Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:09 AM - Re: Re: Latex paint (again???!!!!) (Richard Girard)
2. 01:24 AM - Yet another covering option (Richard Girard)
3. 01:32 AM - Re: Yet another covering option (Richard Girard)
4. 01:38 AM - Re: Yet another covering option (Richard Girard)
5. 10:02 AM - Re: Yet another covering option (b young)
6. 12:50 PM - Re: Yet another covering option (Richard Pike)
7. 02:15 PM - Re: Re: Latex paint (again???!!!!) (Jerry Deckard)
8. 03:40 PM - firestar2 kit for sale (Mike Pres)
9. 04:25 PM - Re: Kolb flying boat (Dennis Souder)
10. 06:40 PM - Re: Kolb flying boat (chris davis)
11. 07:02 PM - Re: Kolb flying boat (Dennis Souder)
12. 07:04 PM - Re: Latex paint (again???!!!!) (Richard Pike)
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: Latex paint (again???!!!!) |
Richard, I should have known from the quality of the work you show on other
projects that if anyone would have something close to a 'system' for latex
you'd be the one.
The sample you have left UV exposed, have you done the 56 lb test on a piece
from it. That would be the real deal in proving long term survivability.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
>
> I discarded the original slip-on sails of my Maxair Hummer in 1994,
> recovered it with Ceconite and painted it with Latex. Why, what are the
> advantages? It is typically lighter in weight than the other systems.
> Durability is good, I saw a picture of my old Hummer on Youtube last week,
> it is still going strong in NC with the same covering after 16 years. If
> you damage it, MEK dissolves the latex enough to reattach or glue on fabric
> patches. Best reason, it is cheap.
>
> To use it, you have to thin the latex enough for your first coat that it
> will penetrate and encapsulate the fabric like Polybrush does, or like
> nitrate dope does. Contrary to some opinions, nitrate dope works on dacron
> fabric to penetrate and encapsulate it, that is why the FAA approves it,
> check out the Certified Coatings or Randolph section of the Aircraft Spruce
> catalog. Stits is good, but other methods are approved and work well also.
>
> You still have to apply all your tapes to the fabric with nitrate or
> Poly-Brush, and I used Certified Coatings Sure-Seam fabric cement to attach
> the fabric to the airframe, and Certified Coatings blue-tinted nitrate to
> attach the coverings to each other at the overlap and similar places.
>
> I am in the last stages of painting the FSII that I am rebuilding, it is
> covered with Ceconite and painted with latex for a cost of $180 for the
> latex purchased locally, $150 for 2 gallons of nitrate plus 2 quarts of
> fabric cement plus shipping.
>
> Of all the systems I have done, I like using Randolph & Certified Coatings
> best because they dry the fastest, Stits second, and latex third in terms of
> ease, latex is somewhat of a pain, because you have to wait a long time to
> mask off and shoot the trim coats, it is thick and you need a special gun,
> and it takes several days to harden up between colors so you can't mask it
> off as quickly as with the others. In terms of cost, latex wins hands down,
> Certified Coatings and Randolph second, and Stits last.
>
> I have a fabric sample of Dacron that was painted with latex and left out
> in the sun for several years, the paint still sticks good and the fabric
> beneath it is still good.
>
> So to answer your question, if cost is very important, go with latex and
> get a decent HVLP spray gun to shoot it with. If you can afford to step up a
> notch but cost is still important, go with Certified Coatings or Randolph.
> If cost is no object, go with Stits, it is pretty much the Acura of
> Kolb-style paint systems.
>
> As far as how to do it - attach the dacron of your choice to the airframe
> with any dacron-approved fabric cement and then dope the tapes on using
> either Poly-brush or any nitrate dope. Prepare it just like you were
> planning to use Stits coatings, except that you quit when you get to the
> open areas.
>
> I then spray the upper surfaces, vertical surfaces, and fuselage with
> black, thinned with with a mix of polypropylene glycol and water, AKA
> windshield washer fluid so that the paint is thinned and watery, it has to
> penetrate and encapsulate the fabric. If it runs, just blot it carefully
> with a paper towel. Don't let it drip through to the opposite side, that is
> too much. Lay the fuselage over so that the paint won't run on the vertical
> surfaces. Why black? It blocks out all light, and presumably the UV as well.
> The Hummer was black, and 16 years later...
