Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:38 AM - Re: Flyin Photos (Thom Riddle)
2. 05:22 AM - Firefly (chris davis)
3. 05:38 AM - Re: Firefly (N27SB@aol.com)
4. 05:56 AM - Re: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 10/08/08 (Jim)
5. 07:03 AM - Re: Brake lines ()
6. 07:43 AM - Fw: $49 VG's (VICTOR PETERS)
7. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (russ kinne)
8. 09:52 AM - Re: Firefly (Jerry Jones)
9. 10:03 AM - Re: Firefly (herb)
10. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
11. 10:40 AM - Re: Firefly (chris davis)
12. 11:07 AM - Re: Firefly (herb)
13. 07:15 PM - Re: Firefly (Mike Welch)
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: Flyin Photos |
Beautiful area worth a flying visit for sure. I'm putting it on my calendar too.
--------
Thom Riddle
CFI-SP
Power Plant Mechanic
N1208P RANS S6S, Tailwheel, 912UL
N197BG FS1/447
--------------------
Scratch any cynic, he said, and youll find a disappointed idealist.
George Carlin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8023#208023
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 |
|
Listers , As you might know I am building a Firefly and asked about the 447
and dual ignition. Now I have another question. Any listers out there that
are flying a Firefly and have been overhauled or ramp checked by the FAA ?
-- I know that TNK has gone a long-way to be sure the firefly fits in
to Pt. 103 but I wonder what happens in an FAA ramp check? And if anyone ha
s had one did you pass? Thank you Chris =0A=0AFirestar KXP 503 sc=0A490 hrs
=0Abuilding a Firefly- ??- 447=0A=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
I had a minor Krinkydink a few years ago and the local FAA Dude showed up
the next morning. He looked at a photo he had downloaded and looked at the
Firefly and said "Well it's an Ultralight,SeeYa.
Steve B
Firefly 007/Floats
Firefly 0040/ Floats 2008 SnF Grand Champion
do not archive
dated 10/9/2008 8:23:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, capedavis@yahoo.com
writes:
Listers , As you might know I am building a Firefly and asked about the 447
and dual ignition. Now I have another question. Any listers out there that
are flying a Firefly and have been overhauled or ramp checked by the FAA ? I
know that TNK has gone a long way to be sure the firefly fits into Pt. 103
but I wonder what happens in an FAA ramp check? And if anyone has had one did
you pass? Thank you Chris
Firestar KXP 503 sc
490 hrs
building a Firefly ?? 447
========
(mip://03f92830/3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List")
========
atronics.com")
========
(mip://03f92830/3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution")
========
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
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: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 10/08/08 |
Please unsubscribe me from the list.
Thanks,
JW
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kolb-List Digest
Server
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:57 AM
Subject: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 10/08/08
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Kolb-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Kolb-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter
08-10-08&Archive=Kolb
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter
2008-10-08&Archive=Kolb
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Kolb-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 10/08/08: 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:48 AM - Re: kolb for sale on Hawaii Island/ complete or parts
(Dave Bigelow)
2. 03:57 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (pj.ladd)
3. 04:36 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
4. 04:42 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (pj.ladd)
5. 06:49 AM - Re: steel landing gear and VW (geoffthis)
6. 07:02 AM - Brake lines (Jim)
7. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (pj.ladd)
8. 08:37 AM - Re: Airport Attitudes (Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC
MDA/AL)
9. 08:55 AM - Re: Airport Attitudes (Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC
MDA/AL)
10. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
11. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Dana Hague)
12. 09:56 AM - Re: Brake lines (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
13. 10:09 AM - Re: Flyin Photos (Eugene Zimmerman)
14. 11:32 AM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
15. 12:39 PM - Re: Brake lines (Jim)
16. 02:55 PM - Re: Flyin Photos (gliderx5@comcast.net)
17. 03:11 PM - Re: Flyin Photos (Eugene Zimmerman)
18. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: Airport Attitudes (Jack B. Hart)
19. 07:06 PM - Re: Brake lines (Steven Green)
________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
Time: 12:48:30 AM PST US
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: kolb for sale on Hawaii Island/ complete or parts
From: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country@hotmail.com>
I saw this Kolb being built, and have had involvement with it periodically
since.
Haven't seen it in a couple of years, but know it is well built and was
taken
good care of.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7857#207857
________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
Time: 03:57:46 AM PST US
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
Unlike in the UK, there is no minimum altitude or distance
>from people for ultralights (save that you can't fly over congested areas
>at ANY altitude), >.
