Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Firestar project
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Ralph B

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Mound Minnesota

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: Re: Firestar project

Even if the ultralight is 15 lbs overweight and you seem happy flying on 5 gallons of fuel, more power to you. As for me, I like the idea of being able to carry the extra 6 gallons so I can go places. Can't do that in a legal ultralight or one that's already 15 lbs overweight, unless you've got your fuel stops very carefully planned. Therein lies the difference between a legal machine and an illegal one.

_________________
Ralph B

Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: Re: Firestar project

Range has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about.  If you read my first post on this subject, I said that having an N number would be the best way to do it, but this is NOT a discussion on if William should N Number his plane or not.   This is TWICE in a row that you have obviously not read, and been unable to follow the very simple idea of this whole thread.  Why would anyone listen to a guy that cant grasp a simple concept, and posts answers that do not apply to the subject at hand ?



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

rowedenny(at)windstream.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: Firestar project

All,

 I am impressed that this particular Firestar is so  close (15lbs) to the UL limit of 254.  I say go for it, put in a five  gallon tank and take out everything you can and see if you can get it legal,  maybe lighter wheels, brakes? and tires are in order. Other than fuel and  weight, all Firestars should be Part 103 legal so give it a good  effort and see if you can get it legal.

  

 Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3,  N616DR

   [quote][b]

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Firestar project

Denny:

  

 I think the problem is the FS is way too fast and  will not fit the matrix to make it a legal UL even if it only weighs 254 or  less, and has 5 gal fuel capacity.

  

 The FF barely makes it, and only because of the  matrix.  Main reason the FF has two lift struts per wing panel, to increase  the drag component.

  

 john h

 mkIII

  

  

 [quote]     I say go for    it, put in a five gallon tank and take out everything you can and see if you    can get it legal,  

    

   Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3,    N616DR

 	  Quote: 	
		   	
[b]

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

rowedenny(at)windstream.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: Firestar project

 	  Quote: 	
		   Range has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about.  If you 

 read my first post on this subject, I said that having an N number would 

 be the best way to do it, but this is NOT a discussion on if William 

 should N Number his plane or not.   This is TWICE in a row that you have 

 obviously not read, and been unable to follow the very simple idea of this 

 whole thread.  Why would anyone listen to a guy that cant grasp a simple 

 concept, and posts answers that do not apply to the subject at hand ?



 Mike



 --------

 &quot;NO FEAR&quot; -  If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you 

 could have !!!



 Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

 Mike,

It makes me very nervous that someone of your disposition is flying jets.
	


Range has everything to do with the legal, illegal debate and this Firestar 

project.

Now lets see if you can grasp a simple concept.



Denny

rowedenny(at)windstream.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:48 am Post subject: Firestar project

John H,

If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a 

light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit.  Surely 

that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they 

add to make the Fly compliant?

Someone want to do the math for this one?



Denny

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: Firestar project

What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think what his might bring to the discussion  ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement, but you would sure be losing weight.

  Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.

  

 Rick

 On Jan 29, 2008 1:47 PM, Denny Rowe <rowedenny(at)windstream.net (rowedenny(at)windstream.net)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net (rowedenny(at)windstream.net)>

 

John H,

If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a

light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit.  Surely

that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they

  [quote][b]

rowedenny(at)windstream.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: Firestar project

[quote]   -----Other than fuel and    weight, all Firestars should be Part 103 legal so give it a good    effort and see if you can get it legal.

    

   Denny Rowe, 475 pound Mk 3,    N616DR

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Whoops,I should have wrote all 377 and 447 powerd Firestars in the above, obviously a 503 powered Firestar would not make compliance.Denny 	
[b]

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: Firestar project

At 02:47 PM 1/29/08 -0500, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



John H,

If the Firefly with its short wing fits the 103 matrix, I would think a 

light Firestar with 6 more feet of wing and a 447 or 377 would fit.  Surely 

that much more wing has more drag than an extra 4 foot long wing strut they 

add to make the Fly compliant?

Someone want to do the math for this one?