>
> Then lay a thicker coat or two on to seal the weave and make it look nice,
> let it dry for a couple days so the paint won't soften and stick to your
> sawhorses, and then shoot the lighter of your unmasked color coats, you may
> want to shoot a coat of white first to make the color pop out nice, I know I
> will. Let it dry for at least a week and then mask it off and shoot your
> darker colors. For your final coats use Latex X-tender instead of windshield
> washer fluid, it is clear instead of blue, & it makes the paint flow out and
> gives it more gloss. Your local paint store probably sells it.
>
> One thing to keep in mind: never let two latex painted surfaces lay on each
> other, or you will come back later and find that they have glued themselves
> together, and when you pull them apart, you will mess something up.
>
> Bottom line, latex is an acceptable system, but it has it's limitations and
> quirks. If cost and light weight were not priorities, I would be using
> aircraft dope instead and not fooling with it and I would already be done
> instead of having to wait to shoot the final coats next week. (On the other
> hand, it has been in the 90's for weeks, and I didn't have to fool with
> retarder this time to keep it from spiderwebbing on me like the Stits I used
> to paint the MKIII with did. Hmmm....)
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308808#308808
>
>
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: | Yet another covering option |
For those who are interested, my neighbor, Richard Geide, published on
article in the September 1980 issue of "Sport Aviation" called, "Low Cost
Coverage" detailing a system he documented using polyurethane varnish as the
encapsulating agent. The only trouble I can see is that most of the products
he used are no longer available so anyone wishing to try it would have to
use his work as a starting point. The article can be found at EAA.org by
searching the Sport Aviation archives.
He has covered three aircraft using his process, two of which he still owns
and flies regularly.
Dick's airplanes, a Head Wind and a design of his own, are both direct drive
VW powered and he built the engines for both aircraft, too. He was an
engineer with Cessna doing structures and aero work before retiring. 79
years young, he flies in the mornings a couple of days a week. He's right
across the runway from me so I can see whenever his hangar is open and I try
to get over for a chat.
Rick Girard
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Yet another covering option |
Since it is in the Members Only area of their web site I don't know if this
link will work but here it is, anyway:
http://www.oshkosh365.org/saarchive/eaa_articles/1980_09_19.pdf
<http://www.oshkosh365.org/saarchive/eaa_articles/1980_09_19.pdf>Rick
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com> wrote:
> For those who are interested, my neighbor, Richard Geide, published on
> article in the September 1980 issue of "Sport Aviation" called, "Low Cost
> Coverage" detailing a system he documented using polyurethane varnish as the
> encapsulating agent. The only trouble I can see is that most of the products
> he used are no longer available so anyone wishing to try it would have to
> use his work as a starting point. The article can be found at EAA.org by
> searching the Sport Aviation archives.
> He has covered three aircraft using his process, two of which he still owns
> and flies regularly.
> Dick's airplanes, a Head Wind and a design of his own, are both direct
> drive VW powered and he built the engines for both aircraft, too. He was an
> engineer with Cessna doing structures and aero work before retiring. 79
> years young, he flies in the mornings a couple of days a week. He's right
> across the runway from me so I can see whenever his hangar is open and I try
> to get over for a chat.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Yet another covering option |
Or, even easier yet, here's the article as an attachment.
Can anyone tell it's oh dark 30 and Rick is having trouble sleeping again?
Rick
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since it is in the Members Only area of their web site I don't know if this
> link will work but here it is, anyway:
>
> http://www.oshkosh365.org/saarchive/eaa_articles/1980_09_19.pdf
>
> <http://www.oshkosh365.org/saarchive/eaa_articles/1980_09_19.pdf>Rick
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> For those who are interested, my neighbor, Richard Geide, published on
>> article in the September 1980 issue of "Sport Aviation" called, "Low Cost
>> Coverage" detailing a system he documented using polyurethane varnish as the
>> encapsulating agent. The only trouble I can see is that most of the products
>> he used are no longer available so anyone wishing to try it would have to
>> use his work as a starting point. The article can be found at EAA.org by
>> searching the Sport Aviation archives.
>> He has covered three aircraft using his process, two of which he still
>> owns and flies regularly.
>> Dick's airplanes, a Head Wind and a design of his own, are both direct
>> drive VW powered and he built the engines for both aircraft, too. He was an
>> engineer with Cessna doing structures and aero work before retiring. 79
>> years young, he flies in the mornings a couple of days a week. He's right
>> across the runway from me so I can see whenever his hangar is open and I try
>> to get over for a chat.
