Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:53 AM - Couple question (funnyb0nz)
2. 08:00 AM - Re: Couple question (herb)
3. 09:06 AM - Re: Couple question (Larry Cottrell)
4. 10:42 AM - Re: Couple question (Richard Girard)
5. 01:12 PM - Re: Couple question (herb)
6. 01:29 PM - Re: Couple question (funnyb0nz)
7. 05:20 PM - Re: Couple question (Ducati SS)
8. 06:15 PM - Re: Couple question (R. Hankins)
9. 06:16 PM - Re: Couple question (R. Hankins)
10. 06:19 PM - Re: covered canopy (R. Hankins)
11. 06:38 PM - Re: Best way to ship a 503 (R. Hankins)
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 |
|
Hey guys, I see a lot of Kolb Firestar II's for sale on Barnstormers. I plan on
picking up a KXP. There are a couple others that are newer, however don't have
current annual and there was one with no N number. Is it best to stay clear
from them if they are not current?
I currently fly out of airport, so thinking its best to stay with something that
has current annual, and also N numbered?
What are your thoughts? Get older KOLB KXP that is current? or get a 2003 that
is year passed annual and cost a couple grand more?
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408197#408197
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: Couple question |
I have a friend who swears that his 7 rib Firestar with a 377 is UL
legal....So..would not discount that possibility.... Herb
On 09/07/2013 02:53 PM, funnyb0nz wrote:
>
> Hey guys, I see a lot of Kolb Firestar II's for sale on Barnstormers. I plan
on picking up a KXP. There are a couple others that are newer, however don't have
current annual and there was one with no N number. Is it best to stay clear
from them if they are not current?
> I currently fly out of airport, so thinking its best to stay with something that
has current annual, and also N numbered?
> What are your thoughts? Get older KOLB KXP that is current? or get a 2003 that
is year passed annual and cost a couple grand more?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408197#408197
>
>
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: Couple question |
I have a Firestar II and I like it. However a friend of mine has a KXP with
a 7 rib wing, and the honest truth is that his plane will run circles
around mine. Take offs are shorter, landings are shorter, climb is better,
and the thing with a 503 will run as fast or faster than mine with a HKS.
Of course I get better mileage with the HKS, and my plane is heavier, and I
am heavier, but I would have to think long and hard if he wanted to trade.
There is no way that I would consider any plane without a N number, it is
just trouble that you don't really need.
Larry
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM, funnyb0nz <dan_eshman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey guys, I see a lot of Kolb Firestar II's for sale on Barnstormers. I
> plan on picking up a KXP. There are a couple others that are newer, however
> don't have current annual and there was one with no N number. Is it best to
> stay clear from them if they are not current?
> I currently fly out of airport, so thinking its best to stay with
> something that has current annual, and also N numbered?
> What are your thoughts? Get older KOLB KXP that is current? or get a 2003
> that is year passed annual and cost a couple grand more?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408197#408197
>
>
--
*If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email
address before sending.*
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: Couple question |
Dan, If you look at any Firestar that claims to be UL legal make sure your
pre buy inspection specifies a weight and balance done by an independent
shop that you pay. That way you know what you are getting isn't someone's
bright idea of an ultralight. You should also do the AC 103-7 worksheet
which should also show that a Firestar is about 25 mph too fast to be an
ultralight as well.
If you want to think about getting an unregistered plane "brought in" by
getting it registered, talk to your local FSDO or contact a DAR. The
official line is that the only option available is Experimental Exhibition,
but who knows. My advice is get it in writing if they tell you there's a
path to Experimental Amateur Built and make sure they understand that the
plane is built and flying, not some kit you're going to complete.
Herb, According to Rotax, the 377 actually weighs 2.2 lb. (1 kg) MORE than
a 447 (assuming their both using the same gearbox and exhaust). Kolb listed
the empty weight of the Firestar as typically 325 lb. I think you're friend
has rather generous scales.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:00 AM, herb <herbgh@nctc.com> wrote:
>
> I have a friend who swears that his 7 rib Firestar with a 377 is UL
> legal....So..would not discount that possibility.... Herb
>
>
> On 09/07/2013 02:53 PM, funnyb0nz wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey guys, I see a lot of Kolb Firestar II's for sale on Barnstormers. I
>> plan on picking up a KXP. There are a couple others that are newer, however
>> don't have current annual and there was one with no N number. Is it best to
>> stay clear from them if they are not current?
>> I currently fly out of airport, so thinking its best to stay with
>> something that has current annual, and also N numbered?
>> What are your thoughts? Get older KOLB KXP that is current? or get a 2003
>> that is year passed annual and cost a couple grand more?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/**viewtopic.php?p=408197#408197<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408197#408197>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Couple question |
I think,early on, the fuselage for some of the smaller Kolbs were built
with .028(029?) cro molly...and I think the early Firestar's were quite
light...Not sure that the factory has specs for pre TNK Firestars....?
Surprised that the 377 weighs more than the 447? How can that be?
Electronic ign. vs points?
Dennis. can you weigh in on this...I am looking for a "light"
Firestar...Herb
On 09/07/2013 05:42 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Dan, If you look at any Firestar that claims to be UL legal make sure
> your pre buy inspection specifies a weight and balance done by an
> independent shop that you pay. That way you know what you are getting
> isn't someone's bright idea of an ultralight. You should also do the
> AC 103-7 worksheet which should also show that a Firestar is about 25
> mph too fast to be an ultralight as well.
> If you want to think about getting an unregistered plane "brought in"
> by getting it registered, talk to your local FSDO or contact a DAR.
> The official line is that the only option available is Experimental
> Exhibition, but who knows. My advice is get it in writing if they tell
> you there's a path to Experimental Amateur Built and make sure they
> understand that the plane is built and flying, not some kit you're
> going to complete.
> Herb, According to Rotax, the 377 actually weighs 2.2 lb. (1 kg) MORE
> than a 447 (assuming their both using the same gearbox and exhaust).
> Kolb listed the empty weight of the Firestar as typically 325 lb. I
> think you're friend has rather generous scales.
>
> Rick Girard
>
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: Couple question |
Hey guys, thanks for the info. I am taking a road trip about 6 hours away tomorrow
to look at the KXP. It has current annual, and also N number which I prefer.
I will keep you all updated. If I buy it, I am sure I am going to have lots
of questions.
Thanks for feedback!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408208#408208
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: Couple question |
A guess on weight....Though I have had them apart I never measured the thickness
of a 377 cylinder liner, but it would not be at all unusual for a manufacturer
to use a much thicker liner than needed on a new design to allow for a future
increase in displacement. That would account for the smaller displacement engines
extra weight. The Suzuki TM 100 comes to mind, much heaver cylinder than
the otherwise identical TM 125.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408216#408216
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Couple question |
As long as the aircraft has been well maintained, I would go with the older, current
KXP. Mine is a 1992 kit that has been flying since 1999. It has 640 hrs
on it at the moment. I flew it 291 miles today in just over 4 hrs and burned
15.3 gals of gas. That is 19mpg at an avg of 71mph with a dual carb 503.
Do make sure it has 7 main wing ribs. If it has 5, it is not a KXP. The 2 extra
ribs were added for the 503 engine.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408218#408218
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1080565_132.jpg
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Couple question |
As long as the aircraft has been well maintained, I would go with the older, current
KXP. Mine is a 1992 kit that has been flying since 1999. It has 640 hrs
on it at the moment. I flew it 291 miles today in just over 4 hrs and burned
15.3 gals of gas. That is 19mpg at an avg of 71mph with a dual carb 503.
Do make sure it has 7 main wing ribs. If it has 5, it is not a KXP. The 2 extra
ribs were added for the 503 engine.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408219#408219
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1080565_132.jpg
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: covered canopy |
It takes some work, but you can enclose the cockpit pretty easily, if you are handy
with tubing and lexan. The KXP came stock with a winshield that goes from
the nose up to the wings, but no doors. Make sure the kolb you are looking
at has 7 full ribs in each wing. If it has five, it is NOT a KXP.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408220#408220
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: Best way to ship a 503 |
My 503 was shipped to me from Kolb in the original Rotax box. It was bolted to
a 2x4 wooden base that filled the bottom of the box out to the edges. The box
was a sturdy double wall that allowed quite a bit of room around the engine.
Remove the carbs, bundle them in bubble wrap and put them in with the engine.
Yellow Freight bent up a lot of my order, but the engine arrived in good shape.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408221#408221
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! --
|