Hi Dana,
i am not up on your rules of course but in the UK ultralights have always
been governed by exactly the same rules as everyone else except for the rule
about flying over congested area beacause of their perceived unreliability..
Not only perceived but real.
As reliabilty has improved that rule has been rescinded and we can now fly
over towns etc.
Pat
________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
Time: 04:36:08 AM PST US
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
At 06:57 AM 10/8/2008, pj.ladd wrote:
>i am not up on your rules of course but in the UK ultralights have always
>been governed by exactly the same rules as everyone else except for the
>rule about flying over congested area beacause of their perceived
>unreliability.. Not only perceived but real.
>
>As reliabilty has improved that rule has been rescinded and we can now fly
>over towns etc.
Over here the only rules that true ultralights have to follow are in the
two page Part 103 regulations. None of the other general operating rules
apply. No pilot or aircraft certification, no inspections, no minimum
altitude... and no passengers and limited performance. The three biggest
restrictions people complain about are the "no flying over congested
areas", the 254# max weight, and the 5 gallon fuel limit, but the thought
is that a rule as unrestrictive as Part 103 would never be passed today...
if they opened it up for revision we almost certainly wouldn't like the
result.
-Dana
do not archive
--
Do YOU trust a government that won't obey it's OWN LAWS?
________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
Time: 04:42:05 AM PST US
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
Even at the airports, some ultralight friendly airports want UL's to use
the standard traffic pattern,>>
Hi Dana,
for a UL I would expect that but not powered chutes which after all was what
started this.
Pat
________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
Time: 06:49:26 AM PST US
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: steel landing gear and VW
From: "geoffthis" <geoffthis@charter.net>
[quote="lcottrell"]
> Subject: Re: steel landing gear and VW
>
> Yes my Firestar sits a little higher, but it makes it look a whole lot
better
in my opinion. I don't find it to be uncomfortable high however.
>
> Just my opinion, yours may differ,
> Larry C, Oregon
>
> [b]
Larry,
I'm getting ready to rebuild my Firestar and am wondering where did you
purchase
and how much are steel legs?
Thanks
Geoff Thistlethwaite
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7888#207888
________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
Time: 07:02:58 AM PST US
From: "Jim" <jlsk1@frontiernet.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Guys, & Gals, I`ve got a set of older matco brakes, that were removed from
a MK-3C, going back on a MK-3C. I need new brake lines, & the removed tubin
g sez," 1/4 inch by .035 Parker Parflex"
I've looked in the following cataloges:
Aircraft Spruce, CPS, LEAF, Wag Aero, & Lockwood. All I see in any of them
is 3/16 brake line.
I also would like new compresion fittings.
Any Idea where to get this from?
Also, Matcos website sez only use the aviation brake fluid, but someone tol
d me that Automatic transmission fluid was what to use.
Please, Facts only.
Thanks,
Jim Kmet
Cookeville, TN
MK-3C & MK-3C
________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
Time: 07:06:44 AM PST US
From: "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
No pilot or aircraft certification, no inspections, no minimum
altitude... and no passengers and limited performance>>
Hi Dana,
It looks as though what we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts (or
carousel).
Although we usually have to comply with general aviation rules we do have
wider scope for doing our own maintenance and a cut price medical
certificate. Required paperwork is genearally based un weight so we score
there.
On the plus side we can fly a passenger, fuel (I think) is unlimited
provided you stay within the MAUW which is now getting close to 1000lbs. The
main catch all is the low stall speed, introduced so that a low time pilot
with only limited experience couldn`t get into a hot ship ( several are now
cruising at 100+) and find himself with a landinng speed which he couldn`t
handle.
This points up the importance of VG`s on the Mark3Extra. Without them we
couldn`t get the stalling speed low enough to remain in the microlight
category.
There is a lot of work beig done in the EU to standardise the rules which
specify what a microlight is and the rules under which they operate. Some
countries you couldn`t fly higher tha certain height, in others you couldn`t
fly below a certain height. Everyone had different allowable noise levels.