>>
>> Rick Girard
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
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: Yet another covering option |
one more thought on the matter.... if someone was looking to buy a
plane, and had 2 to choose from,,,, and one was covered with latex, and
the other with the polly fiber, stits, method,,, would that affect the
resale value of the plane? or the ability to sale the plane.?
would the extra expense now be worth it in the long run?
boyd young
mkIII,
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Yet another covering option |
[quote="by0ung(at)brigham.net"]one more thought on the matter.... if someone
was looking to buy a plane, and had 2 to choose from,,,, and one was covered
with latex, and the other with the polly fiber, stits, method,,, would that
affect the resale value of the plane? or the ability to sale the plane.?
would the extra expense now be worth it in the long run?
boyd young
mkIII,
[quote]
I think if the covering was recent, the latex would detract quite a bit, because
it would be an unknown quantity. But if they were both at least ten years old,
and both appeared to be in equally good cosmetic and airworthy condition, it
wouldn't matter as much. Anything older than that, and a lot of people start
thinking in terms of maybe it's about time for a new cover anyway. (Might better
open it up and check what's inside...)
So if you are thinking you might sell your airplane any time soon, I wouldn't use
latex, and from what I have seen on this thread recently, it is very possible
that using anything but Stits could be a negative, as apparently the other
brands of dope and fabric are not real well known to most folks.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308909#308909
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: Latex paint (again???!!!!) |
I am also on the Challenger list. Several guys on that list use it.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:47 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Latex paint (again???!!!!)
>
> Several good questions - The latex seems to stick to the nitrate covered
> fabric just like latex paint sticks to your house - pretty darn well.
>
> And yes - nitrate burns just dandy, even better than butyrate.
>
> Brands? I like Sherwin-Williams and Sears Weatherbeater, but if you go
> with Lowe's premium stuff, it works fine too.
>
> And yes, I agree that using one proven system is the best way to get
> predictable results. But GeoB was asking for an opinion and a functional
> technique, and that is what I tried to give him. Anyway, we are building
> experimental airplanes, and some of us enjoy experimenting.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308851#308851
>
>
>
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: | firestar2 kit for sale |
I don't think I will ever finish this plane so I am selling the kit.
everything but the rotax engine and accessory kit. no instruments serial number
F1084
Wings, complete, ready to cover, fuselage with boom and tail completed. Tail
feathers are covered. Just like a fast build kit but plenty left to do to
qualify for the 51%rule
brake option.
I would like to get $5,000 and I am on the West coast, Washington state.
206-963-2118
Mike
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: | Kolb flying boat |
Chris,
With your KXP arrangement the sponson loading would have been divided
between the cable and by the wing fold insertion tube. It would be hard to
say how much of the load would have been carried by each - this is
essentially a statically indeterminate problem since there are two load
paths and each is somewhat elastic. The load sharing would require some
complicated math to solve.
If it was evenly divided, for instance, then the leading edge would carry
half of the total loading vs. 100% of the loading with the arrangement on
the flying boat Kolb.
If the cable was not strung very tight, then possibly the wing fold
insertion was carrying most of the load.
Also the leading edge tube is larger and better supported from the main
spar. But even so, I would not choose to use this either. Yours held of ok
under reasonable loading usage; it might or might not hold up if more stress
was applied.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris davis
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Dennis , When I had a monofloat on my KXP I mounted the sponson on the wing
fold holding tube with cable stays going to the leading edge and to the wing
tip ? This seemed to be well supported to me as the wing fod tubes were
intended to hold the weight of the wing ? It worked out well but I never hit
anything and most of my landings were on reasonably calm water. What do you
think of that rig ? Thank you
Chris Davis
KXP 503 492 hrs
Glider Pilot
Disabled from crash building Firefly
_____
From: Dennis Souder <flykolb@pa.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:25:12 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Ron,
In addition to the probable excess weight issue, I'd also check the
internals on wing at the sponson float attach point. If there is no
internal reinforcement for the rib(s) where the sponson attaches at the rear
wing spar, then that is placing too much stress on adjacent wing rib(s). It
looks like one rib would take the major portion of the load and no rib is
capable of handling the potential sponson induced loading. If that rib
weakens and fails, then the load would be taken up by the next adjacent
ribs. And they in turn could be overstressed and eventually fail. This
damage can be hidden because the wing fabric is flexible and can look normal
even after the ribs are broken underneath. The trailing edge is not strong
or stiff enough to take the loads imposed by a sponson float. The danger
here is that internal damage could start and grow unseen until the wing was
seriously weakened. When imagining this scenario don't think about a
smooth lake surface with the nice small ripples, imagine some winds that
have stirred up some waves or a motor boat had just sent out a large wake
and you don't see it and the sponson dips into this wave. Or you bump a
dock or rock on the shore. The sponson is on a long moment arm and can
exert a lot of force on the wing.
