
nowadays came about because someone flew an airplane into the ground. This especially
applies to airworthiness; I hate to think of how much of AC 43.13 came
about because of crashes and etc.
Good designs like the kolb, titan quicksilver, RV, etc are safe designs because
someone got in the things and found the bugs.
A lot of what has been discovered over the years then comes down to us partially
in the regs and partially in AC's like 43.13.
Even weight limits have a little sanity to them, the idea behind them being the
greater the "commanded kinetic energy" the more qualified the pilot should be.
Finally, while I think R&R's can be a good thing, I don't want to live in a police
state either. I'd hate to think that the max punishment for the most minimal
infraction will always come about and I'll probably always resist that.
I'll still bend regs as necessary to insure the safety of the flight or even to
enhance the quality of my flying experience within what I consider to be reasonable
bounds. But that's just me.
As for part 103, that's still being hashed out all these years later and I can
see both sides of it.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161555#161555
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: | Not really kolb related |
A kolb is sitting on a runway which is actually a giant treadmill.
Just as the pilot throttles up and begins to move forward, the treadmill
begins running in the opposite direction. No matter how fast the airplane
tries to move forward, the treadmill will match its speed in the
opposite direction.
Will the airplane ever take off?
Finally answered
---------------------------------------------------------------
do not archive
http://boortz.com/more/video/mythbusters_plane_conveyor_belt.html
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 main spar attachment |
FWIW, standard design practice is to have a MINIMUM edge distance,
measured from the center of the hole to the nearest edge, greater than
or equal to 1.5 x hole diameter. For a 5/16 diameter hole the closest
edge distance from the center of the hole, according to standard
practice, would be 15/32" (.47"). Also important is that there be no
sharp edge, nicks etc, where stresses concentrate. Will it fail if
slightly less than .47"? Probably not due to design safety factors
built into "standard practice".
Thom in Buffalo
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 |
Being legal is good, and most of us make every effort to follow the spirit of the
law. But good judgment and safety must always your primary concern.
I have never been ramp checked, these guys talk about Ramp checks, and maybe if
you are flying into Oshkosh or Sun and Fun, or some other event you might get
ramp checked, but chances are very low that it will you will ever get checked
at the small airports that most ultralights fly out of.
The other thing you need to take into account is they are probably not going to
be weighing planes without cause while doing ramp checks, has anyone ever been
weighted in a routine ramp check ??? ( not event related, but standard run
of the mill ramp check ) I seriously doubt it... If you have 10 gallons of
gas (double the limit), or 2 seats (double the limit), that will stand out like
a sore thumb, and is likely to get your a violation on a ramp check, just like
driving 110 MPH in a 55 MPH zone will draw attention on the highway (double
the limit).... In the case of your single seat statistic, with a 5 gallon tank
and a single seat, will not likely generate any any unwanted attention. No
one is going to be able to look at you plane and say "its 15 pounds overweight"...
So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue amount
of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance due to being
6 % overweight. I'm sure since this thread started, every one of these guys
has driven 3 MPH over the speed limit. The problem here is, these guys have
taken a position publicly on this list, and they are not about to let a new guy
like me or anyone else point out that what they are suggesting is nothing short
of stupid.
We are very fortunate that Richard and a couple others here are not in positions
of authority. I can see it now, " sir, you were doing 58 in a 55 zone, I am
going to give you a ticket " or " Sir, your plastic fuel tank has bulged and
now holds 5.25 gallons of gas, which is 6 % over the limit, I am going to have
to violate you ".
It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how many "reasons"
they give, worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even worrying about
15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and anal.
How many of these guys do think actually tell their friends to slow down and start
self righteously preaching " the law " when they drive 3 MPH over the speed
limit using all the same arguments they have been using here in this thread.
I'm sure the response they would get would be something to the effect of "stick
it where the sun don't shine" or " get out of my car "...
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=161566#161566
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: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better performance.
By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
Reduce Climb Rate
Reduce the Glide Ratio
Poor performance at high altitude density
Very probably reduce cruise speed
Increase Takeoff and landing distances
Increase stall speed
You reduce a lot of safety margins by reducing the wingspan of the plane. There
will be some advantages like higher roll rate and a couple others, it might
not be worth all the bad effects shorter wings will have. You should research
what you are dong and the effects before you do this.
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=161575#161575
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
Lucien,
How did you run the vent lines into the Air Filters. Can you post some pictures
of that ? I have one vent that is spitting out some fuel, and I would rather
not have it going all over the engine.
Anyone seen what causes a vent line on the 912-s to spit some fuel, its not much,
I cant see it, but its enough to discolor and leave a gooey discoloration where
it hits the cylinder.
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=161579#161579
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 |
|
*RADAR'S REPLACEMENT? MAGNETIC FIELDS TRACK
AIRCRAFT<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1043-full.html#197048>
*
New technology now being studied in Europe can track aircraft by detecting
tiny changes in the Earth's magnetic field, according to a recent report in
ICTWeb<http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm/section/news/tpl/article/BrowsingType/Features/ID/89466>.
Structures that cause "shadows" for today's radar systems -- a problem for
ground surveillance at large, sprawling airports -- do not impair the
magnetic field detectors. Recent tests of the
system<http://www.ismael-project.net/>in Greece and Germany showed
that it could detect 100 percent of the passing
aircraft, and pinpointed their location to within 7.5 meters [25 feet], a
level of accuracy comparable to most existing air traffic management
systems, says researcher Haibin Gao. The system uses an array of small,
cheap sensor units, which could be as small as a coin in the future. They
can be installed at the entry and exit points of each runway, and would be
affordable even for small airports.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
The weight of the HKS is about 25 to 30 lb more than a 503 depending on accessories
like starter, oil injection gearbox type etc. The HKS is a 60 hp engine thus
8 more than a dual carb dual ignition 503 burns 3 gph running it at 5700 rpms
and has electric start a very quiet ignition and alternator (minimal noise
in the radio) and starts almost instantly, has a 800 TBO.