	


Denny,



If Bill is serious about this, he can change to a 28 hp engine and save at least 40 pounds.  With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly, so it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements.  If Bill's Firestar has a 447 mounted and he changes engines, he will be giving up enough hp so that he can fly with reduced drag and not exceed the max speed requirement.



To run the numbers, all one has to do it to follow:



http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html



Taken from that page:

40 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 12.4

38 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 11.8

28 hp max, the FireFly total drag factor must exceed 8.7



To get Bill's Firestar to comply with upper speed limit one would have to knock off 3.7 drag units from my FireFly.



Drag Unit Reduction from FireFly

Single strut per wing  => 0.8

Go to full enclosure   => 2.0

Larger wing drag       =>-0.25

Fair landing gear legs => 0.4

                        ------

Total Reduction           2.95



This would give total drag factor of 8.6 which is very close to 8.7.  Bill may have to leave fairings off the landing gear legs.  According to this his Firestar should top out at 55 knots.  I have found this graph to be conservative, so I expect it would do better than this.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Firestar project

[quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]

What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think what his might bring to the discussion  ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement, but you would sure be losing weight.

  Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.

  

 Rick

 	  Quote: 	
		  [b] 	




Rick



That is the worst idea I have heard to date,  why would you shorten the wings, and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed  ?  Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow down as much as before in a forced landing.  So you are suggesting that Bill go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like that.   I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the worse suggestions I have seen to date.  



I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. "  Sir, your plastic fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit, so I am going to have to violate you..  "  Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...   



To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be.  This is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by a couple percent.  We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment in the world as it is.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: Firestar project

 	  jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne wrote: 	
		  



Denny,



If Bill is serious about this, he can change to a 28 hp engine and save at least 40 pounds.  With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly, so it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements.  If Bill's Firestar has a 447 mounted and he changes engines, he will be giving up enough hp so that he can fly with reduced drag and not exceed the max speed requirement.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN 	


Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see what the max speed of the ultralights are ?   Your suggestion is nothing short of irresponsible.  Most people must be reading this and laughing at you, they just aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public suggestion as I am.  Having more power = more options available when things go bad, which means more safety.   Steeper climb = More altitude and more options if the engine quits at the end of the runway.



Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest putting to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points in numbers.  This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in climb, and more dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a little.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Firestar project

I have a very good friend who has the amazing ability to misunderstand 

and misconstrue anything said to him. Are you a relative of his?



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)



JetPilot wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   <snip> Of course, Richard Pike will probably want to take the gas out of your new tank, and if it is a pint over 5 gallons, tell you to change it as you are still illegal hahaha.  



 Mike



 -

_________________
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0

Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.

russ(at)rkiphoto.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Mike

Rick's not the only one, by far,  who's sick your pontificating.  

Lighten  up! We read the list to learn something useful, not to get  

an  earful of your personal opinions-- e.g, the Gospel according to  

Mike --



On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:31 PM, JetPilot wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:

> Mike, If you can't quit this diatribe, could you at least relabel  

> it as "BS rant about nothing" or something similar. Some of us  

> would like to hear about Bill's Firestar and not your philosophy.

>

>  Rick

>  do not archive

>

 Well rick, for claiming not to like this subject and not wanting it  

 on the list, you have taken every opportunity to join in.  So  

 according to you, its OK for you and people that share your opinion  

 to post and continue this subject ( Richard Pike ), but not others..



 Looks like you are one of those " Do as I say , not as I do people  

 ".   Very lame.



 Mike



 --------

 &quot;NO FEAR&quot; -  If you have no fear you did not go as fast  

 as you could have !!!



 Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161123#161123

1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: Firestar project

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 That is the worst idea I have heard to date,  why would you shorten the wings, and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed  ?  Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow down as much as before in a forced landing.  So you are suggesting that Bill go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like that.   I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the worse suggestions I have seen to date.  

 

 I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. "  Sir, your plastic fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit, so I am going to have to violate you..  "  Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...   

 

 To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be.  This is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by a couple percent.  We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment in the world as it is.