All Kolb mono floats that I have seen attach the sponsons directly to the
main wing spar. The sponson is supported by one stout tube that goes
completely thru the 5" spar. This is placed far enough outboard where the
lifting loads are no longer a major part of the spar load and the spar can
afford a large vertical hole thru it.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ron schick
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:40 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Dan and all thanks for the pics and the input. Yes the plane is near
complete, but there are some tractor mechanic things I would want to address
before I flew it. First would be weights and balance, then the hinged
windshield would need more attachment for my liking. The fuel and wiring
would need the blue auto connectors to the coil removed and the glass
cleanable fuel filter thrown in the trash etc. Beyond that my concerns would
be the handling caracteristics with the tail group behind that big old boat
possibly blanking the tail. My biggest concerns are the paperwork to get a
registration, and the purchase price in case I have to part it out. The
water is always a little cold in southwest Oregon so getting out of a
swamped wreck has me a little concerned as well :-) I'll try to attach a
few more pics, but have never seen it off the trailer. I'll throw in a pic
of my VW Fox for the redrive crowd. Ron NB Ore
_____
From: h20maule@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Ron, here are pics of my FS amphib...do you have any photos of the whole
plane?
Daniel Myers
407 920 7700
_____
From: roncarolnikko@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
I am thinking of buying it, but if the gear is a design flaw and not just
for beaching I wonder if it should be returned to a conventional Firestar.
I have built a 582 Avid A model and Kitfox 4 with a VW redrive so I'm used
to the experimenting. The fiberglass would probably need test drilled,
banged or something to make sure it would withstand landings on choppy
water. The plane has been through a few hands and the main builder has
passed away.
_____
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
From: aslsa.rng@gmail.com
Now this truly puts the experiment in experimental aircraft. Are you
thinking of buying this, Ron? It would be great to watch your progress as
you bring this to the air, and water. Very cool.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:25 PM, ron schick <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've found a Kolb Firestar two that has been converted to an amphibian. The
workmanship looks very good, but the gear must be for beaching only. The
leverage of the gear to lever is about 4:1 and could not be done in flight.
Has anyone else heard of a Kolb amphibian? I'll try to attach a picture.
Thanks Ron
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>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: Kolb flying boat |
Dennis, Thanks for the come back It was a while ago and as I remember the r
eason =0AI put the stays on was because the wing foldinsertion tube didnt s
eem like it =0Awould take any large amount of stress=C2- and being new at
sponsons as I had twin =0Afloats on it for 3 years prior to the unifloat w
hich I didnt care for I thought =0Athat the stays were agood insurance poli
cy!=0A=C2-=C2-=C2- Everything you said in your post made sence as usu
al .Chris Davis=0AKXP 503 492 hrs=0AGlider Pilot=0ADisabled from crash buil
ding Firefly =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Dennis
Souder <flykolb@pa.net>=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Sun, August
15, 2010 7:25:12 PM=0ASubject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat=0A=0A=0AChri
s,=0A=C2-=0AWith your KXP arrangement the sponson loading would have been
divided between =0Athe cable and by the wing fold insertion tube.=C2- It
would be hard to say how much =0Aof the load would have been carried by ea
ch - this is essentially a statically =0Aindeterminate problem since there
are two load paths and each is somewhat =0Aelastic.=C2- The load sharing
would require some complicated math to solve.=0A=C2-=0AIf it was evenly d
ivided, for instance, then the leading edge would carry half =0Aof the tota
l loading vs. 100% of the loading with the arrangement on the flying =0Aboa
t Kolb.=0A=C2-=0AIf the cable was not strung very tight, then possibly th
e wing fold insertion =0Awas carrying most of the load.=0A=C2-=0AAlso the
leading edge tube is larger and better supported from the main spar.=C2-
=0ABut even so, I would not choose to use this either.=C2- Yours held of
ok under =0Areasonable loading usage; it might or might not hold up if mor
e stress was =0Aapplied.=0A=C2-=0ADennis=0A=C2- =0A=C2-=0A=0A________
________________________=0A=0AFrom:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com =0A
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris davis=0ASe
nt: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:01 PM=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASubject
: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat=0A=C2-=0ADennis , When I had a monofloa
t on my KXP I mounted the sponson on the wing fold =0Aholding tube=C2-wit
h cable stays going to the leading edge and to the wing tip ? =0AThis seeme
d to be well supported to me as the wing fod tubes were intended to =0Ahold
the weight of the wing ? It worked out well=C2-but I never hit anything
and =0Amost of my landings were on reasonably calm water.=C2-What do you
think of that rig =0A? Thank you =C2-=0AChris Davis=0AKXP 503 492 hrs=0AG
lider Pilot=0ADisabled from crash building Firefly =0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0A=0A
________________________________=0A=0AFrom:Dennis Souder <flykolb@pa.net>
=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:25:12 AM=0ASu
bject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat=0ARon,=0A=C2-=0AIn addition to the
probable excess weight issue, I=99d also check the internals on =0Aw
ing at the sponson float attach point.=C2- If there is no internal reinfo
rcement =0Afor the rib(s) where the sponson attaches at the rear wing spar,
then that is =0Aplacing too much stress on adjacent wing rib(s).=C2- It
looks like one rib would =0Atake the major portion of the load and no rib i
s capable of handling the =0Apotential sponson induced loading. If that rib
weakens and fails, then the load =0Awould be taken up by the next adjacent
ribs.=C2- And they in turn could be =0Aoverstressed and eventually fail.
=C2- This damage can be hidden because the wing =0Afabric is flexible and
can look normal even after the ribs are broken =0Aunderneath. =C2-The tr
ailing edge is not strong or stiff enough to take the loads =0Aimposed by a
sponson float.=C2- The danger here is that internal damage could start
=0Aand grow unseen until the wing was seriously weakened. =C2-=C2-When
imagining this =0Ascenario don=99t think about a =C2-smooth lake su
rface with the nice small ripples, =0Aimagine some winds that have stirred
up some waves or a motor boat had just sent =0Aout a large wake and you don
=99t see it and the sponson dips into this wave.=C2- Or =0Ayou bump
a dock or rock on the shore.=C2- The sponson is on a long moment arm and
=0Acan exert a lot of force on the wing.=0A=C2-=0AAll Kolb mono floats t
hat I have seen attach the sponsons directly to the main =0Awing spar.=C2
- The sponson is supported by one stout tube that goes completely thru
=0Athe 5=9D spar.=C2- This is placed far enough outboard where the
lifting loads are no =0Alonger a major part of the spar load and the spar c
an afford a large vertical =0Ahole thru it.=0A=C2-=0ADennis=0A=C2-=0A
=0A________________________________=0A=0AFrom:owner-kolb-list-server@matron
ics.com =0A[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ron s
chick=0ASent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:40 AM=0ATo: Kolb-list=0ASubject: R
E: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat=0A=C2-=0ADan and all thanks for the pics a
nd the input.=C2- Yes=C2-the plane is near complete, =0Abut there are s
ome tractor mechanic things I would want to address before I flew =0Ait.=C2
- First would be weights and balance, then the hinged windshield would ne
ed =0Amore attachment for my liking.=C2- The fuel and wiring would need t
he blue auto =0Aconnectors to the coil removed and the glass cleanable fuel
filter thrown in the =0Atrash etc. Beyond that my concerns would be the ha
ndling caracteristics with the =0Atail group behind that big old boat possi
bly blanking the tail.=C2- My biggest =0Aconcerns are the paperwork to=C2
-get a registration, and the purchase price in case =0AI have to part it
out.=C2- The water is always a little cold in southwest Oregon so =0Agett
ing out of a swamped wreck has me a little concerned as well :-)=C2- I'll
try =0Ato attach a few more pics, but have never seen it off the trailer.
=C2-=C2-I'll throw =0Ain a pic of my VW Fox for the redrive crowd. =C2
-Ron NB Ore=0A=C2-=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0AFrom: h20
maule@hotmail.com=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: Kolb-List: K
olb flying boat=0ADate: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:15:29 -0400=0A=0ARon, here are
pics of my FS amphib...do you=C2-have any photos of the=C2-whole plane?
=0ADaniel Myers=0A407 920 7700=0A=C2-=0A=0A______________________________
__=0A=0AFrom: roncarolnikko@hotmail.com=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASub
ject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat=0ADate: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:21:24 -07
00=0A=0AI am thinking of buying it, but if the gear is a design flaw and no
t just for =0Abeaching I wonder if it should be returned to a conventional
Firestar.=0AI have built a 582=C2-Avid A model and Kitfox 4 with a VW red
rive so I'm used to =0Athe experimenting. The fiberglass would probably nee
d test drilled, =C2-banged or =0Asomething to make sure it would withstan
d=C2- landings on choppy water.=C2- The plane =0Ahas been through a few
hands and the main=C2-builder has passed away.=0A=0A____________________
____________=0A=0ADate: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:01:06 -0500=0ASubject: Re: Kolb
-List: Kolb flying boat=0AFrom: aslsa.rng@gmail.com=0ATo: kolb-list@matroni
cs.com=0A=0ANow this truly puts the experiment in experimental aircraft. Ar
e you thinking of =0Abuying this, Ron? It would be great to watch your prog
ress as you bring this to =0Athe air, and water. Very cool. =0A=0A=C2-=0A
Rick Girard=0AOn Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:25 PM, ron schick <roncarolnikko@h
otmail.com> wrote:=0AI've found a Kolb Firestar two that has been converted
to an amphibian.=C2- The =0Aworkmanship looks very good, but the gear mu
st be for beaching only.=C2- The =0Aleverage of the gear to lever is abou
t 4:1 and could not be done in flight.=C2- Has =0Aanyone else heard of a
Kolb amphibian?=C2-I'll try to attach a picture. =C2-Thanks Ron =0A=0A
=C2-=0A=C2-=C2-=0A =C2-=0Aarget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Kolb-List=0Attp://forums.matronics.com=0A=_blank>http://www.matr
onics.com/contribution=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0Aarget=_blank>http:
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List=0Attp://forums.matronics.com=0A=_
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =C2-=0A=C2-=0A =C2-=0A
=C2-=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List=0Ahttp://forums.matr
======= =0A=0A=0A=0A
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Kolb flying boat |
Chris,
You were probably correct in your thinking that the tube by itself would
not
have been stiff enough ' the reason for this is that because you were
using
the hole for wing folding you were necessarily limited to only a =BD=94
dia tube
because that is the hole size in the spar for folding. I forget what
size
tube was typically used for the sponsons, but it was at least =BE=94 and
possibly even 1=94. The larger dia tube would have been much stiffer
than the
=BD=94 tube. I recall building one of these float plane wings and as I
recall I
used the same dia tube that Jim Lee used and I winced at putting such a
large hole through the spar. But it was far enough outboard of the spar
fitting that the stresses due to lift were just a small fraction of what
they were at the H-section. I saw at least one example where a sponson
that
was bent back because of a low altitude stall where the airplane hit the
water at an angle. The tube was bent way back but the spar was not
harmed.
This was good because the bending tube is a weak link that will
dissipate
the impact force to the wing: stiff enough for normal loads, but
flexible
enough to bend before breaking something in the wing.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris davis
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Dennis, Thanks for the come back It was a while ago and as I remember
the
reason I put the stays on was because the wing foldinsertion tube didnt
seem
like it would take any large amount of stress and being new at sponsons
as
I had twin floats on it for 3 years prior to the unifloat which I didnt
care
for I thought that the stays were agood insurance policy!
Everything you said in your post made sence as usual .
Chris Davis
KXP 503 492 hrs
Glider Pilot
Disabled from crash building Firefly
_____
From: Dennis Souder <flykolb@pa.net>
Sent: Sun, August 15, 2010 7:25:12 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Chris,
With your KXP arrangement the sponson loading would have been divided
between the cable and by the wing fold insertion tube. It would be hard
to
say how much of the load would have been carried by each - this is
essentially a statically indeterminate problem since there are two load
paths and each is somewhat elastic. The load sharing would require some
complicated math to solve.
If it was evenly divided, for instance, then the leading edge would
carry
half of the total loading vs. 100% of the loading with the arrangement
on
the flying boat Kolb.
If the cable was not strung very tight, then possibly the wing fold
insertion was carrying most of the load.
Also the leading edge tube is larger and better supported from the main
spar. But even so, I would not choose to use this either. Yours held
of ok
under reasonable loading usage; it might or might not hold up if more
stress
was applied.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris davis
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Dennis , When I had a monofloat on my KXP I mounted the sponson on the
wing
fold holding tube with cable stays going to the leading edge and to the
wing
tip ? This seemed to be well supported to me as the wing fod tubes were
intended to hold the weight of the wing ? It worked out well but I never
hit
anything and most of my landings were on reasonably calm water. What do
you
think of that rig ? Thank you
Chris Davis
KXP 503 492 hrs
Glider Pilot
Disabled from crash building Firefly
_____
From: Dennis Souder <flykolb@pa.net>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 7:25:12 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Ron,
In addition to the probable excess weight issue, I=92d also check the
internals on wing at the sponson float attach point. If there is no
internal reinforcement for the rib(s) where the sponson attaches at the
rear
wing spar, then that is placing too much stress on adjacent wing rib(s).
It
looks like one rib would take the major portion of the load and no rib
is
capable of handling the potential sponson induced loading. If that rib
weakens and fails, then the load would be taken up by the next adjacent
ribs. And they in turn could be overstressed and eventually fail. This
damage can be hidden because the wing fabric is flexible and can look
normal
even after the ribs are broken underneath. The trailing edge is not
strong
or stiff enough to take the loads imposed by a sponson float. The
danger
here is that internal damage could start and grow unseen until the wing
was
seriously weakened. When imagining this scenario don=92t think about a
smooth lake surface with the nice small ripples, imagine some winds that
have stirred up some waves or a motor boat had just sent out a large
wake
and you don=92t see it and the sponson dips into this wave. Or you bump
a
dock or rock on the shore. The sponson is on a long moment arm and can
exert a lot of force on the wing.
All Kolb mono floats that I have seen attach the sponsons directly to
the
main wing spar. The sponson is supported by one stout tube that goes
completely thru the 5=94 spar. This is placed far enough outboard where
the
lifting loads are no longer a major part of the spar load and the spar
can
afford a large vertical hole thru it.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ron schick
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:40 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Dan and all thanks for the pics and the input. Yes the plane is near
complete, but there are some tractor mechanic things I would want to
address
before I flew it. First would be weights and balance, then the hinged
windshield would need more attachment for my liking. The fuel and
wiring
would need the blue auto connectors to the coil removed and the glass
cleanable fuel filter thrown in the trash etc. Beyond that my concerns
would
be the handling caracteristics with the tail group behind that big old
boat
possibly blanking the tail. My biggest concerns are the paperwork to
get a
registration, and the purchase price in case I have to part it out. The
water is always a little cold in southwest Oregon so getting out of a
swamped wreck has me a little concerned as well :-) I'll try to attach
a
few more pics, but have never seen it off the trailer. I'll throw in a
pic
of my VW Fox for the redrive crowd. Ron NB Ore
_____
From: h20maule@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
Ron, here are pics of my FS amphib...do you have any photos of the whole
plane?
Daniel Myers
407 920 7700
_____
From: roncarolnikko@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
I am thinking of buying it, but if the gear is a design flaw and not
just
for beaching I wonder if it should be returned to a conventional
Firestar.
I have built a 582 Avid A model and Kitfox 4 with a VW redrive so I'm
used
to the experimenting. The fiberglass would probably need test drilled,
banged or something to make sure it would withstand landings on choppy
water. The plane has been through a few hands and the main builder has
passed away.
_____
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb flying boat
From: aslsa.rng@gmail.com
Now this truly puts the experiment in experimental aircraft. Are you
thinking of buying this, Ron? It would be great to watch your progress
as
you bring this to the air, and water. Very cool.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:25 PM, ron schick <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've found a Kolb Firestar two that has been converted to an amphibian.
The
workmanship looks very good, but the gear must be for beaching only.
The
leverage of the gear to lever is about 4:1 and could not be done in
flight.
Has anyone else heard of a Kolb amphibian? I'll try to attach a picture.
Thanks Ron
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/contributi=============
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
Forum -
Navigator to browse
List
Un/Subscription,
Browse,
Chat, FAQ,
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
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: Latex paint (again???!!!!) |
[quote="rickofudall"] The sample you have left UV exposed, have you done the 56
lb test on a piece from it. That would be the real deal in proving long term
survivability.
Rick Girard
[quote]
Actually Vince started it, I have the fabric/latex test sample now, it got passed
on to me. And no, I don't think that 56 lb test ever happened. However it does
great during the poke it, wrinkle it, abuse it test. Not that that proves
much, but it looks impressive...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308941#308941
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! --
|