GB
--------
GB
MNFlyer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161581#161581
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
JetPilot wrote:
> Lucien,
>
> How did you run the vent lines into the Air Filters. Can you post some pictures
of that ? I have one vent that is spitting out some fuel, and I would rather
not have it going all over the engine.
>
> Anyone seen what causes a vent line on the 912-s to spit some fuel, its not much,
I cant see it, but its enough to discolor and leave a gooey discoloration
where it hits the cylinder.
>
> Mike
I'll try to get some pics of what I did ASAP. I used some brass barbs from Lowes
to make the fittings, the type used to splice tubing. Barbs on each end with
a small ridge in the center. I then drilled holes in the back of the air cleaners,
cleaned out the debris and pushed the fitting in up to the ridge. I also
smeared a little silicone adhesive to help hold it and seal up any possible leaks.
Then pushed the vent lines onto the exposed barb.
This leaned out the top end to where it was supposed to be even as high as 10,000'
MSL, it was running a little rich at full throttle before that.
If you're getting fuel spitting out of the vents, you probably have something plugged
up in the carburettor somewhere or it's possible the carb is running over.
My 2-stroke Bings would sometimes spit fuel out of the vents if they were running
over or needed cleaning.
The outside of the carburettor should be totally dry as should the vents......
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161583#161583
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 |
There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your plane
off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check. I'm
sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp
check ( non event or air show related ).
Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight
into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and likely
to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not plausible
as an ultralight, get an N Number...
But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
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=161588#161588
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
How did the carp get in the fuel line? Amazing!
bb
do not archive
On 31, Jan 2008, at 9:37 AM, lucien wrote:
>
>
> John Hauck wrote:
>> 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
>
>
> Sounds to me more like just some variation in the carbs rather than
> an engine difference?
> I've encountered the same thing with the bings on my 2-strokes.
> Same jetting and atmospheric conditions, but still slightly
> different resulting mixtures from motor to motor. I just adjusted
> them as needed....
>
> The bings on the 912 seem to work really well. The plane originally
> lived at 1500' MSL and now lives at 7000' MSL; all I had to do was
> put the vent lines into the air filters and lean out the idle mix
> about 1/2 turn to get a proper looking plug....
>
> BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I
> used it to diagnose a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line
> change. Saves a lot of time and head-scratching ;)
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161543#161543
>
>
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: Ramp Checks, was Re: Firestar project |
At 12:14 PM 1/31/2008, JetPilot wrote:
>I have never been ramp checked, these guys talk about Ramp checks, and
>maybe if you are flying into Oshkosh or Sun and Fun, or some other event
>you might get ramp checked, but chances are very low that it will you will
>ever get checked at the small airports that most ultralights fly out of.
Seems I've heard of ultralights being weighed at ramp checks at major
fly-ins, but I don't know if it was random or only if an airplane "looked"
heavy.
For most pilots, any thorough ramp check would likely only be if you piss
somebody off, usually by what I call "impolite flying". Or, if you're
flying to or from an airport that tolerates but doesn't quite "welcome"
ultralights, a complaint about some offense (whether real or imaginary)
might precipitate a check. An example is the airport I'm on a waiting list
for hangar space at. It's 1/3 the distance from my house compared to the
ultralight friendly airport I'm currently flying from... the airport owner
allows ultralights (though only if the pilot has a license), but the FBO
owner hates ultralights and wants no part of them on "his" airport. So far
the airport owner's policy goes, but on one occasion the FBO told the pilot
of a [registered] Quicksilver GT-400 "the first time I have to go around
because you're too slow on final, you're out of here!" Wouldn't be too
hard to picture a guy like that calling the FAA and reporting an
"overweight" ultralight.
-Dana
--
Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.
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: Not really kolb related |
Yes, :-)
Ron (Arizona)
================================
---- possums <possums@bellsouth.net> wrote:
============
A kolb is sitting on a runway which is actually a giant treadmill.
Just as the pilot throttles up and begins to move forward, the treadmill
begins running in the opposite direction. No matter how fast the airplane
tries to move forward, the treadmill will match its speed in the
opposite direction.
Will the airplane ever take off?
Finally answered
---------------------------------------------------------------
do not archive
http://boortz.com/more/video/mythbusters_plane_conveyor_belt.html
--
kugelair.com
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 |
JetPilot wrote:
> There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your
plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
>
> I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check. I'm
sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp
check ( non event or air show related ).
>
> Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight
into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and
likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not
plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
>
> But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
>
> Mike
Mike,
You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an ultralight
to you? How much do you think it weighs?
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/at_lydia__162.jpg
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 |
Our local PeaPatch airport, Winchester (VA) Regional is only some 50
easy road miles from Dulles and its nest of faaers, but I've never
see/heard of anyone (UL or UL-looking) being ramp checked during EAA
fly-ins, or any other times. They (faa) can and do visit, but usually
on incident/accident cks on GA.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not archive....or is this still in effect?
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: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
In a message dated 1/31/2008 12:35:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better
performance. By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
Yes Mike, but, What if the wing you are starting with is too long? You
are assuming that the original Firestar wing is "The Right Length". As I
understand it the original Firestar has almost as much wing area as Your MKIIIX.
By your logic you would have to increase your wingspan to almost 60 feet.
As far as a longer wing being better, It depends what the mission is. By
virtue of the fact that I fly my Firefly with 60 # of float all the time, I Am
60# over weight of a standard Fly. Performance is tremendous.
At one point Bryan and I thought about increasing the wingspan a tad but
after flying the stock configuration for two years I see no reason to do so.
As far as:
Reduce Climb Rate ----------- Climbs at over 800 fpm with
Floats
Reduce the Glide Ratio ----------- Doubt it
Poor performance at high altitude density ---------- flies nice at 8000
ft
Very probably reduce cruise speed ----------doubt it
Increase Takeoff and landing distances ------------Takeoff on Glassy
water 150 ft/ Lands on less
Increase stall speed ---------------- You might be right here, but the
current stall is fine
I am not trying to give you a hard time here Mike but it is pretty hard to
beat the package that Dennis S and the crew put together.
I suggest that you try the stew before you add Salt, The Chef may have
gotten it right.
Steve
Firefly 007/Floats
do not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
> If you're getting fuel spitting out of the vents, you probably have
something plugged up in the carburettor somewhere or it's possible the carb
is running over.
>
> My 2-stroke Bings would sometimes spit fuel out of the vents if they were
> running over or needed cleaning.
>
> The outside of the carburettor should be totally dry as should the
> vents......
>
> LS
Lucien:
Probably that carb plugging up the works and causing the carbs to spit fuel.
;-)
john h
mklIII
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
> I have one vent that is spitting out some fuel, and I would rather not
> have it going all over the engine.
>
> Anyone seen what causes a vent line on the 912-s to spit some fuel, its
> not much, I cant see it, but its enough to discolor and leave a gooey
> discoloration where it hits the cylinder.
>
> Mike
Mike B:
You probably have a fuel vapor stand off problem, rather than a float
chamber static port blowing fuel on your engine.
All engines, two and four stroke, have a little cloud of fuel vapor that
stands off the intake of the carb. I don't know why gasoline engines do
this, but they do, from a 2 hp B&S to my old 85 hp Ford Flat Head V8. These
I can vouch for because, as a kid, I experimented with them.
Rotax two strokes are set up to blow the fuel vapor stand off out the air
filter because they are oriented perpendicular to the air stream.
If you are running conical air filters, they are more supceptible to blowing
the fuel vapor off the mouth of the carb and onto your engine since it is a
pusher and the aircleaner is sitting right out there in the front of the
engine. Sometimes the flat cake pan K&N air filters will cure the problem,
but in my case, a pair of air filter covers did the job nicely. I also
route the float chamber static tube into the cover between it and the air
filter so it will read the same satic pressure as the static port on the lip
of the carb.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
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 |
|
Rich
In time this could means we just plug in the airport identifier ( CIA) and l
et the magnet drag us onto final ? hahahaha
Just make damn sure the window =C2-reads to and not from or you could be f
aced with one Heathy Head Field hahahahahaha
Mark
Interesting Technology Rich 8-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 9:07 am
Subject: Kolb-List: Hmmmmm
RADAR'S
REPLACEMENT? MAGNETIC FIELDS TRACK AIRCRAFT
New technology
now being studied in Europe can track aircraft by detecting tiny changes
in the Earth's magnetic field, according to a recent report in ICTWeb. Struc
tures that cause "shadows" for today's
radar systems -- a problem for ground surveillance at large, sprawling
airports -- do not impair the magnetic field detectors. Recent tests of
the system
in Greece and Germany showed that it could detect 100 percent of the
passing aircraft, and pinpointed their location to within 7.5 meters [25
feet], a level of accuracy comparable to most existing air traffic
management systems, says researcher Haibin Gao. The system uses an array
of small, cheap sensor units, which could be as small as a coin in the
future. They can be installed at the entry and exit points of each
runway, and would be affordable even for small airports.
________________________________________________________________________
aol.com
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: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
Most of what you say is true about the clipped wings. My MkIII has
the bow tips shortened by a foot. (X2)
giving me about the same area as a FSII , ~ 150sq'. Since it came
with one wing intact I wasn't
ambitious enough to change it. There are benefits: the roll rate is
much better than my old (yawn) aeronca,
less drag for a blazing 65 mph cruise, space to get the left tip past
an old VW beetle carcass in the shed,
a little easier to install/remove the safety pins for the fold back
maneuver, which I skip and take them off anyway.
If I had the extra two feet I could get a fatter girlfriend. -Too
late for that now.
BB, MkIII, vibratin' suzuki, everything's shorter these days
do not archive
On 31, Jan 2008, at 12:32 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better
> performance. By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
>
> Reduce Climb Rate
> Reduce the Glide Ratio
> Poor performance at high altitude density
> Very probably reduce cruise speed
> Increase Takeoff and landing distances
> Increase stall speed
>
> You reduce a lot of safety margins by reducing the wingspan of the
> plane. There will be some advantages like higher roll rate and a
> couple others, it might not be worth all the bad effects shorter
> wings will have. You should research what you are dong and the
> effects before you do this.
>
> 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=161575#161575
>
>
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 |
Please just drop it. As the lists DH, "Designated Hitman", :-) you just
refuse to quit.
You make it sound like others are suggesting we turn our wing struts down in
a lathe in order to make our planes lighter.
Dennis Rowe
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:14 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Firestar project
> So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue
> amount of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance
> due to being 6 % overweight. I'm sure since this thread started, every
> one of these guys has driven 3 MPH over the speed limit. The problem here
> is, these guys have taken a position publicly on this list, and they are
> not about to let a new guy like me or anyone else point out that what they
> are suggesting is nothing short of stupid.
>
> We are very fortunate that Richard and a couple others here are not in
> positions of authority. I can see it now, " sir, you were doing 58 in a
> 55 zone, I am going to give you a ticket " or " Sir, your plastic fuel
> tank has bulged and now holds 5.25 gallons of gas, which is 6 % over the
> limit, I am going to have to violate you ".
>
> It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how
> many "reasons" they give, worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even
> worrying about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and
> anal.
>
> How many of these guys do think actually tell their friends to slow down
> and start self righteously preaching " the law " when they drive 3 MPH
> over the speed limit using all the same arguments they have been using
> here in this thread. I'm sure the response they would get would be
> something to the effect of "stick it where the sun don't shine" or " get
> out of my car "...
>
> 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=161566#161566
>
>
> --
> 1/30/2008 8:51 PM
>
>
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
>> BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I
>> used it to diagnose a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line
>> change. Saves a lot of time and head-scratching ;)
>>
>> LS
BB/Gang:
Yea, how did the carp get in there? If he won't plug up a carb, nothing
will.
john h
mkIII
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" |
JetPilot wrote:
>
> It is pretty well known that a longer wingspan results in better performance.
By making the wingspan shorter, you will most likely...
>
> Reduce Climb Rate
> Reduce the Glide Ratio
> Poor performance at high altitude density
> Very probably reduce cruise speed
> Increase Takeoff and landing distances
> Increase stall speed
>
> You reduce a lot of safety margins by reducing the wingspan of the plane. There
will be some advantages like higher roll rate and a couple others, it might
not be worth all the bad effects shorter wings will have. You should research
what you are dong and the effects before you do this.
>
> Mike
<Stall speed is almost entirely controlled by wing AREA, not span. For
a given AREA if you vary the span you have to vary the chord to maintain
the same area...hence you are changing the ASPECT RATIO. Usually a
bigger ASPECT RATIO will net a better rate of climb for a given amount
of power, due to the better SPAN EFFICIENCY. But in the real world (as
opposed to the perfect world of fluid dynamics) a reduction in ASPECT
RATIO generally produces a lighter structure which in many cases negates
the small reduction of efficiency (i.e. less efficient wing but it
doesn't have to lift as much weight). Since I'm not actually changing
the chord I'll ignore Reynolds number effects for this discussion.
Soooo, Reduce climb rate? With a power increase of 30-50% depending on
which engine I go with...I don't think so.
Reduce the glide ratio...well the higher wing loading won't help but the
drag reduction I'm doing will, so the best glide speed will increase but
the best L/D probably won't be hurt much if at all...some sailplanes
have much higher wing loading than us (many carry water ballast to
INCREASE wing loading)and they seem to do all right.
Poor performance at high DA...maybe but see the HP answer above...also
this is a toy I'm building and my backyard airstrip is at 340' MSL ;-)
Reduce Cruise speed...The decrease of span is basically the first
modification to every serious RENO racer on the circuit...would reduce
the higher speeds only if the reduction in area got to the point that
the Coefficient of Lift got into the high drag part of the curve..also
see the HP answer above.
Takeoff/landing differences...Takeoff distances are absolutely minuscule
...300' or 75' still leaves lots of possible runways to use and the
higher wing loading can reduce float which can net an actual shorter
TOTAL landing distance required even with the slightly higher approach
speed. I also added a flaperon mechanism that will lower the approach
speeds to at or near the original long wing no-flap configuration.
I guess you could say I've thought a few of these things through
already...what I don't want is a flitterbug that is so lightly wing
loaded that it gets shoved around by every little puff of wind and
turbulence. Having flown big wings and small wing versions of the same
plane, I'll take the smaller wings (within reason) every time...that's
just my choice...might not be everyones choice but that's one of those
great things about having your own ;-)
Jeremy Casey
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
> Probably that carb plugging up the works and causing the carbs to spit
fuel.
> ;-)
Gang:
Blew that one, didn't I. Misspelled "carp". Drat'it.
john h
mkIII
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Wow Ralph, that looks like a skinny FS! ...... I guess 254#
My builders manual advised that my FS would not make the 103 weight unless built
with a free air cooled Rotax motor, light fabric, minimal paint, no brakes,
plastic wheels ...... bottom line it was not happening.
I don't know of any ramp checking going on at fly-ins, but I know the FAA investigates
anytime a plane has a un-planned off the airport or bad airport landing.
If you have flying credentials (ie: Pilots license) be prepared to be grounded
if you ruled to be in violation of the FAR's.
By the way, I have been "ramp checked" twice. They checked the AC documents and
mine. The 1st time was awful, the second was no problem with lessons learned
from the first time. Neither were done at my home field but when I was traveling.
(both were in factory made planes) If you want the details, send me a
note.
Mike, I get your point that it is OK to be kinda fat as long as you carry the weight
well. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck; it is a duck.
I guess we have a different opinion here. The reality is if my plane looks to
fit the 103 rule, and I want it to "pass" as a UL, I must be willing to produce
false documentation and tell lies. I have an aversion to both.
You can build a legal UL, but a 255# airplane without a registration is called
an unregistered A/C. You can call it whatever you want, but it does not change
anything.
I am glad I had the opportunity to get my fat little FS set up as an E-LSA. It
was not UL 103 legal, never would be, and after the SP rules were a reality,
there was no more gray area to hide in.
Fly safe,
Jim
--------
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161629#161629
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/kolb_72007_medium_131.jpg
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Ralph, it depends on how technical you want to be and how much you know
about that tank. If it holds more than 5 gallons, not much more, but more,
is enough to kick on the "Not an Ultralight" Light.
Per AC 103-7,
19. *Maximum Fuel Capacity of a Powered Ultralight Vehicle*. The maximum
fuel capacity for a powered ultralight vehicle is 5 U.S. gallons. Any
powered ultralight with fuel tank(s) exceeding this capacity is ineligible
for operation as an ultralight vehicle.
a. *Determination of Fuel Capacity*. The total volume, including all
available space for usable and unusable fuel in the fuel tank is the total
fuel capacity. The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carburetor is not
considered in a calculation of total volume.
b. *Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity*.
(1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to
control capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the
capacity if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.
(2) A temporary, detachable, or voluntarily- observed method for
restricting fuel capacity, such as a "fill-to" line is not acceptable.
That tiny area above the 5 gallon line on the tank could be a tip off to a
"by the book" inspector. He or she has only to look at the tank and ask you
to demonstrate the capacity. I'm not an inspector, I have no vested interest
in the ultralight argument.
At the "Air Festival" in Wellington, KS last September two "volunteers" from
the Wichita FSDO showed up, in addition to the fellow who was assigned to
the show (and really hacked off the guy who was assigned, I might add), and
started ramp checking. The president of my EAA chapter was one of those
given a "stern warning" by these two. His offense? The gas tanks on his RV-6
weren't properly labeled.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:24 PM, Ralph B <ul15rhb@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> JetPilot wrote:
> > There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass
> your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
> >
> > I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp
> check. I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of
> the mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).
> >
> > Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly
> your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp
> checks, and likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it is
> obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
> >
> > But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that
> there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> Mike,
>
> You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an
> ultralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph B
> Original Firestar
> N91493 E-AB
> 21 years flying it
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/at_lydia__162.jpg
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firestar project |
It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how many
"reasons" they give, worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even worrying
about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and anal. >>
Oh Yeah! And how does `Well officer, I only shot him a little bit` sound as
a defence.
Cheers
Pat (away for the next two weeks)
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: | Your minimum hp take off and climb? |
What is the minimum hp for take off and climb in a Kolb?
http://picasaweb.google.com/imhisson2/MinimumHp
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 |
Much as I hate to say it, it's really quite true: many of the R&R' we fly
under nowadays came about because someone flew an airplane into the ground.
>>
Thats what happened in the UK. We had a good thing going which the
authorities treated merely as an extension of hang gliding. Then there were
a series of fatalities and Authority swooped. Luckily we had Anne Welch, a
long time gliding enthusiast who had helped fight the CAA to keep the
gliding movements training, safety, licensing etc in its own hands. She
realised that the microlight movement was in a similar position to gliding
in the 30`s and became the Chairman of the fledgeling organisation. She did
to a great extent what she and her husband had done for the Gliding
fraternity and kept us `comparitively` rule free..
Pat
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: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements |
Hey=C2-
If =C2-they can make rules WE the people didnt vote for why can WE the peo
ple make them
earn their Pay checks? ahahahaha
Hmmm Now =C2-I wonder how many feet of Tubing i'll need to make 5 Gallons
hahahahaha 8-)
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements
Ralph, it depends on how technical you want to be and how much you know abou
t that tank. If it holds more than 5 gallons, not much more, but more, is en
ough to kick on the "Not an Ultralight" Light.
Per AC 103-7,
19. Maximum Fuel Capacity of a Powered Ultralight Vehicle.=C2- The maximum
fuel capacity for a powered ultralight vehicle is 5 U.S. gallons. Any power
ed ultralight with fuel tank(s) exceeding this capacity is ineligible for op
eration as an ultralight vehicle.
=C2-=C2-=C2- a. Determination of Fuel Capacity. The total volume, incl
uding all available space for usable and unusable fuel in the fuel tank is t
he total fuel capacity. The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carbureto
r is not considered in a calculation of total volume.
=C2-=C2-=C2- b. Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity.
=C2-=C2-=C2- =C2-=C2-=C2- (1) Tanks which have a permanent stand
pipe or venting arrangement to control capacity are permitted, but may be su
bject to demonstration of the capacity if there is any reason to doubt that
the arrangement is effective.
=C2-=C2-=C2- =C2-=C2-=C2- (2) A temporary, detachable, or volunt
arily- observed method for restricting fuel capacity, such as a "fill-to" li
ne is not acceptable.
That tiny area above the 5 gallon line on the tank could be a tip off to a "
by the book" inspector. He or she has only to look at the tank and ask you t
o demonstrate the capacity. I'm not an inspector, I have no vested interest
in the ultralight argument.
At the "Air Festival" in Wellington, KS last September two "volunteers" from
the Wichita FSDO showed up, in addition to the fellow who was assigned to t
he show (and really hacked off the guy who was assigned, I might add), and s
tarted ramp checking. The president of my EAA chapter was one of those given
a "stern warning" by these two. His offense? The gas tanks on his RV-6 were
n't properly labeled.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:24 PM, Ralph B <ul15rhb@juno.com> wrote:
JetPilot wrote:
> There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass yo
ur plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
>
> I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.
=C2-I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of th
e mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).
>
> Its all about good judgment, if you are =C2-a bit overweight, don't fly
your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp ch
ecks, and likely to be weighed. =C2- If you are so far overweight that it
is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
>
> But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. =C2-Seems t
hat there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
>
> Mike
Mike,
You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an u
ltralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
N91493 E-AB
21 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598
________________________________________________________________________
aol.com
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 |
Good luck Bill,
its nice to be appreciated. .
i have no opinions about holes in spars. There are plenty on the list
who are really very expert indeed. You will have to sort out which ones
they are. Whatever you do, don`t believe them all. Some are , shall we
say, not so clewed up as others.
cheers#
Pat.
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: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
G-Loading on the airframe goes up with the speed squared.
Thats why slowing down even a little reduces the G loading in turbulence considerably.
Ever heard of "Rough Air Speed" or "Manuvering Speed" or Va
Its the design maneuvering speed, stalling speed at the maximum legal G-force,
and hence the maximum speed at which abrupt, full deflection, elevator control
input will not cause the aircraft to exceed its G-force limit.
There is no set answer as it depends on each aircraft weight and speed, but slowing
down certainly reduces the G-Loads.
Turbulence can be fun, especially when you know what causes it and where it is
to be found, and just as important (When you trying to eat, drink or pee in flight)
where it is not typically found.
Typical sources of Turbulence are Thermals(Fun), Mountain Lee rotor(Not fun), Mechanical
turbulence on windy days due to ground features(Not Fun during landing),
Weather System Fronts(Sometimes Fun if your belts are tight), Aircraft wake(Way
not fun) etc
Thats my take on it as a glider pilot and UltraStar owner.
--------
Ray
Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
Moni MotorGlider
Schreder HP-11 Glider
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161653#161653
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Here, try this!!! |
Funny how so few people realize that the way to get on the right glide slope is
to fly up/down to it immediately.
An idling prop is a surprisingly effective airbrake, and Kolbs are draggy enough
to go where you want them to with to much braking on the ground.
--------
Ray
Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
Moni MotorGlider
Schreder HP-11 Glider
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161656#161656
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How Much Load does Turbulence put on a Kolb ??? |
G-Loading on the airframe goes up with the speed squared.
Thats why slowing down even a little reduces the G loading in turbulence considerably.
Ever heard of "Rough Air Speed" or "Manuvering Speed" or Va
Its the design maneuvering speed, stalling speed at the maximum legal G-force,
and hence the maximum speed at which abrupt, full deflection, elevator control
input will not cause the aircraft to exceed its G-force limit.
There is no set answer as it depends on each aircraft weight and speed, but slowing
down certainly reduces the G-Loads.
Turbulence can be fun, especially when you know what causes it and where it is
to be found, and just as important (When you trying to eat, drink or pee in flight)
where it is not typically found.
Typical sources of Turbulence are Thermals(Fun), Mountain Lee rotor(Not fun), Mechanical
turbulence on windy days due to ground features(Not Fun during landing),
Weather System Fronts(Sometimes Fun if your belts are tight), Aircraft wake(Way
not fun) etc
Thats my take on it as a glider pilot and UltraStar owner.
--------
Ray
Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
Moni MotorGlider
Schreder HP-11 Glider
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161657#161657
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: Your minimum hp take off and climb? |
What was missing with the Horsepower tow, was the final seconds. As
the the towed plane/glider overtopped the horse, the poor horse was
airlifted! This is the origin of Pegasus, the flying horse.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not archive
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 |
JetPilot wrote:
>
> Being legal is good, and most of us make every effort to follow the spirit of
the law. But good judgment and safety must always your primary concern.
>
> So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue amount
of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance due to being
6 % overweight.
> Mike
I should add that Mike touches on a good point here, and an area where I'd willingly
bend the regs (though I still wouldn't openly suggest this to others).
There are cases where rules aren't appropriate and can actually impair safety.
the deal with part 103 weight is, arguably, one of them. I.e. removing good metal
wheels or a safety belt in order to get at or below 254lbs.
In a case like this I'm with Mike - being a "little bit pregnant" is the prudent
thing to do because it's a safety issue for the plane.
But that's just me and how I work.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161674#161674
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: 912ULS Mag Drop |
John Hauck wrote:
> >> BTW, the enrichener is a great debugging tool like you said - I
>
> > > used it to diagnose a carp-in-carb problem after a recent fuel line
> > > change. Saves a lot of time and head-scratching ;)
> > >
> > > LS
> >
> >
>
>
> BB/Gang:
>
> Yea, how did the carp get in there? If he won't plug up a carb, nothing
> will.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Oops, sorry about the carp.... no fish involved but "crap" for sure......
That's where I learned to finally sand down the sharp edges on any barbed fittings
during a fuel line change... and to thoroughly flush the new assemblies before
installation and otherwise be operating-room clean when messing with fuel
lines......
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161675#161675
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
I guess the prop blast over the wing and elevator make that possible!
But the guy did have forward speed exceeding the rearward speed of the belt so
I figure he cheated a bit by having not only full prop blast but also some additional
forward speed.
Still the answer remains YES however.
Bernoulli effect in action!
--------
Ray
Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
Moni MotorGlider
Schreder HP-11 Glider
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161681#161681
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
Richard Girard wrote:
> Ed, I use my Felco F-9 cable cutters to trim the ears. I cut from the
> inside of the thimble out and there is no burr left to dress where the
> cable touches.
> If you haven't made cables before, go to AC 43.13-1B "Aircraft
> Inspection, Repair and Alteration Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and
> Practices" pages 7-32 and 7-33 for instruction on how to use Nicopress
> ovals. Use the proper tool and inspect each swage with the proper gauge.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 7:51 AM, Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org
> <mailto:richard@bcchapel.org>> wrote:
>
> <richard@bcchapel.org <mailto:richard@bcchapel.org>>
>
> Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the
> cable
> passes over the cut.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Edward Bonsell wrote:
> > <ebonsell@earthlink.net <mailto:ebonsell@earthlink.net>>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> > cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or
> grind
> > them off?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
Guy's,
Why are you cutting off the ears on your thimbles when making cables?