 

 Mike


	


<snip>



With fear of stepping into someone else's fight...so all these Firefly's 

with the shorter wings are BAD?  Seems that a little higher wing loading 

is a good, shall I say GREAT thing sometimes...like when there is a 

little turbulence and/or thermal activity...by your reasoning we should 

all be flying gliders...so they would have good engine out 

characteristics   That is a great characteristic, just not the only 

one to consider in these great big balls of compromise that we call 

airplanes...(or "vehicles" for you Part 103 folks...



Jeremy "clip-wing Firestar/Slingshot wannabe" Casey



http://www.kilocharlie.us/superfly.htm

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Ok, I give up. I tried my best to explain the difference between dealing 

with the law and the consequences of breaking it and my indifference to 

what any of you choose to do about it, and that has been (deliberately?) 

misconstrued.

I tried to point out (tongue in cheek) that I deal with idiot 25 mph 

speed limits on 45 mph roads as I think best, am willing to take the 

responsibility of getting busted for doing so, and even posted a picture 

of my crotch rocket, and that has been (deliberately?) misconstrued.

Proverbs 26: 4 tells us "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, 

lest you also be like him. "  The next verse, Proverbs 26:5 says "Answer 

a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

Guys, I am done with trying to fulfill verse 5, and I leave it to you to 

figure out how best to deal with verse 4.  

The MKIII is coming into the garage tomorrow, some more mods to the 

fuselage area, try to improve the airflow around the fuselage upper 

rear, just ahead of the radiator, add a taper at the back end of the 

fuselage, see if cleaning up that little flat area about 10" ahead of 

the prop arc will do anything. Fix a glitch in the radio, different 

intercom, etc.

Also bought myself a Hall wind meter, will be pulling off the VG's, 

attaching the Hall to a lift strut, getting it pointed straight into the 

relative wind at stall, and shooting some videos through stall to see 

what this MKIII actually stalls at, power on and off, with and without 

flaps, and satisfy myself as to just what she does. Then put the vg's 

back on and do it all again. If I come up with anything worth sharing, I 

might check back in this summer.

It's been a great ride, fair skies and tailwinds to you all,

Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

JetPilot wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 [quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]

 What about going the other way round and shorten the Firestar's wing to Firefly dimensions? You might have to resort to.........VG's (oh dear lord, to think what his might bring to the discussion  ) to get the 24 knot CAS requirement, but you would sure be losing weight.

   Just a PBI, no real thought or math calc's put into it.

  Rick

> [b]

>     

 Rick

 That is the worst idea I have heard to date,  why would you shorten the wings, and make the airplane more dangerous by increasing wing loading and stall speed  ?  Now you have an airplane that is easier to stall, and impossible to slow down as much as before in a forced landing.  So you are suggesting that Bill go to many hours of work to make a more dangerous airplane, in order to lighten it a couple percent, or lighten Only a total fool would do something like that.   I have seen pure stupidity on this list before, but this is one of the worse suggestions I have seen to date.  

 I can just see Rick and Richard in a position of authority. "  Sir, your plastic fuel tank has bulged and it now holds 5.25 gallons, and 5 gallons is the limit, so I am going to have to violate you..  "  Or sir, you were doing 58 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so I am going to write you a citation...   

 To anyone reading this thread now or in the future, don't make your plane more dangerous, or make it handle worse, or harder to fly than it needs to be.  This is a prime example of people that can read a rule, but can not use good judgment and will sacrifice safety in pursuit of chasing an arbitrary number by a couple percent.  We have to much of this kind of stupidity and poor judgment in the world as it is.

 Mike

 --------

 &quot;NO FEAR&quot; -  If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

 Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161173#161173

_________________
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0

Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.

a58r(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Geez Louise, this here FarStar thread has become a hawser around our lower alimentary outlet! Let's an- ull all this, before we say  more nasty things. Don't have to kiss and make up,  just kinda let the thread, already unravelled, part, as we say in the Senior Service.

 regards,

Bob N.    FireFly 070 Old Kolb,  mostly legal 'cept fer the two holes fer mah size 9.5 EEEEEE foot brakes to stick out.

http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/



do not archive



 



 [quote][b]

rowedenny(at)windstream.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: Firestar project

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Denny,



.  With an engine change the wing loading will be less than the FireFly, so 
	


it will have no problems meeting stall speed requirements.  >



Jack H



Jack,

I would think that a Firestar that is this close to 254 pounds would already 

have a slower stall speed and lighter wing loading than a Firefly with its 

much smaller wing area.