As always when bureaucracy iontervenes the paperwork , and the costs
increase.It does mean however that all manufacturers can build to a common
standard knowing that the plane will be accepted Europe wide. We are also
adopting, with some changes, your Sports Pilot cat. and I suspect that there
may be further merging to include microlights.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
Time: 08:37:34 AM PST US
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
From: "Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
Pat L. asks: << They may have the right to fly there but why should they
want to? Why anyone with a parachute needs to practice landings at an
airfield is beyond me. Cheers - Pat >>
Pat - My powered parachute friend was not practicing landings. He flew
over our airport just to wave at me, as he knew I had just landed. I
thought that was a pretty good reason for him to do a low approach,
don't you? (But obviously, our airport manager did not think so.)
As I mentioned, there was no traffic (in the air) at the airport, but
nonetheless, he still announced his intentions over the radio. Legal,
and he did nothing unsafe.
And best of all, we both went home with smiles. (But not the airport
manager.)
You have my sympathy that the flying constraints in the UK sometimes
prevent you from having as much freedom and fun as you could in sport
aviation. But I'm sure there must be a positive side to that tradeoff -
I just don't know what it is yet.
Dennis Kirby,
(Presently out of currency, and waiting to take my BFR before I can fly
again.)
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________
Time: 08:55:47 AM PST US
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
From: "Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
<< ... in Part 91 which governs nearly all other aircraft, nowhere is a
distance of 750'; it's 500' (1000' over congested areas). -Dana >>
The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated areas. And
to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made
structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will
enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.
That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________ Message 10
____________________________________
Time: 09:41:51 AM PST US
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
At 10:06 AM 10/8/2008, pj.ladd wrote:
>As always when bureaucracy iontervenes the paperwork , and the costs
>increase.It does mean however that all manufacturers can build to a common
>standard knowing that the plane will be accepted Europe wide. We are
>also adopting, with some changes, your Sports Pilot cat. and I suspect
>that there may be further merging to include microlights.
Ain't that the truth! The whole Sport Pilot thing with all its new rules
here grew out of what was originally a request to simply increase the
weight and fuel limitations for ultralights... and all the owners of "fat"
ultralights that had to be converted are now having to deal with it.
Interestingly, the "training" exemptions which went away have ben reissued
for hang gliders, paragliders, and powered paragliders... but for foot
launch only (no trikes), which looks a lot like your foot launch exemption.
At the same time, though, I think we're starting to see a resurgence of
interest in "true" (i.e. legal) ultralights, which is a good thing.
-Dana
do not archive
--
Do not remove this tag under penalty of law
________________________________ Message 11
____________________________________
Time: 09:41:52 AM PST US
From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
At 11:54 AM 10/8/2008, Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL wrote:
>The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated areas. And
>to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made
>structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will
>enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.
>That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.
Yes, it's 500' AWAY from any person, vessel, or structure on the surface,
not necessarily OVER. But it still doesn't apply to ultralights, which
have no minimum distance or altitude.
-Dana
--
Do not remove this tag under penalty of law
________________________________ Message 12
____________________________________
Time: 09:56:15 AM PST US
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Jim
I had nothing but trouble with the 1/4 by .035 tubing that came with my
MKIIIC for my Matco brakes. I blew the line off the connectors five or
six times. I called matco and they told me to use at least 2000 PSI
tubing. I found some tubing at Aircraft Spruce Part number 05-1229 it is
1/4 od by .050 rated at 2500psi black. This tubing fits on the fittings
tight and that seems to be the key. I had to chamfer the inside and heat
the tubing a bit to get it to fit on the fittings but it doesn't blow
off.
I also used brass poly-flo fittings Part number 269P-04x02 for 1/4od
tubing.
I also use aviation brake fluid because that what Matco recommends it.
The concern is the seals in the brake components. If I used something
else it might no be compatible. So.......
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:03 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Guys, & Gals, I`ve got a set of older matco brakes, that were removed
from a MK-3C, going back on a MK-3C. I need new brake lines, & the
removed tubing sez," 1/4 inch by .035 Parker Parflex"
I've looked in the following cataloges:
Aircraft Spruce, CPS, LEAF, Wag Aero, & Lockwood. All I see in any of
them is 3/16 brake line.
I also would like new compresion fittings.
Any Idea where to get this from?
Also, Matcos website sez only use the aviation brake fluid, but
someone told me that Automatic transmission fluid was what to use.
Please, Facts only.
Thanks,
Jim Kmet
Cookeville, TN
MK-3C & MK-3C
________________________________ Message 13
____________________________________
Time: 10:09:33 AM PST US
From: Eugene Zimmerman <ez@embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flyin Photos
Hey, Nice !