Am I missing something here? I didn't have any problem making up my
cables with the ears of the thimbles intact. Is there some mechanical
advantage to removing them and if so, why do they make them with the
ears in the first place? I found that they keep the nicopress sleeve at
the proper distance from the loop to prevent pinching. Willing to learn!!
Terry - Firefly #95 785 hr.'s
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Big Island Volcano Flights |
Those shots are awesome....enjoyed them, including the gliders.
A pair of motor-glider friends from my club Lake Elsinore Soaring Club have just
started a business on the Big Island flying rides.
They had their gliders shipped over in a container.
So if you REALLY want to fly the Hawaiian islands in your Kolb... ;-)
--------
Ray
Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
Moni MotorGlider
Schreder HP-11 Glider
Riverside County, CA
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161689#161689
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Not really kolb related |
It's not the prop blast. The plane is pulling itself through the air. The
only thing different than a normal takeoff is the rotational speed of the
wheels. The rest of the plane doesn't know it is on a belt.
Bryan D
do not archive
On Jan 31, 2008 6:47 PM, jb92563 <jb92563@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I guess the prop blast over the wing and elevator make that possible!
>
> But the guy did have forward speed exceeding the rearward speed of the
> belt so I figure he cheated a bit by having not only full prop blast but
> also some additional forward speed.
>
> Still the answer remains YES however.
>
> Bernoulli effect in action!
>
> --------
> Ray
>
> Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
> Moni MotorGlider
> Schreder HP-11 Glider
> Riverside County, CA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161681#161681
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
>
> Why are you cutting off the ears on your thimbles when making cables? Am I
missing something here? I didn't have any problem making up my cables with the
ears of the thimbles intact. Is there some mechanical advantage to removing
them and if so, why do they make them with the ears in the first place? I found
that they keep the nicopress sleeve at the proper distance from the loop to
prevent pinching. Willing to learn!!
>
> Terry - Firefly #95 785 hr.'s
>
AC 43.13 says you can trim the ears if needed and I always do - I've found the
thimble can be held in place more firmly this way and the cable is in firmer contact
with the thimble ends where they go into the swage.
I made some fairly ok loops with untrimmed ends, but they always were a little
loosey-goosey compared to trimmed ones...... and I'm ultra-paranoid about thimbles
popping out of cable ends especially on control cables... had it happen,
so.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161692#161692
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Your minimum hp take off and climb? |
Bob,
Perhaps he is just doing a "go around", rather than a take off.
It would probably take a 40 Horse Rotax to get that kind of altitude
in that short a distance with a Firefly, Whada ya
think? ; ^)
On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
> What is the minimum hp for take off and climb in a Kolb?
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/imhisson2/MinimumHp
>
>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five tuck
splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop about the
thimble loose. Cutting off the ears pulls the thimble ends together when the
Nico sleeve is swaged. Try both methods and use the one that you like.
Either is acceptable.
Rick
On Jan 31, 2008 6:02 PM, TK <tkrolfe@toast.net> wrote:
> Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Ed, I use my Felco F-9 cable cutters to trim the ears. I cut from the
> inside of the thimble out and there is no burr left to dress where the cable
> touches.
> If you haven't made cables before, go to AC 43.13-1B "Aircraft Inspection,
> Repair and Alteration Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices" pages
> 7-32 and 7-33 for instruction on how to use Nicopress ovals. Use the proper
> tool and inspect each swage with the proper gauge.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 7:51 AM, Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Cut them off, dress them smooth with a small round file where the cable
> > passes over the cut.
> >
> > Richard Pike
> > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> >
> > Edward Bonsell wrote:
> > > <ebonsell@earthlink.net>
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I'm making a new set of rudder cables. To those of you that made
> > > cables did you leave the ears on the thimbles, or did you cut or grind
> > > them off?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> Guy's,
>
> Why are you cutting off the ears on your thimbles when making cables? Am
> I missing something here? I didn't have any problem making up my cables
> with the ears of the thimbles intact. Is there some mechanical advantage to
> removing them and if so, why do they make them with the ears in the first
> place? I found that they keep the nicopress sleeve at the proper distance
> from the loop to prevent pinching. Willing to learn!!
>
> Terry - Firefly #95 785 hr.'s
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
At 07:58 PM 1/31/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
>The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five tuck
>splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop about the
>thimble loose...
Or you could just do five tuck splices instead of nico's on all your
cables... :)
-Dana
--
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
Message 50
| 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: Not really kolb related |
I don't think so. Thwe wing has no speed through the air -- hence no
lift
On Jan 31, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Ron wrote:
>
> Yes, :-)
>
> Ron (Arizona)
>
> ================================
> ---- possums <possums@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ============
>
>
> A kolb is sitting on a runway which is actually a giant treadmill.
> Just as the pilot throttles up and begins to move forward, the
> treadmill
> begins running in the opposite direction. No matter how fast the
> airplane
> tries to move forward, the treadmill will match its speed in the
> opposite direction.
>
> Will the airplane ever take off?
>
> Finally answered
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> do not archive
>
>
> http://boortz.com/more/video/mythbusters_plane_conveyor_belt.html
>
>
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
Message 51
| 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: Not really kolb related |
Ray,
You mentioned Bernoulli...is that the same gent that furnishes only
maybe 10% of the wing's lift? I'm a firm Newton guy!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not rchive
Message 52
| 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: | Minimum horsepower take off? |
Eugene,
Or maybe the glider was just taking the horse out fer a run, like a
dawg ona leash?