I doubt the engine size would need to be reduced to achieve legal UL speed 

limits on paper as long as the few pounds could be removed elswhere.



Sincerely,

Denny

Michael Sharp

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 118
Location: Oak Grove, MO (Kansas City)

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Gents,



If in outlook you will right click on his message.

Select Junk email

Then select add sender to blocked senders list



All of the list DH's Crap will go where it belongs.. 

In the junk mail folder.



I'm sure other email programs have similar options..



Mike

Do Not Archive

--

_________________
The air up there in the clouds is very pure and fine...And why shouldn't it be?-
--It is the same the angels breathe.
Mark Twain,
Roughing it' 1886

Mike

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: Firestar project

At 01:21 PM 1/29/08 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  




	


 	  Quote: 	
		  Since when do they go test fly ultralights while doing ramp checks to see what the max speed of the ultralights are ?   Your suggestion is nothing short of irresponsible.  Most people must be reading this and laughing at you, they just aren't as willing to pout out your bad suggestion in public suggestion as I am.  Having more power = more options available when things go bad, which means more safety.   Steeper climb = More altitude and more options if the engine quits at the end of the runway.



Only an anal retentive person without a ounce of good sense would suggest putting to small an engine on a firefly to chase a couple percentage points in numbers.  This would make the plane underpowered, very substandard in climb, and more dangerous than it needs to be just to slow it down a little.



Mike




	


Mike,



This has been a discussion about what can be done to make a Firestar a legal 

ultralight vehicle.  As my right, I have posted my opinion and you have 

posted your opinion of my opinion, which is your right.  I believe Bill is 

capable of deciding for him self as to what he wants to do with my post.  



You do not understand.  I don't care if people laugh at me or not.  I have 

more faith in numbers than suppositions.  The numbers, based on existing 

wing and power loading, say that a Firestar can fly very safely with only 28 

hp. 



Your incessant claim of a requirement for power tends to lead me to believe 

you use it as a crutch for your lack of adequate piloting skills or your 

discomfort in flying in very very light aircraft.  I find your heaviness, to 

use one of your terms, "anal".  Please lighten up, drink a beer with a 

friend, find some companionship, or find medical help.



Just for your info, I have a 27hp MZ34 sitting on the table in my shop.  

Today I finished the computations to see how the cg change in mounting it.  

Even with a bulk head mount off the back, the cg moved forward and just one 

inch.  I believe it will cut close to 50 pounds off the FireFly.  I will add 

some weight back with a full enclosure so I can do more winter flying.  If 

and when it gets done, the FireFly will remain a true ultralight vehicle. It 

will continue to be as safe as the person who flys it.



In answer to your question, during a ramp check a pilot of an ultralight 

vehicle has to prove that the unregistered aircraft he is flying is an 

ultralight vehicle.  The FAA has deemed that a properly filled out AC 103-7 

Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4 is sufficient proof.



Once again, Mike have a nice day and fly safe.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

Possums

Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Firestar project

At 03:20 PM 1/28/2008, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  At 07:27 AM 1/28/2008, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   

  

 In a message dated 1/28/2008 3:34:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, orcabonita(at)hotmail.com writes:  I say only an anal idiot would worry about 15 pounds 	
 

 The thing is that after Jan 31, your fat ultralight will stand out a lot 

 more that it use to "without N-numbers". Use to be hardly anyone had them,

 even the two seaters. Now - you will be a lot more conspicuous out there on the

 tarmac. 	


 Let me reply to my own post - That is, if you are 15 pounds overweight and don't have

 N-numbers, you are going to "stand out" in the crowd now - more that before, and if

 you don't have N-numbers you are more likely to be ramped checked after Jan 31st.

 Not that the 15lbs is any worse than we've all been doing for the past 20 years, but

 when we all were doing it and nobody had N-numbers - you were a lot less likely 

 to be questioned.     [quote][b]

_________________
Possum

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 3 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum