Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:06 AM - Trailaplane (JC Gilpin)
2. 05:48 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (End User)
3. 06:27 AM - Re: Trailaplane (SS568)
4. 07:13 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Richard Girard)
5. 07:31 AM - Re: Re: Welding? (Roy Spangler)
6. 07:33 AM - Re: Trailaplane (Robert Laird)
7. 07:39 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Michael Welch)
8. 08:00 AM - Re: Trailaplane (Rick Neilsen)
9. 08:08 AM - Re: Trailaplane (Richard Girard)
10. 08:13 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Richard Girard)
11. 08:44 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Michael Welch)
12. 10:48 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (End User)
13. 11:02 AM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Richard Girard)
14. 11:34 AM - Re: Trailaplane (b young)
15. 12:30 PM - Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Michael Welch)
16. 12:57 PM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Richard Girard)
17. 01:00 PM - Re: Re: Trailaplane (Gene Ledbetter)
18. 01:17 PM - Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic (Michael Welch)
19. 07:53 PM - Re: Re: 8/20/11 Forest Lake fly-in (chris davis)
20. 09:09 PM - Operating Manual (rayw)
21. 09:42 PM - Re: Operating Manual (Larry Cottrell)
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 |
|
Gday All,
I went to Oshkosh this year, and the highlight for me was a neat FireFly in
the Red Barn area. I fell in love at first and second and further visits.
Couldn't ever connect with the owner....
To introduce myself, I live in Australia, and do a lot of x-country touring
by air, in a two-place Savannah with a 100hp 912S these days, but earlier in
a single-seat Spectrum Beaver with 447, 1000hrs in each of them. But I'm
getting a bit tired of living under the wing in a pup tent. That's all fine
when I'm moving every day and the weather is good, but hunkered down in a
little tent for several days when bad weather sets in gets trying. And the
fact that airfields are mostly a couple of miles or more from town, has me
wishing for real wheels, even tho I can now carry a bicycle in the Savannah.
So the dream now is a folding ultralight that I can tow behind an RV, and
fly locally to see the sights when the weather is right, and have wheels and
a comfortable camp the rest of the time. So of course the FireFly fits into
this dream exactly! The dream has now extended to touring the USA the same
way - find a FireFly with trailer and an RV, and go wherever..... I have
friends in Texas, Mississippi, Minnesota, Utah and Arizona, so could leave
the rig between visits, and return whenever the season and funds suit.
It'll be a couple of years to be free of ties that bind here, so not ready
for Gene's aircraft yet, but some day would hope to find another
similar.....
My Australian ultralight license isn't recognized over there, so I can't go
to a FireStar in the Experimental category without a PPL. Even then, I
think it would be a lot less complicated to stay under the radar in 103
category?? Do you have to be a US citizen or resident to fly 103?? I'd be
hunting out quiet, little-used airstrips away from 'heavy metal' and all the
'attitude'.
I notice that Gene removes the wings and secures them to the sides of the
trailer. Is this for reasons of keeping road rash from wearing at the
structural mounts, or for overall length, or whatever?? Seems that if you
could leave the wings on the FireFly and use a two-blade prop, you could
make a trailer that would be very slim and compact and easy to tow.....
I've been impressed by the performance of Kolbs ever since Sun'nFun 1990.
But there are very few Kolbs in Aus. A couple of Mark 3's, but that's
about it. Our local regulations for Amateur Built Category allow two seats
and MTOW of 544kg (1200lb) so that easily allows a FireStar here. I
understand that a few two-seat tandem FireStars were built, but can't find
out more about them - any links or info appreciated. Was the cockpit
extended a bit?? Looks like that would be easy enough, and I have the
engineering experience to do that and to correct W&B. Don't need dual
controls, just enough room to load a pax for short flights, sort of like a
pillion on a motorcycle, put the pax out of the way where they belong.....
Photography is important to me so I want excellent visibility both sides.
Are there any snags that I haven't considered that anyone can see in this
dream??
How come more aren't using these aircraft that way, or don't we hear about
it??
Any comments most welcome.
To come along on some of the trips I've done, have a look at the photos at
http://www.stolspeed.com/id/12
Cheers,
John Gilpin
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: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
I doubt the nose has a noticeable effect on landing. Not enough
surface area.
There is a difference at cruise though which is why they changed the
wing incidence.
My hybrid MkIII has a longer nose too and a really broad windshield.
I still intend
to lower my incidence too.... -eventually.
BB, always another project.
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." '
Confucius
On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Mic wrote:
>
> I just watched the MK3X YouTube video posted 2 weeks ago by
> ultralight news.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LjOighew8
>
> Having not flown in either aircraft, my opinions are solely based
> on observation watching videos. My first impression of the wide,
> shark-like nose of the Xtra was that it provided a significant
> amount of additional airfoil and would impact ground effect and
> possibly in-flight pitch characteristics. A Kolb pilot also
> brought this to my attention recently as well.
>
> So, I would appreciate hearing from those of you with experience
> flying both of these aircraft. How do the flight characteristics
> differ?
>
> Thank you all for your input.
>
> --------
> Mic
> "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than
> to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
> =94 Carl Sagan
>
> "Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire."
> =94 W.B. Yeats
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350168#350168
>
>
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 |
|
G'day John,
That set up of Gene's is rather interesting. But I have only seen the pictures
that you have seen.
One thing to keep in mind when towing an airplane in a trailer, is the shock load
of hitting a bump or pot hole. Think of it as G. forces. They don't last long
but can do damage (often unseen) to the planes structure. Tandem axles help
a lot, as well as slowing down.
There was a set up I saw a while back of a person that took a RV type travel trailer
and converted it into a hauler for his plane and also kept most of the
living quarters.
There are also lots of trailers over here called toy haulers. Usually living quarters
up front and a rear door where "toys" can be pulled up inside.
As to length they come in all sizes. Most would be too short for a kolb, but not
all. and you would need to decide if you want to live aboard with the plane
or leave it outside in the weather. Length and arrangement of living quarter
would determine this. Also whether there is a madam or not aboard. They require
a lot of space.
:D
David d.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350185#350185
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 MIIIX vs. Classic |
Although I am still fighting the good fight trying to get Ken Holle's Mk
IIIX to not behave like a lawn dart, which, I believe, is particular to thi
s
airplane only and not Mk IIIX's in general, I do have one data point.
Some review first. The wing incidence on this aircraft has been set at 2.8
degrees relative to the engine mount, the low end of the factory recommende
d
setting of 2.8 to 3.4 degrees. It has a full swivel tail wheel with a 4"
diameter wheel and the tail wheel strut has been shortened to about 8". It
has the welded tubing main gear.
Set up as it is the aircraft can only do wheel landings and they are at a
relatively higher speed than my MK IIIC with straight leg, aluminum gear
(but it couldn't do a full stall landing either). I can, with great care,
get a three point wheel on landing out of the IIIX, but it takes only a
little too much back pressure on the stick to touch down tail wheel first.
In flight the other thing I notice is that even with the lowest wing
incidence setting the nose cone caves in under dynamic pressure. Somewhere
along the trail of getting this aircraft rehabilitated I'll add some
composite ribs to the nose cone to alleviate this. Builders might want to
consider doing this as a preemptive measure before the windscreen and doors
are in place and it is an easy reach to get to the inside of the nose cone.
Rick Girard
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM, End User <slyck@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I doubt the nose has a noticeable effect on landing. Not enough surface
> area.
> There is a difference at cruise though which is why they changed the wing
> incidence.
>
> My hybrid MkIII has a longer nose too and a really broad windshield. I
> still intend
> to lower my incidence too.... -eventually.
>
> BB, always another project.
>
> "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." '
> Confucius <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Mic wrote:
>
>
> I just watched the MK3X YouTube video posted 2 weeks ago by ultralight
> news.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LjOighew8
>
> Having not flown in either aircraft, my opinions are solely based on
> observation watching videos. My first impression of the wide, shark-like
> nose of the Xtra was that it provided a significant amount of additional
> airfoil and would impact ground effect and possibly in-flight pitch
> characteristics. A Kolb pilot also brought this to my attention recently
> as well.
>
> So, I would appreciate hearing from those of you with experience flying
> both of these aircraft. How do the flight characteristics differ?
>
> Thank you all for your input.
>
> --------
> Mic
> "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to
> persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
> =94 Carl Sagan
>
> "Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire."
> =94 W.B. Yeats
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350168#350168
>
>
> - The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> http://forums.matronics.com
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> Thank you for your generous support!
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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 |
|
To all would be welders,
Under no circumstances judge a weld by its looks! One of the contributors
suggested taking a class at a community college or tech school. By all mean
s
do so. As a former vocational educator I taught welding and some of the
prettiest welds by students failed due to a lack of penetration. Welding is
an art! Testing is important as your life just might depend on the
integrity of your weld. Lots of information on the web about weld testing!
roy
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:47 PM, robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> For aircraft use you want a lightweight set. I have been using the same
> old Smith aircraft set for over 35 years.
> I do use industrial, large size regulators though.
> BB
>
> On 17, Aug 2011, at 2:01 PM, Phil wrote:
>
> A big thanks to all the welding gurus. I appreciate every single post;
> all the pics and videos and answers. Fascinating stuff.
>
> I decided on the Victor Firepower Oxy/Acetylene kit and placed my order
> from WeldingSupply.com <http://weldingsupply.com/> at what I believe are
> great prices (after much web surfing):
>
> https://weldingsupply.securesites.com/cgi-bin/browsecatalogs.pl
> 0384-2551 - FirePower Heavy/Medium Duty $149.38
> WES317 - 520 tank to 510 reg $9.99
> WES324 - 200 tank to 510 reg $9.99
> WES61 - 300 tank to 510 reg $4.95
>
> This will allow hooking up the CGA-510 reg to most of the various Acetyle
ne
> tanks available. Now I just need to find tanks to rent in my area.
>
> Phil H.
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 8/16/11, racerjerry <gki@suffolk.lib.ny.us>* wrote:
>
>
> From: racerjerry <gki@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Welding?
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011, 10:56 AM
>
://us.mc1608.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gki@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
> >
>
> Stick welding and MIG is relatively easy and you can probably learn on yo
ur
> own trough practice before beginning a serious project. As a matter of
> fact, you might get much more out of a welding course if you already have
> experimented with the welding process. Of course, you may have to un-lea
rn
> some mistakes. Reading helps, especially in diagnosing poor welds; but a
s
> they say: practice, practice and practice some more before working on
> anything important. Stick and MIG is kind of like walking a tightrope an
d
> juggling with one hand at the same time.
>
> Gas welding adds another dimension. Got to push the =98bubble
=99 around
> and occasionally feed rod =93 like walking the tightrope and juggli
ng with
> two hands.
>
> TIG welding adds a third dimension (foot pedal). Got to walk the
> tightrope, juggle with two hands and a foot and HOP across the tightrope.
> Seriously, you need all of your gas welding skills down before learning
> TIG. A trade school should work well to see if you really want to invest
in
> the equipment.
>
> MIG vs TIG
> Another aspect is that MIG lays down welding wire rapidly. Too rapid for
> welding small thin 4130 tubing unless you know what you are dong. Often
you
> can get a good looking weld bead but in reality the bead is just sitting
on
> top with little penetration. MIG is great for stock car roll bars and
> general welding, is fast, requires little clean-up, is a lot of fun and
> requires much less skill than TIG. With MIG, I like to weave a bit to ge
t
> as much heat into the joint as I dare to insure penetration. MIG (&TIG)
> also has the advantage of being able to join thick materials with thin
> (difficult with stick or gas welding). In trying to weld small round tub
ing
> joints with MIG, you are going to have lots of stops and starts and that
is
> where problems arise.
>
> Because of the extra skills, time and equipment investment required, it
> would probably be better to gas weld your aircraft project.
>
> --------
> Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349638#349638
> http://www.matronip; -Matt Draronics.com/contribution<h
ttp://draronics.com/contribution>"
> ======
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
> *
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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 |
|
John --
Responding specifically to your comments about "hunting" for airports, it's
very doable. I've flown ULs all over the country... the legs are shorter of
course, but still very doable. Yes, you do have to avoid any airport with B
or C regulations, and some D, but overall that, again, isn't difficult.
There are plenty of small airports with fuel, away from the larger
airports, in most parts of the country.
There is no requirement that the UL pilot be a US citizen.
http://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm
IMO, keeping the wings attached (but very well supported and cushioned)
isn't a problem IF (and it's a BIG "IF") the trailer you have has the right
set of springs on it.... very light springs. Most trailers will have
heavy-duty springs to deal with a lot of weight, but since you'll be
carrying extremely light cargo, having matching springs is critical. If you
can't get the right trailer, then removing the wings would be best. And, as
mentioned, dual axles helps a lot, not just on potholes, but in case you get
a blown tire.
What you're looking at doing isn't done much for a few reasons... finding
the right trailer is difficult; hauling a 24-foot trailer around can be a
pain; unloading, setting up the wings, flying, breaking down the wing,
reloading... that can be onerous unless you're going to set it up for
several days and keep it set up for multi-day flying. It's doable, though,
and I certainly can recommend it, as the benefits would be well worth it.
-- Robert
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:03 AM, JC Gilpin <j.gilpin@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Gday All,
>
> I went to Oshkosh this year, and the highlight for me was a neat FireFly in
> the Red Barn area. I fell in love at first and second and further visits.
> Couldn't ever connect with the owner....
>
> To introduce myself, I live in Australia, and do a lot of x-country touring
> by air, in a two-place Savannah with a 100hp 912S these days, but earlier in
> a single-seat Spectrum Beaver with 447, 1000hrs in each of them. But I'm
> getting a bit tired of living under the wing in a pup tent. That's all fine
> when I'm moving every day and the weather is good, but hunkered down in a
> little tent for several days when bad weather sets in gets trying. And the
> fact that airfields are mostly a couple of miles or more from town, has me
> wishing for real wheels, even tho I can now carry a bicycle in the Savannah.
> So the dream now is a folding ultralight that I can tow behind an RV, and
> fly locally to see the sights when the weather is right, and have wheels and
> a comfortable camp the rest of the time. So of course the FireFly fits into
> this dream exactly! The dream has now extended to touring the USA the same
> way - find a FireFly with trailer and an RV, and go wherever..... I have
> friends in Texas, Mississippi, Minnesota, Utah and Arizona, so could leave
> the rig between visits, and return whenever the season and funds suit.
> It'll be a couple of years to be free of ties that bind here, so not ready
> for Gene's aircraft yet, but some day would hope to find another
> similar.....
>
> My Australian ultralight license isn't recognized over there, so I can't go
> to a FireStar in the Experimental category without a PPL. Even then, I
> think it would be a lot less complicated to stay under the radar in 103
> category?? Do you have to be a US citizen or resident to fly 103?? I'd be
> hunting out quiet, little-used airstrips away from 'heavy metal' and all the
> 'attitude'.
>
> I notice that Gene removes the wings and secures them to the sides of the
> trailer. Is this for reasons of keeping road rash from wearing at the
> structural mounts, or for overall length, or whatever?? Seems that if you
> could leave the wings on the FireFly and use a two-blade prop, you could
> make a trailer that would be very slim and compact and easy to tow.....
>
> I've been impressed by the performance of Kolbs ever since Sun'nFun 1990.
> But there are very few Kolbs in Aus. A couple of Mark 3's, but that's
> about it. Our local regulations for Amateur Built Category allow two seats
> and MTOW of 544kg (1200lb) so that easily allows a FireStar here. I
> understand that a few two-seat tandem FireStars were built, but can't find
> out more about them - any links or info appreciated. Was the cockpit
> extended a bit?? Looks like that would be easy enough, and I have the
> engineering experience to do that and to correct W&B. Don't need dual
> controls, just enough room to load a pax for short flights, sort of like a
> pillion on a motorcycle, put the pax out of the way where they belong.....
> Photography is important to me so I want excellent visibility both sides.
>
> Are there any snags that I haven't considered that anyone can see in this
> dream??
> How come more aren't using these aircraft that way, or don't we hear about
> it??
> Any comments most welcome.
>
> To come along on some of the trips I've done, have a look at the photos at
> http://www.stolspeed.com/id/12
>
> Cheers,
> John Gilpin
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
Rick, list guys,
When I was in the process of installing that Xtra nosecone, I anticipated that
it would 'cave in'(depress). Even though I had it clecoed
firmly in place during my test fitting, I could easily depress the flat area with
one finger.
Knowing it would act like you describe, I added four lengthwise reinforcement
ribs. (1/4" wide X 3/4" tall X 24" long) This greatly
solved the problem, and I'm sure it won't deform under the airstream an excessive
amount.
I also found I needed to do the same thing to the lower inside surface, too.
It didn't give the impression it was going to deform as much as the
upper surface, but it certainly acted as though it would "some". I added the lengthwise
ribs to it, too, and now they both are much more
rigid.
BTW, why did you elect to set the wings at 2.8 degrees, rather than 3.4 (which
is what they told me to set them at)? If you had it to
do over, would you have aimed for 3.4, or do you think it would it have not made
that much of a difference?
Mike Welch
On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Although I am still fighting the good fight trying to get Ken Holle's Mk IIIX
to not behave like a lawn dart, which, I believe, is particular to this airplane
only and not Mk IIIX's in general, I do have one data point.
> Some review first. The wing incidence on this aircraft has been set at 2.8 degrees
relative to the engine mount, the low end of the factory recommended setting
of 2.8 to 3.4 degrees. It has a full swivel tail wheel with a 4" diameter
wheel and the tail wheel strut has been shortened to about 8". It has the welded
tubing main gear.
> Set up as it is the aircraft can only do wheel landings and they are at a relatively
higher speed than my MK IIIC with straight leg, aluminum gear (but it
couldn't do a full stall landing either). I can, with great care, get a three
point wheel on landing out of the IIIX, but it takes only a little too much back
pressure on the stick to touch down tail wheel first.
> In flight the other thing I notice is that even with the lowest wing incidence
setting the nose cone caves in under dynamic pressure. Somewhere along the trail
of getting this aircraft rehabilitated I'll add some composite ribs to the
nose cone to alleviate this. Builders might want to consider doing this as a
preemptive measure before the windscreen and doors are in place and it is an
easy reach to get to the inside of the nose cone.
>
> Rick Girard
>
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 |
|
John
I built a custom trailer for my Kolb MKIIIC that is light and easy to pull.
I have pulled the plane over 5,000 miles with no damage to the plane. The
key is light trailer springs and support the wings where they attach to the
plane. Check out a web site that George Alexander put together for my
trailer and look at a bunch of other Kolb trailers.
http://oh2fly.net/RickN_MKIII_Trailer.htm
It takes me well over an hour to unload the plane from the trailer and get
it ready to fly. I now pack it up once a year for winter storage and it is
not fun.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com> wrote:
> John --
>
> Responding specifically to your comments about "hunting" for airports, it's
> very doable. I've flown ULs all over the country... the legs are shorter of
> course, but still very doable. Yes, you do have to avoid any airport with B
> or C regulations, and some D, but overall that, again, isn't difficult.
> There are plenty of small airports with fuel, away from the larger
> airports, in most parts of the country.
>
> There is no requirement that the UL pilot be a US citizen.
> http://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm
>
> IMO, keeping the wings attached (but very well supported and cushioned)
> isn't a problem IF (and it's a BIG "IF") the trailer you have has the right
> set of springs on it.... very light springs. Most trailers will have
> heavy-duty springs to deal with a lot of weight, but since you'll be
> carrying extremely light cargo, having matching springs is critical. If you
> can't get the right trailer, then removing the wings would be best. And, as
> mentioned, dual axles helps a lot, not just on potholes, but in case you get
> a blown tire.
>
> What you're looking at doing isn't done much for a few reasons... finding
> the right trailer is difficult; hauling a 24-foot trailer around can be a
> pain; unloading, setting up the wings, flying, breaking down the wing,
> reloading... that can be onerous unless you're going to set it up for
> several days and keep it set up for multi-day flying. It's doable, though,
> and I certainly can recommend it, as the benefits would be well worth it.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:03 AM, JC Gilpin <j.gilpin@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Gday All,
>>
>> I went to Oshkosh this year, and the highlight for me was a neat FireFly
>> in the Red Barn area. I fell in love at first and second and further
>> visits. Couldn't ever connect with the owner....
>>
>> To introduce myself, I live in Australia, and do a lot of x-country
>> touring by air, in a two-place Savannah with a 100hp 912S these days, but
>> earlier in a single-seat Spectrum Beaver with 447, 1000hrs in each of them.
>> But I'm getting a bit tired of living under the wing in a pup tent. That's
>> all fine when I'm moving every day and the weather is good, but hunkered
>> down in a little tent for several days when bad weather sets in gets trying.
>> And the fact that airfields are mostly a couple of miles or more from town,
>> has me wishing for real wheels, even tho I can now carry a bicycle in the
>> Savannah. So the dream now is a folding ultralight that I can tow behind an
>> RV, and fly locally to see the sights when the weather is right, and have
>> wheels and a comfortable camp the rest of the time. So of course the
>> FireFly fits into this dream exactly! The dream has now extended to touring
>> the USA the same way - find a FireFly with trailer and an RV, and go
>> wherever..... I have friends in Texas, Mississippi, Minnesota, Utah and
>> Arizona, so could leave the rig between visits, and return whenever the
>> season and funds suit. It'll be a couple of years to be free of ties that
>> bind here, so not ready for Gene's aircraft yet, but some day would hope to
>> find another similar.....
>>
>> My Australian ultralight license isn't recognized over there, so I can't
>> go to a FireStar in the Experimental category without a PPL. Even then, I
>> think it would be a lot less complicated to stay under the radar in 103
>> category?? Do you have to be a US citizen or resident to fly 103?? I'd be
>> hunting out quiet, little-used airstrips away from 'heavy metal' and all the
>> 'attitude'.
>>
>> I notice that Gene removes the wings and secures them to the sides of the
>> trailer. Is this for reasons of keeping road rash from wearing at the
>> structural mounts, or for overall length, or whatever?? Seems that if you
>> could leave the wings on the FireFly and use a two-blade prop, you could
>> make a trailer that would be very slim and compact and easy to tow.....
>>
>> I've been impressed by the performance of Kolbs ever since Sun'nFun 1990.
>> But there are very few Kolbs in Aus. A couple of Mark 3's, but that's
>> about it. Our local regulations for Amateur Built Category allow two seats
>> and MTOW of 544kg (1200lb) so that easily allows a FireStar here. I
>> understand that a few two-seat tandem FireStars were built, but can't find
>> out more about them - any links or info appreciated. Was the cockpit
>> extended a bit?? Looks like that would be easy enough, and I have the
>> engineering experience to do that and to correct W&B. Don't need dual
>> controls, just enough room to load a pax for short flights, sort of like a
>> pillion on a motorcycle, put the pax out of the way where they belong.....
>> Photography is important to me so I want excellent visibility both sides.
>>
>> Are there any snags that I haven't considered that anyone can see in this
>> dream??
>> How come more aren't using these aircraft that way, or don't we hear about
>> it??
>> Any comments most welcome.
>>
>> To come along on some of the trips I've done, have a look at the photos
>> at http://www.stolspeed.com/id/12
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John Gilpin
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
John, As described here isolating the aircraft from g loads caused by road
hazards is vital, however, you can also do it inside the trailer as well as
outside with spring selection. I made chocks for my Mk III main gear when I
brought her home and used furniture foam pads with a plywood plate between
wheel and foam to spread the load. Cheap and worked great.
If I were setting up for the long haul I would do both. Soft springs and
some kind of shock isolation on the inside, too.
Rick Girard
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com> wrote:
> John --
>
> Responding specifically to your comments about "hunting" for airports, it's
> very doable. I've flown ULs all over the country... the legs are shorter of
> course, but still very doable. Yes, you do have to avoid any airport with B
> or C regulations, and some D, but overall that, again, isn't difficult.
> There are plenty of small airports with fuel, away from the larger
> airports, in most parts of the country.
>
> There is no requirement that the UL pilot be a US citizen.
> http://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm
>
> IMO, keeping the wings attached (but very well supported and cushioned)
> isn't a problem IF (and it's a BIG "IF") the trailer you have has the right
> set of springs on it.... very light springs. Most trailers will have
> heavy-duty springs to deal with a lot of weight, but since you'll be
> carrying extremely light cargo, having matching springs is critical. If you
> can't get the right trailer, then removing the wings would be best. And, as
> mentioned, dual axles helps a lot, not just on potholes, but in case you get
> a blown tire.
>
> What you're looking at doing isn't done much for a few reasons... finding
> the right trailer is difficult; hauling a 24-foot trailer around can be a
> pain; unloading, setting up the wings, flying, breaking down the wing,
> reloading... that can be onerous unless you're going to set it up for
> several days and keep it set up for multi-day flying. It's doable, though,
> and I certainly can recommend it, as the benefits would be well worth it.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:03 AM, JC Gilpin <j.gilpin@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Gday All,
>>
>> I went to Oshkosh this year, and the highlight for me was a neat FireFly
>> in the Red Barn area. I fell in love at first and second and further
>> visits. Couldn't ever connect with the owner....
>>
>> To introduce myself, I live in Australia, and do a lot of x-country
>> touring by air, in a two-place Savannah with a 100hp 912S these days, but
>> earlier in a single-seat Spectrum Beaver with 447, 1000hrs in each of them.
>> But I'm getting a bit tired of living under the wing in a pup tent. That's
>> all fine when I'm moving every day and the weather is good, but hunkered
>> down in a little tent for several days when bad weather sets in gets trying.
>> And the fact that airfields are mostly a couple of miles or more from town,
>> has me wishing for real wheels, even tho I can now carry a bicycle in the
>> Savannah. So the dream now is a folding ultralight that I can tow behind an
>> RV, and fly locally to see the sights when the weather is right, and have
>> wheels and a comfortable camp the rest of the time. So of course the
>> FireFly fits into this dream exactly! The dream has now extended to touring
>> the USA the same way - find a FireFly with trailer and an RV, and go
>> wherever..... I have friends in Texas, Mississippi, Minnesota, Utah and
>> Arizona, so could leave the rig between visits, and return whenever the
>> season and funds suit. It'll be a couple of years to be free of ties that
>> bind here, so not ready for Gene's aircraft yet, but some day would hope to
>> find another similar.....
>>
>> My Australian ultralight license isn't recognized over there, so I can't
>> go to a FireStar in the Experimental category without a PPL. Even then, I
>> think it would be a lot less complicated to stay under the radar in 103
>> category?? Do you have to be a US citizen or resident to fly 103?? I'd be
>> hunting out quiet, little-used airstrips away from 'heavy metal' and all the
>> 'attitude'.
>>
>> I notice that Gene removes the wings and secures them to the sides of the
>> trailer. Is this for reasons of keeping road rash from wearing at the
>> structural mounts, or for overall length, or whatever?? Seems that if you
>> could leave the wings on the FireFly and use a two-blade prop, you could
>> make a trailer that would be very slim and compact and easy to tow.....
>>
>> I've been impressed by the performance of Kolbs ever since Sun'nFun 1990.
>> But there are very few Kolbs in Aus. A couple of Mark 3's, but that's
>> about it. Our local regulations for Amateur Built Category allow two seats
>> and MTOW of 544kg (1200lb) so that easily allows a FireStar here. I
>> understand that a few two-seat tandem FireStars were built, but can't find
>> out more about them - any links or info appreciated. Was the cockpit
>> extended a bit?? Looks like that would be easy enough, and I have the
>> engineering experience to do that and to correct W&B. Don't need dual
>> controls, just enough room to load a pax for short flights, sort of like a
>> pillion on a motorcycle, put the pax out of the way where they belong.....
>> Photography is important to me so I want excellent visibility both sides.
>>
>> Are there any snags that I haven't considered that anyone can see in this
>> dream??
>> How come more aren't using these aircraft that way, or don't we hear about
>> it??
>> Any comments most welcome.
>>
>> To come along on some of the trips I've done, have a look at the photos
>> at http://www.stolspeed.com/id/12
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John Gilpin
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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 MIIIX vs. Classic |
Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the lower surface
of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it would still be flying at a
negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8 degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone
flying at a positive angle.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Rick, list guys,
>
> When I was in the process of installing that Xtra nosecone, I anticipated
> that it would 'cave in'(depress). Even though I had it clecoed
> firmly in place during my test fitting, I could easily depress the flat
> area with one finger.
>
> Knowing it would act like you describe, I added four lengthwise
> reinforcement ribs. (1/4" wide X 3/4" tall X 24" long) This greatly
> solved the problem, and I'm sure it won't deform under the airstream an
> excessive amount.
> I also found I needed to do the same thing to the lower inside surface,
> too. It didn't give the impression it was going to deform as much as the
> upper surface, but it certainly acted as though it would "some". I added
> the lengthwise ribs to it, too, and now they both are much more
> rigid.
>
> BTW, why did you elect to set the wings at 2.8 degrees, rather than 3.4
> (which is what they told me to set them at)? If you had it to
> do over, would you have aimed for 3.4, or do you think it would it have not
> made that much of a difference?
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> > Although I am still fighting the good fight trying to get Ken Holle's Mk
> IIIX to not behave like a lawn dart, which, I believe, is particular to this
> airplane only and not Mk IIIX's in general, I do have one data point.
> > Some review first. The wing incidence on this aircraft has been set at
> 2.8 degrees relative to the engine mount, the low end of the factory
> recommended setting of 2.8 to 3.4 degrees. It has a full swivel tail wheel
> with a 4" diameter wheel and the tail wheel strut has been shortened to
> about 8". It has the welded tubing main gear.
> > Set up as it is the aircraft can only do wheel landings and they are at a
> relatively higher speed than my MK IIIC with straight leg, aluminum gear
> (but it couldn't do a full stall landing either). I can, with great care,
> get a three point wheel on landing out of the IIIX, but it takes only a
> little too much back pressure on the stick to touch down tail wheel first.
> > In flight the other thing I notice is that even with the lowest wing
> incidence setting the nose cone caves in under dynamic pressure. Somewhere
> along the trail of getting this aircraft rehabilitated I'll add some
> composite ribs to the nose cone to alleviate this. Builders might want to
> consider doing this as a preemptive measure before the windscreen and doors
> are in place and it is an easy reach to get to the inside of the nose cone.
> >
> > Rick Girard
> >
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
>
> Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the lower surface of
the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it would still be flying at a negative
angle in cruise flight. 2.8 degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone flying
at a positive angle.
>
> Rick
Rick,
I guess you know what you mean, but it seems 'counter-intuitive' to me, how lowering
the main wing's incidence raises the nose a bit.
I suppose we are speaking about NOT changing the hor. stabilizer's -4.8 setting,
right? You're leaving it alone,yes, in both measuring points;
wing's at +2.8 deg & +3.4 deg?
If we're not changing the hor. stab, I don't quite see how the underside of the
fuselage 'incidence' improves. Are you including adjusting the h. s. up and
down, when analyzing that fuselage's underside angle? Isn't the hor stab. the
ONLY setting that affects the fuselage's incidence?
Are we leaving the hor. stab. set at the factory OEM setting? Thanks for
the insights!
Mike Welch
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: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
You are flying the wing. All else is "incidental" baggage.
The more you can get everything else in line with that wing the
better off you are.
If ,in flight, the bottom of the fuselage is flat with the line of
flight then you have a
net down force on the nose. It will still fly (like mine) but a big
waste of energy.
The MkIII, like most planes in the same category, were originally
built to go 65 mph.
At that speed things like drag and extraneous forces aren't a big
deal. -any faster
and they become noticeable.
If you have a trailer with heavy springs just throw an extra 1000 lbs
of sandbags
in with your Kolb. I promise it will ride much smoother. :)
BB
On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Michael Welch wrote:
> <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>
>
>>
>> Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the
>> lower surface of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it
>> would still be flying at a negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8
>> degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone flying at a positive angle.
>>
>> Rick
>
> Rick,
>
> I guess you know what you mean, but it seems 'counter-intuitive'
> to me, how lowering the main wing's incidence raises the nose a bit.
>
> I suppose we are speaking about NOT changing the hor.
> stabilizer's -4.8 setting, right? You're leaving it alone,yes, in
> both measuring points;
> wing's at +2.8 deg & +3.4 deg?
>
> If we're not changing the hor. stab, I don't quite see how the
> underside of the fuselage 'incidence' improves. Are you including
> adjusting the h. s. up and
> down, when analyzing that fuselage's underside angle? Isn't the
> hor stab. the ONLY setting that affects the fuselage's incidence?
>
> Are we leaving the hor. stab. set at the factory OEM setting?
> Thanks for the insights!
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
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: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
Mike, I had to go dig out the last measurements I took. Relative to the
engine mount the boom is at 7 degrees. That was fixed (set) by the cage
weldment. The horizontal stabilizer is set right down the centerline of the
boom.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, End User <slyck@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> You are flying the wing. All else is "incidental" baggage.
>
> The more you can get everything else in line with that wing the better off
> you are.
> If ,in flight, the bottom of the fuselage is flat with the line of flight
> then you have a
> net down force on the nose. It will still fly (like mine) but a big waste
> of energy.
>
> The MkIII, like most planes in the same category, were originally built to
> go 65 mph.
> At that speed things like drag and extraneous forces aren't a big deal.
> -any faster
> and they become noticeable.
>
> If you have a trailer with heavy springs just throw an extra 1000 lbs of
> sandbags
> in with your Kolb. I promise it will ride much smoother. :)
> BB
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Michael Welch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the lower
>>> surface of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it would still be
>>> flying at a negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8 degrees gets the fiberglass
>>> nose cone flying at a positive angle.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> I guess you know what you mean, but it seems 'counter-intuitive' to me,
>> how lowering the main wing's incidence raises the nose a bit.
>>
>> I suppose we are speaking about NOT changing the hor. stabilizer's -4.8
>> setting, right? You're leaving it alone,yes, in both measuring points;
>> wing's at +2.8 deg & +3.4 deg?
>>
>> If we're not changing the hor. stab, I don't quite see how the underside
>> of the fuselage 'incidence' improves. Are you including adjusting the h. s.
>> up and
>> down, when analyzing that fuselage's underside angle? Isn't the hor stab.
>> the ONLY setting that affects the fuselage's incidence?
>>
>> Are we leaving the hor. stab. set at the factory OEM setting? Thanks
>> for the insights!
>>
>> Mike Welch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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 |
|
IMO, keeping the wings attached (but very well supported and cushioned)
isn't a problem IF (and it's a BIG "IF") the trailer you have has the
right set of springs on it.... very light springs.
Robert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
if the trailer springs are too heavy,,, you can still make it work but
you have to add suspended ,lightly sprung, anchor points on the
trailer bed. example,,, if you hinge a board to the trailer decking,
and build a cradle for the wheels at the far end of the hinged
board,,, then install an inner tube under the cradle,,
boyd young
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: | Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
>
>
> Rick,
>
> In my vigilant attempt to know as much as I can, especially when it
comes to getting the wings set correctly,
> I went out and measured my plane. I don't mean to kick a dead horse,
while fun as that may be, your settings and readings
> are quite a bit different than I would expect, and also different than
my own digital readings., and from I understand,
> also different than Kolb Co. suggests.
>
> Here's what I just came up with on my plane just now;
>
> 1) engine mount zero, (factory established starting point)
> 2) boom tube is supposed to read -6.0, (mine does exactly!)
> 3) hor. stab. should be -4.8. (Mine reads either -4.8, or -4.2 at
it's highest hole)
> 4) main wings are set at +3.4. ( I can get lots of readings, but they
pretty much average out to +3.4)
>
> These reading were discussed with Bryan Melborne, and he said they
were EXACTLY what I should have. These figures
> are virtually identical to an Xtra pilot who has recently started
flying his plane.
>
> To delve deeper into your concern about the incidence of the
underside of the fuselage, I went ahead and made a couple
> of additional readings while I had my digital level out. With my
plane still propped up, in the -6.0 deg boom tube position,
> the centerline, undeside of my fuselage, below where your legs would
be, reads +.2 degrees. It has a very slight arch up toward the
> front, but basically it's just a smidgeon positive (and that's with
the tail way the heck up in the air!!!)
> Then I measured the centerline of the bottom of the nosecone. +5.2
to + 5.3 degrees. It, too, has that rising arch, inline with the
fuselage
> arch.
>
> Now, I am curious why your (Ken's plane) readings are so off from
mine. Whether MkIII or MkIII Xtra, the underside of the
> fuselage's are virtually unaltered from the original MkIII shape.
>
> If I lower the tail end of the plane, back down to the floor, which
I haven't done yet, but can, the underside of my fuselage
> and nose cone are about 3-4 degs for the fuselage, and I'd bet 7-8
degrees for the nosecone.
>
> =46rom the angles you describe, including that -7.0 degree hor
stabilizer position, no wonder the plane feels like a lawn dart.
> I know I don't have the hundreds of hours flying the MkIII like you
other guys have, but from the sound of things, that plane is rigged
> to non-factory specs. IMO, unless I'm missing something.
>
Mike Welch
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
>> Mike, I had to go dig out the last measurements I took. Relative to
the engine mount the boom is at 7 degrees. That was fixed (set) by the
cage weldment. The horizontal stabilizer is set right down the
centerline of the boom.
>>
>
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: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
Mike, For one thing, you're reversing the effect of more negative angle of
the horizontal stabilizer. Think of how a stabilator works, the more the
leading edge is down, the more nose up on the wing.
Two, the angle of the bottom of that portion of the fuselage forward of the
struts WAS changed from that of the Mk III (C or whatever). It was decreased
in an effort to get less separation on the bottom panel behind the struts.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> In my vigilant attempt to know as much as I can, especially when it comes
> to getting the wings set correctly,
> I went out and measured my plane. I don't mean to kick a dead horse, while
> fun as that may be, your settings and readings
> are quite a bit different than I would expect, and also different than my
> own digital readings., and from I understand,
> also different than Kolb Co. suggests.
>
> Here's what I just came up with on my plane just now;
>
> 1) engine mount zero, (factory established starting point)
> 2) boom tube is supposed to read -6.0, (mine does exactly!)
> 3) hor. stab. should be -4.8. (Mine reads either -4.8, or -4.2 at it's
> highest hole)
> 4) main wings are set at +3.4. ( I can get lots of readings, but they
> pretty much average out to +3.4)
>
> These reading were discussed with Bryan Melborne, and he said they were
> EXACTLY what I should have. These figures
> are virtually identical to an Xtra pilot who has recently started flying
> his plane.
>
> To delve deeper into your concern about the incidence of the underside of
> the fuselage, I went ahead and made a couple
> of additional readings while I had my digital level out. With my plane
> still propped up, in the -6.0 deg boom tube position,
> the centerline, undeside of my fuselage, below where your legs would be,
> reads +.2 degrees. It has a very slight arch up toward the
> front, but basically it's just a smidgeon positive (and that's with the
> tail way the heck up in the air!!!)
>
>
> Then I measured the centerline of the bottom of the nosecone. +5.2 to
> + 5.3 degrees. It, too, has that rising arch, inline with the fuselage
> arch.
>
> Now, I am curious why your (Ken's plane) readings are so off from mine.
> Whether MkIII or MkIII Xtra, the underside of the
> fuselage's are virtually unaltered from the original MkIII shape.
>
> If I lower the tail end of the plane, back down to the floor, which I
> haven't done yet, but can, the underside of my fuselage
> and nose cone are about 3-4 degs for the fuselage, and I'd bet 7-8 degrees
> for the nosecone.
>
> From the angles you describe, including that -7.0 degree hor stabilizer
> position, no wonder the plane feels like a lawn dart.
> I know I don't have the hundreds of hours flying the MkIII like you other
> guys have, but from the sound of things, that plane is rigged
> to non-factory specs. IMO, unless I'm missing something.
>
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Mike, I had to go dig out the last measurements I took. Relative to the
> engine mount the boom is at 7 degrees. That was fixed (set) by the cage
> weldment. The horizontal stabilizer is set right down the centerline of the
> boom.
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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 |
|
Hey Guys,
Since that's my trailer you folks are referring to, I thought I might also comment.
My Firefly first flew in November 2000 and that was the first airplane that
I soloed. FAA had refused a medical so Firefly was only alternate for me.
I bought it with the idea of trailering it 800 miles to Florida every winter
and didn't want it to have travel damage so I built the hangers for the wings
on the side of the trailer. I'll report that it went to Florida 5 times and
suffered no damage. My plan worked. I stopped taking it to Florida when I started
taking my new wife to Florida in 2005. Nuff said.
I had a hangar for awhile but had to find a new location for the Firefly closer
to my new home in 2004 and found one 15 minutes away but no hangar. So I have
been flying out of my trailer since 2004. If I were only going to move the
Firefly a few miles, I probably wouldn't remove the wings but I would be very
careful in my driving and would make sure the wings had good support.
My Firefly sells tomorrow and I have had several quick responses from my Barnstormer
ad. Obviously a good place to list your Kolb.
Gene
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: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic |
On Aug 22, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Mike, For one thing, you're reversing the effect of more negative
angle of the horizontal stabilizer. I'm finally getting what you are
referring to.
> Think of how a stabilator works, the more the leading edge is down,
the more nose up on the wing. Yes, I see where you are starting from in
your statements.
> Two, the angle of the bottom of that portion of the fuselage forward
of the struts WAS changed from that of the Mk III (C or whatever). It
was decreased in an effort to get less separation on the bottom panel
behind the struts. I wasn't aware of that. Oh.
>
> Rick
Rick,
Now that I see where you were starting from in your desire to raise
the nose, I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Mike W
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: 8/20/11 Forest Lake fly-in |
Ralph, So glad to hear you havent given up , in my condition that is very i
mportant! I hope the powers that be have good luck chasing down those finge
rprints and I hope you get that Kolbra flying again I know that you underst
and how I feel about flying Kolbs and wish you many more delightful hours .
Chris=0A=0A=0AChris Davis=0AKXP 503 492 hrs=0AGlider Pilot=0ADisabled from
crash building Firefly=0A=0AFrom: Ralph B <rstar447@gmail.com>=0ATo: kolb-
list@matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 10:01 PM=0ASubject: Kolb
"Ralph B" <rstar447@gmail.com>=0A=0A"capedavis(at)yahoo.com"=0A> Ralph , T
hanks for the pics- , About your engine, wasnt anyone caught fot that the
ft? Thought they would be caught for sure .Hope your statement that your do
ne flying it isnt true ! Hope things change, You still have your Firestar d
ont you? Chris=0A> =0A>- =0A> Chris Davis=0A> KXP 503 492 hrs=0A> Glider
Pilot=0A> Disabled from crash building Firefly=0A> =0A=0A=0AChris, the inve
stigation is still on. The BCA (Bureau of Criminal- of Apprehension) has
3 sets of prints from the Kolbra. I will let people know if they find the c
ulprits. Someone out there is looking at some serious jail time.=0A=0AI dec
ided to rebuild the Kolbra. The airframe is intact, but it will need re-wir
ing with a new panel, instruments, and engine. There were many custom-made
parts that will need to be made. Mark German is willing to do this for me.
He wants to see me get the Kolbra back in the air. I'm coming out of retire
ment and looking for work. It will take 2 years for me to save the money to
get what I want. A couple of years of of my life will be worth it to fly a
gain. Good things come in time.=0A=0AThanks Chris for your interest in the
case ...=0A=0ARalph B=0A=0A--------=0ARalph B=0AOriginal Firestar 447=0AN91
493 E-AB=0A1000 hours=0A24 years flying it=0AKolbra 912UL (engine and avion
ics stolen on 5/17/11. Hanger break-in)=0AN20386=0Adone flying it=0A150 hrs
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.co
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
======
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: | Operating Manual |
Hello,
Has anyone compiled a POH for their KOLB. I am looking for an example to build
from. Does any one have one that they would share?
Ray
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350286#350286
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: Operating Manual |
I did, but found that the DAR didn't really care or want to see it.
Larry
Note: If you forward this email, please delete the forwarding history,
which includes my email address.
----- Original Message -----
From: rayw
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Operating Manual
Hello,
Has anyone compiled a POH for their KOLB. I am looking for an example
to build from. Does any one have one that they would share?
Ray
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350286#350286
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! --
|