If you have another event like that give us a heads up in advance and
a couple of Kolb drivers from my area would surely love to fly in also.
Thanks for sharing the picts.
Gene Z
On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:55 PM, gliderx5@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> EAA chapter 1327 had a flyin / campin weekend at Centre Airpark N16
> in PA. A nice couple flew in, camped, and took lots of pictures
> that you might enjoy at the link below.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/otisair/tags/n16/show/
>
> I gave lots of rides in the MKII and Bob Grove flew his Firestar
> quite a bit.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
>
>
________________________________ Message 14
____________________________________
Time: 11:32:01 AM PST US
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
Dana/All
The Sport Pilot rule came about because the rules were SOOOOOO badly abused.
The FAA did a unusually kind thing by allowing Ultralight pilots to be
trained free of their usual regulations. The Ultralight community literally
shot themselves in the foot by flying the so called fat Ultralights as
tongue in cheek trainers. The only surprise was the FAA let it go on for so
long.
Your right, there is no specific rule about 500' separation in part 103.
That doesn't mean it is OK. I don't fly under part 103 anymore (it has been
25 years) but I have stepped down from Private Pilot to Sport Pilot and it
is wonderful. If people do stupid things and start killing people there
surely will be those rules and many more. I think that a airport manager's
concerns if real and not just prejudice should be taken very seriously.
These people can get the ear of the FAA. The FAA isn't likely to be as nice
as they were. Also sometimes a manager's prejudice as been taught by seeing
people do dumb things. I'm not saying your friend was unsafe but how does
that manager know that he might not do the same thing or worse when there is
alot of traffic? The damage is done but sometimes a discussion with a
manager ahead of time fixes everything.
>From another perspective.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
>
> Ain't that the truth! The whole Sport Pilot thing with all its new rules
> here grew out of what was originally a request to simply increase the
> weight and fuel limitations for ultralights... and all the owners of "fat"
> ultralights that had to be converted are now having to deal with it.
>
________________________________ Message 15
____________________________________
Time: 12:39:50 PM PST US
From: "Jim" <jlsk1@frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Rick, you 'da Man!!! Thanks, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard & Martha Neilsen
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Jim
I had nothing but trouble with the 1/4 by .035 tubing that came with my M
KIIIC for my Matco brakes. I blew the line off the connectors five or six t
imes. I called matco and they told me to use at least 2000 PSI tubing. I fo
und some tubing at Aircraft Spruce Part number 05-1229 it is 1/4 od by .050
rated at 2500psi black. This tubing fits on the fittings tight and that se
ems to be the key. I had to chamfer the inside and heat the tubing a bit to
get it to fit on the fittings but it doesn't blow off.
I also used brass poly-flo fittings Part number 269P-04x02 for 1/4od tubi
ng.
I also use aviation brake fluid because that what Matco recommends it. Th
e concern is the seals in the brake components. If I used something else it
might no be compatible. So.......
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:03 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Guys, & Gals, I`ve got a set of older matco brakes, that were removed f
rom a MK-3C, going back on a MK-3C. I need new brake lines, & the removed t
ubing sez," 1/4 inch by .035 Parker Parflex"
I've looked in the following cataloges:
Aircraft Spruce, CPS, LEAF, Wag Aero, & Lockwood. All I see in any of
them is 3/16 brake line.
I also would like new compresion fittings.
Any Idea where to get this from?
Also, Matcos website sez only use the aviation brake fluid, but someone
told me that Automatic transmission fluid was what to use.
Please, Facts only.
Thanks,
Jim Kmet
Cookeville, TN
MK-3C & MK-3C
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________ Message 16
____________________________________
Time: 02:55:34 PM PST US
From: gliderx5@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flyin Photos
Gene
I help maintain the chapter web site, www.eaa1327.org . We put
announcements on events on the site, but I will try to give you a heads up
on future flying activities. This event is always the first weekend in
October, so make plans and we look forward to seeing you next year.
Malcolm Morrison
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Eugene Zimmerman <ez@embarqmail.com>
>
> Hey, Nice !
>
> If you have another event like that give us a heads up in advance and
> a couple of Kolb drivers from my area would surely love to fly in also.
>
> Thanks for sharing the picts.
>
> Gene Z
>
>
>
> On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:55 PM, gliderx5@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > EAA chapter 1327 had a flyin / campin weekend at Centre Airpark N16
> > in PA. A nice couple flew in, camped, and took lots of pictures
> > that you might enjoy at the link below.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/otisair/tags/n16/show/
> >
> > I gave lots of rides in the MKII and Bob Grove flew his Firestar
> > quite a bit.
> >
> > Malcolm Morrison
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 17
____________________________________
Time: 03:11:36 PM PST US
From: Eugene Zimmerman <ez@embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flyin Photos
Malcolm,
Thanks , I'll put it in my calendar for next year.
Gene,
On Oct 8, 2008, at 5:55 PM, gliderx5@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Gene
>
> I help maintain the chapter web site, www.eaa1327.org . We put
> announcements on events on the site, but I will try to give you a
> heads up on future flying activities. This event is always the
> first weekend in October, so make plans and we look forward to
> seeing you next year.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Eugene Zimmerman <ez@embarqmail.com>
>>
>> Hey, Nice !
>>
>> If you have another event like that give us a heads up in advance and
>> a couple of Kolb drivers from my area would surely love to fly in
>> also.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing the picts.
>>
>> Gene Z
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:55 PM, gliderx5@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> EAA chapter 1327 had a flyin / campin weekend at Centre Airpark N16
>>> in PA. A nice couple flew in, camped, and took lots of pictures
>>> that you might enjoy at the link below.
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/otisair/tags/n16/show/
>>>
>>> I gave lots of rides in the MKII and Bob Grove flew his Firestar
>>> quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Malcolm Morrison
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________ Message 18
____________________________________
Time: 04:50:01 PM PST US
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Airport Attitudes
At 09:54 AM 10/8/08 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
><< ... in Part 91 which governs nearly all other aircraft, nowhere is a
>distance of 750'; it's 500' (1000' over congested areas). -Dana >>
>
>The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated areas. And
>to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made
>structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will
>enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.
>That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.
>
Dennis & Kolbers
Sec. 91.119
Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of
the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases,
the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition,
each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes
specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
FYI
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________ Message 19
____________________________________
Time: 07:06:54 PM PST US
From: "Steven Green" <Kolbdriver@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Jim,
Have you tried Travis at TNK?
Steven
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:03 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Brake lines
Guys, & Gals, I`ve got a set of older matco brakes, that were removed
from a MK-3C, going back on a MK-3C. I need new brake lines, & the
removed tubing sez," 1/4 inch by .035 Parker Parflex"
I've looked in the following cataloges:
Aircraft Spruce, CPS, LEAF, Wag Aero, & Lockwood. All I see in any of
them is 3/16 brake line.
I also would like new compresion fittings.
Any Idea where to get this from?
Also, Matcos website sez only use the aviation brake fluid, but
someone told me that Automatic transmission fluid was what to use.
Please, Facts only.
Thanks,
Jim Kmet
Cookeville, TN
MK-3C & MK-3C
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
7:19 PM
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 |
|
> Also, Matcos website sez only use the aviation brake fluid, but someone told
me that Automatic transmission fluid was what to use.
> Please, Facts only.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Kmet
> Cookeville, TN
> MK-3C & MK-3C
Jim K:
MATCO says aviation hydraulic fluid now. A few years ago it was ATF fluid.
Recommend contacting MATCO to get the straight info.
I have brakes and plastic lines on my mkIII that have been on their for 16 years.
Have always used red ATF, but that doesn't mean that it is good today.
john h
mkIII - Trying to stay warm at the Rock House, Jordan VAlley, OR
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 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: VICTOR PETERS
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: $49 VG's
Here's a link, save some money
http://flyfbi.com/html/accessories.html
I don't know about any $35 ones
Vic
Maine
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: Airport Attitudes |
As I've always understood it; you may fly at 500' or more over
unpopulated areas, provided you fly no closer than 500' to any
'person, vehicle or structure' on the surface. This includes boats on
the water, swimmers, skiers etc. Except in the process of landing
or taking off.
So a pass down the runway (since you're not landing) may not be
technically legal, but is permitted all the time and taught in pilot
training. Remember those 'go-arounds'?
Deliberately turning over the hangar at a low altitude is what will
get the manager going.
I wonder if your local friendly FSDO office wouldn't call the airport
mgr when he's definitely threatening to do something illegal like
keep all light aircraft off his field? It is against the FAR's, and
ought have more impact coming from the FAA. And avoids your getting
into a face-to-face with someone you'll have to deal with in the future.