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do note archive
Message 53
| 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: Not really kolb related |
Got to have air moving OVER THE WINGS to fly. I rest my case. The
answer remains NO. No time for this foolishness!
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:47 PM, jb92563 wrote:
>
> I guess the prop blast over the wing and elevator make that possible!
>
> But the guy did have forward speed exceeding the rearward speed of
> the belt so I figure he cheated a bit by having not only full prop
> blast but also some additional forward speed.
>
> Still the answer remains YES however.
>
> Bernoulli effect in action!
>
> --------
> Ray
>
> Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
> Moni MotorGlider
> Schreder HP-11 Glider
> Riverside County, CA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161681#161681
>
>
Message 54
| 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: Not really kolb related |
On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:06 PM, russ kinne wrote:
> No time for this foolishness!
Sorry Russ,
Ya could have fooled me.
You took the possum's bait.
What moves your plane forward, the wheels or the prop?
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable thimbles |
That would be the blood donor method, thanks, but no. ;-)
Rick
On Jan 31, 2008 7:19 PM, Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> At 07:58 PM 1/31/2008, Richard Girard wrote:
> >The ears on a cable thimble are a vestige of the days of the five tuck
> >splice. I find that leaving the ears on always makes the loop about the
> >thimble loose...
>
> Or you could just do five tuck splices instead of nico's on all your
> cables... :)
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
>
>
Message 56
| 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 |
Mike,
Ramp checks are like car accidents: they happen when you least
expect.
I admire the restraint of 99% of the Kolb list. Your pomposity in
answering some of the recent posts is tiring at best. Reminds me of what my
Dad used to say, "An empty wagon makes the most noise". Please quit the
insults and the patronizing tone. Your constant derision ("Seems that there
is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some...") is insulting and
immature. Try and listen to some of the responses, and take them to heart.
100 other pilots can't all be wrong....
At any rate, I've had ramp checks at small, uncontrolled airfields
as well as large airports, and know of other airman who have been imposed
upon likewise. Have had the boys show up unannounced in a corporate flight
department, and in a local small-town FBO. But then, that's been over the
course of 30+ years of flying. And the feds ARE concerned about W&B, as
well as all other required aircraft documentation. I even had one Fed ask
to be taken up, until I asked how he'd be paying for the trip around the
pattern.
The big thing about being at proper weight is as much about
insurance and liability as legality. Try having even a tiny scrape with an
aircraft, the insurer will try and prove you violated some reg, forget about
the Feds. Had a bird strike a couple years ago, the insuring agent asked 10
times the questions as the FAA guys.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements
>
> There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass
> your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...
>
> I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.
> I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the
> mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).
>
> Its all about good judgment, if you are a bit overweight, don't fly your
> ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp
> checks, and likely to be weighed. If you are so far overweight that it
> is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...
>
> But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases. Seems that
> there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.
>
> 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=161588#161588
>
>
>
Message 57
| 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: Not really kolb related |
Hey Bob,
Yeah, soggy Newtons (fig?...) aren't much fun.
Ed in JXN
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Noyer
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Not really kolb related
Ray,
You mentioned Bernoulli...is that the same gent that furnishes only
maybe 10% of the wing's lift? I'm a firm Newton guy!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not rchive
Message 58
| 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: Not really kolb related |
What nonsense...
Don't listen to the hype, look at the tape... That plane is moving forward, past
the road cones, etc. And it was able to take off, when it was moving through
the air fast enough for the wings to generate the necessary lift...
Just look at the tape.
Aloha,
--------
Henry
Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161761#161761
Message 59
| 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: Not really kolb related |
>
> Don't listen to the hype, look at the tape... That plane is moving
> forward, past the road cones, etc. And it was able to take off, when it
> was moving through the air fast enough for the wings to generate the
> necessary lift...
>
> Just look at the tape.
>
> Aloha,
>
> --------
> Henry
> Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Henry,
I totally agree, that show just lost my respect in a big way, what a bill of
goods they sold folks there.
They should have had a bicycle speedo on a main wheel, and maintained the
speed the car was going.
I'll bet the house the wheels were turning about 50-60mph when it lifted
off.
Park a car next to the bird and keep the plane stationary to it as the tarp
is pulled and it will stay right where it started, on the ground.
Denny Rowe, Mk3 N616DR
Message 60
| 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: Not really kolb related |
The Rwy sliding back has no effect on the thrust that the engine produces, consequently
the aircraft will move forward anyway. The only difference on take off
this time than at other time, is that the wheels will be turning twice as fast
as normal.
Ron (Arizona)
========================
---- Russ Kinne <russ@rkiphoto.com> wrote:
============
I don't think so. Thwe wing has no speed through the air -- hence no
lift
On Jan 31, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Ron wrote:
>
> Yes, :-)
>
> Ron (Arizona)
>
> ================================
> ---- possums <possums@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ============
>
>
> A kolb is sitting on a runway which is actually a giant treadmill.
> Just as the pilot throttles up and begins to move forward, the
> treadmill
> begins running in the opposite direction. No matter how fast the
> airplane
> tries to move forward, the treadmill will match its speed in the
> opposite direction.
>
> Will the airplane ever take off?
>
> Finally answered
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> do not archive
>
>
> http://boortz.com/more/video/mythbusters_plane_conveyor_belt.html
>
>
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
--
kugelair.com
Message 61
| 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 |
|
Due to many back channel emails I've added a page to the site with some info on
the composite layups Paul and I have been doing.
http://www.ill-eagleaviation.com/composites.htm
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161779#161779
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! --
|