Many people don't realize that on a remote country road with no
signs, telephone poles, fenceposts, structures of any kind within
500' -- you can legally go down and spin a wheel on the road. Long
as it's not considered 'hazardous flying'
Russ
On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL wrotew
:
> AL" <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
>
>
> << ... in Part 91 which governs nearly all other aircraft, nowhere
> is a
> distance of 750'; it's 500' (1000' over congested areas). -Dana >>
>
> The 500 feet rule pertains to flight over sparsely-populated
> areas. And
> to add to that, Part-91 further states that, absent any man-made
> structures where you're flying, you may fly at ANY altitude that will
> enable you to execute a safe emergency landing if your engine stops.
> That means you are free to fly as low as you wish.
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
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 |
|
...well, if you're concerned about weight, as some have noted,
haven't seen the ramp-checkers walking around with scales, but that's
not to say they couldn't.
Jerry aka Ricochet
On Oct 9, 2008, at 5:22 AM, chris davis wrote:
> Listers , As you might know I am building a Firefly and asked about
> the 447 and dual ignition. Now I have another question. Any listers
> out there that are flying a Firefly and have been overhauled or
> ramp checked by the FAA ? I know that TNK has gone a long way to
> be sure the firefly fits into Pt. 103 but I wonder what happens in
> an FAA ramp check? And if anyone has had one did you pass? Thank
> you Chris
>
> Firestar KXP 503 sc
> 490 hrs
> building a Firefly ?? 447
>
>
> _-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> D============
> _-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> D============
> _-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> D============
> _-
> ========================
> 3D=======================3
> D============
>
>
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 |
|
Just about the only thing that has a "sore thumb" appearance would
be something other than a 5 gal fuel tank..imho.
An out of date BRS with the chute removed would give one abt 15 to
18 lbs on the margin! :-) Herb
At 11:52 AM 10/9/2008, you wrote:
>...well, if you're concerned about weight, as some have noted,
>haven't seen the ramp-checkers walking around with scales, but
>that's not to say they couldn't.
>
>Jerry aka Ricochet
>
>
>On Oct 9, 2008, at 5:22 AM, chris davis wrote:
>
>>Listers , As you might know I am building a Firefly and asked about
>>the 447 and dual ignition. Now I have another question. Any listers
>>out there that are flying a Firefly and have been overhauled or
>>ramp checked by the FAA ? I know that TNK has gone a long way to
>>be sure the firefly fits into Pt. 103 but I wonder what happens in
>>an FAA ramp check? And if anyone has had one did you pass? Thank you Chris
>>
>>Firestar KXP 503 sc
>>490 hrs
>>building a Firefly ?? 447
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>>3D============================================
>>href="3D"http://forums.matronics.com"">http://forums.matronics.com
>>3D============================================
>>href="3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>3D============================================
>>
>>
>>
>><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
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: Airport Attitudes |
At 11:50 AM 10/9/2008, russ kinne wrote:
>So a pass down the runway (since you're not landing) may not be
>technically legal, but is permitted all the time and taught in pilot
>training. Remember those 'go-arounds'?
Correct; if there's anything within 500' of the runway a low pass isn't
legal. Obviously it's ignored in the event of a go-around, and usually
it's ignored, period... but I did see a report of an enforcement action
against (IIRC) a twin Beech pilot who did a low pass down a runway with no
intention to land (as determined from the speed he was flying).
-Dana
do not archive
--
Blow your mind, smoke gunpowder.
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 |
|
Herb ,Thanks for your responce , but what I wanted- to know was if you we
re ramp checked and what the procedure was as the attitude of the Faa agent
, Was he or she familiar with the model and what the pt.103 qualifications
I know that before the Sport Pilot came out I was checked with my 30 lbs f
at KXP and all the Faa agent said was" this looks like a serious little air
craft" "did you build it I said yes and he said "good job" end of ramp chec
k.--- Chris=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: herb <herb
gh@nctc.com>=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Thursday, October 9, 200
8 1:02:02 PM=0ASubject: Re: Kolb-List: Firefly=0A=0AJust about the only thi
ng that has a "sore thumb" appearance would be- something other than a 5
gal fuel tank..imho.-- =0A=0A-An out of date BRS with the chute remov
ed would give one abt 15 to 18 lbs on the margin! :-)--- Herb =0A=0A
=0AAt 11:52 AM 10/9/2008, you wrote:=0A=0A...well, if you're concerned abou
t weight, as some have noted, haven't seen the ramp-checkers walking around
with scales, but that's not to say they couldn't.=0A=0AJerry aka Ricochet
=0A=0A=0AOn Oct 9, 2008, at 5:22 AM, chris davis wrote:=0A=0A=0AListers , A
s you might know I am building a Firefly and asked about the 447 and dual i
gnition. Now I have another question. Any listers out there that are flying
a Firefly and have been overhauled or ramp checked by the FAA ?-- I kn
ow that TNK has gone a long way to be sure the firefly fits into Pt. 103 bu
t I wonder what happens in an FAA ramp check? And if anyone has had one did
you pass? Thank you Chris=0A-=0AFirestar KXP 503 sc=0A490 hrs=0Abuilding
a Firefly- ??- 447=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?Kolb-List=0A3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=0Ahref="3D"=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0A"">http:
//forums.matronics.com=0A3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0Ahref="3D"=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contri
bution=0A"">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A=0A=0A=0AEmail Fo
rum -=0A=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List=0A- MATRONICS WEB F
ORUMS -=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0A- List Contribution Web Site -=0A-M
att Dralle, List Admin.=0A=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A=0A=0A
======0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
Chris
If the plane is on the ground...then there might be some need
for the faa to prove that it was flown and by whom? Lots of hanger
Queens around...
I have a Firefly that is heavy...never been checked.. fly from my
own strip... Herb
ps I have said this for years.....the faa knew what they were doing
with pt 103...they knew that the rule would be violated soon and
often...:-) But; it keeps the wt and fuel to reasonable limits
based on the principle of " FU" fear and uncertainty.
At 12:40 PM 10/9/2008, you wrote:
>Herb ,Thanks for your responce , but what I wanted to know was if
>you were ramp checked and what the procedure was as the attitude of
>the Faa agent , Was he or she familiar with the model and what the
>pt.103 qualifications I know that before the Sport Pilot came out I
>was checked with my 30 lbs fat KXP and all the Faa agent said was"
>this looks like a serious little aircraft" "did you build it I said
>yes and he said "good job" end of ramp check. Chris
>
>----- Original Message ----
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 |
|
Chris,
It's been my experience, and pretty much most everyone else's, evidently, that
IF you LOOK
like a legal ultralight (single seat, 5 gal., ~254 lbs.) the FAA just about doesn't
care.
They do care if you buzz the White House, interfear with legal FAA traffic, drop
stuff onto
people down below, piss off some airport manager...and he reports you and demands
blood.
It's only when you call extreme attention (negatively) to yourself that you would
likely bring their
wrath down upon you.
It almost sad, but the "ultralight" is of so little concern to most FAA employees,
that I'd bet
few of them know exactly the rules and parameters of a true Part 103 Ultralight,
without
having to look it up. I've heard several times the comment....."If it looks like
an ultralight,
then it IS an ultralight."
Now, don't misinterpret my words to say a fat (15+lbs or more) ultralight is
okay. I'm not
sugggesting we ignor the rules. I'm only suggesting that if your UL is a couple
pounds over,
and you NEVER do anything wrong, you'd probably have virtually nothing to worry
about.
Let's face it, it's easy for the FAA guys to hang around the FSDO and drink coffee
and eat donuts,
than it is to go out sweatin' about some pour little pilot wannabe and his toy
(their attitude NOT mine).
That's my take on the subject. Of course, there can always be an exception.
(Keep in mind everyone has different experiences with how and where their UL's
are flown. I'm
used to litlle podunk airports, that lead to other little podunk airport, and grassy
fields, etc. Some
may have an entirely different exposure. FWIW...don't worry...be happy!!)
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
________________________________
From: capedavis@yahoo.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Firefly
Listers , As you might know I am building a Firefly and asked about the 447 and
dual ignition. Now I have another question. Any listers out there that are flying
a Firefly and have been overhauled or ramp checked by the FAA ? I know
that TNK has gone a long way to be sure the firefly fits into Pt. 103 but I wonder
what happens in an FAA ramp check? And if anyone has had one did you pass?
Thank you Chris
Firestar KXP 503 sc
490 hrs
building a Firefly ?? 447
_________________________________________________________________
Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn 10 hidden secrets from Jamie.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
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! --
|