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

beauford173(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: Firestar project

..so there...!



Seafoam anyone...?



beauford...

do not archive...



---

WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Firestar project

In a message dated 1/29/2008 8:08:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  williamtsullivan(at)att.net writes:

   	  Quote: 	
		     One thing no one mentioned regarding weight- I am about 170    dressed, and my wife is about 50 pounds heavier. I would think the powers that    be would be more interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded    instead of a couple of pounds over. Luckily, the Firestar is capable of    the difference.

    

   HI BILL SULLIVAN,

    

   Does the above comment indicate that you might take your wife along as a    passenger???  Or were you just talking about the difference in weight if    she were to pilot it?

    

   I had previously answered your original thread directly to you, but I'll    post this one for all to read.

    

   Just for every one's information:

    

   On June 30, 1989 I purchased a FireStar kit from old Kolb.  The    specification list that came with the advertising brochure    states the following:

    

   Wing Span 27' 8"

   Wing Area 149 sq ft

   Length 20' 3"

   Length folded 21' 3"

   Height 5' 8" (same folded)

   Width (folded) 66"

   Load factor 4+, 2-

   Reduction unit Rotax integral gearbox with vibration damper

   Propeller 66 X 28

   Fuel Capacity 5 gal

   Rate of climb 1,000 FPM

   Weight 264 lbs *

   Engine Rotax 377

   Take off distance 100 ft (grass)

   Top speed 63 MPH (Partial enclosure)

    

   *Needs parachute to be legal ultralight.

    

   My kit came with the main landing gear legs only 1" in dia.,    where they went into the airframe.  The axle holder was a light weight    welded piece using small plastic wheels with no brakes.  The    windshield was a short one, about 1/3 coverage, and the center section cover    was fabric, with a zipper to secure the two halves.

    

   Bill    Varnes

Original Kolb FireStar

   Kit price    on 6/30/89 $5695 included engine!!!

Audubon NJ

Do Not    Archive

	




Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: Firestar project

In a message dated 1/29/2008 4:49:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,  jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

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



	


 

  

          Jack,

  

       Now is as good a time as ever to thank you  for taking the time to document and share your experiments and findings to the  list, as I know it takes of your time. I for one have benefited from your  documentations.  I too want to find a lighter alternative to the rotax. I  have pondered the 1/2 VW ,but need to know more about it.  I have also  looked at the MZ 34. You are NOT the only one on this list that wants to be  legal. I for one  am not laughing at you. I commend you for the way you  handle things in a civil manner ! Please keep us posted on the MZ 34  project! Reducing the FF weight by 50 lbs would reduce stall speed by a good  bit.           

            I hope  the weather cooperates so everyone can go fly. That should help everyone to be a  little kinder to each other!

  

            Ed    FF 62        Do Not Archive  !



Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Folks 

I have been reading this thread for a while and its quite entertaining, I am not getting irate at anyone or anything, what for.

But, and this is very important to at least settle one aspect of this Mmmm lively discussion. First there is that purported threat that the Gestapo will bust you because your Airplane / Ultralight is obese. 

So I am going to address just the legality of the subject. 

First how will they tell if your craft is obese?

They can't unless you tell them or let them. You need to understand that your craft is your private property and they have no right to weigh it without your permission. So if your craft is obese do not talk about its weight or allow anyone to weigh it in their presence, same is with the fuel tank. In America we have rights, in AmeriKa we don't. I suggest that we all remember in which America we want to live and in which America we do live. If its me I would simply fly off in my obese ultralight and leave them behind. If you do have an obese craft your worst enemy is what you say, so say nothing and tell them to get away from your private property, and they *will*. As for the advisability of having an obese craft I leave that up to each of us. Its better to be inside the rules just so we can feel good. But I would not be worried that they are going to weigh my airplane without my permission, they can't they have no right at all, and in fact its against the law for anyone to mess with your private property. You can call the cops on them if they bug you too much, which they won't if you tell them to leave you alone. They are trained to know the law, and they are also trained at how to elicit information from you by talking to you, so don't talk...



Ron (Arizona)



Do not archive

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: Firestar project

I would think the powers that  be would  be more interested in whether the gross weight is being exceeded  instead  of a couple of pounds over. >>

  

 They are in the UK, which is why the limiting  weight for an ultralight here is the MTOW. For calculation purposes there is a  standard weight for the pilot and  passenger.

  

 Cheers

  

 Pat

   [quote][b]

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: Firestar project

At 11:59 PM 1/29/2008, Ron wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  First how will they tell if your craft is obese?

 They can't unless you tell them or let them. You need to understand that your craft is your private property and they have no right to weigh it without your permission... 	


 I wish it were so:

   § 103.3   Inspection requirements.



  (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part.



  (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part.



  -Dana

 --

  A rolling stone .... kills worms    [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: Firestar project

The FAA set some max and stall speed limits >>

Really? You have max speed limits?. Here we have many ultralight types with 

top speeds over a 100mph. One making 130 I believe.  Stall speed is the main 

performance regulator, 35.



Cheers



Pat

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: Firestar project

At 07:06 AM 1/30/2008, pj.ladd wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  The FAA set some max and stall speed limits >>

Really? You have max speed limits?. Here we have many ultralight types 

with top speeds over a 100mph. One making 130 I believe.  Stall speed is 

the main performance regulator, 35.


	


Pat, for "true" ultralights the maxes are 24 knots stall and 55 knots level 

flight at WOT... but the Part 103 regulations are so loose (including no 

license or registration) that there are many advantages to this category, 

IF you can meet the 254 lb empty weight limit.  For "Light-Sport Aircraft" 

(comparable to your microlight category) it's 1320 lbs empty, 45 knot stall 

and 120 knot max.



-Dana

--

  For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.

williamtsullivan(at)att.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: Firestar project

Everybody keep talking- I'm learning! Thanks for all the information. 

    My wife would be flying alone. It is only a single seat. This is an old Firestar, and I still haven't found a serial number. I suspect it is an early one. The landing gear legs measure 1" where they go into the socket. It has a two blade 66" Warp Drive prop, no brakes, full enclosure, minimal instrumentation, a BRS, full size wings, and 15-6.00x6 tires with tubes on tubeless aluminum rims. No flaps or flaperons. Fiberglass tailwheel strut with about a 4" plastic wheel. Ten gallon tank. The tank is going to be switched out to 5 gallon, and that should save a pound or so. Someone said the original had Azusa nylon wheels with 4" tires. Does anyone know the weight savings by switching?

    Keep in mind that this is my first aircraft project, and I find it an intellectual challenge to trim weight, as well as a lot of fun. I need all the advice you can give  me. I do not have the current knowledge or experience to work the numbers. 

    I didn't mention a couple of things. It came through with 2 sets of struts- one set of round aluminum that I believe are original; and a second set that are streamlined steel(?) that are twice as heavy, but I didn't stick a magnet to yet. I'm using the round ones for the weight.

    Extra speed does not matter. Range does not matter- only local flying is anticipated, an hour or so at a time. Safety in handling is a priority- our first ultralight. 

    Another question- The wings have three holes at the front attachment point for changing the angle, and the former owner recommended the middle hole. Any opinions?

    Another thing to keep in mind is that I am not an engineer. My background is more of welding and fabricating with heavy steel. That is why I'm having fun with all this, and my back hasn't hurt doing it. Love the Kolb, even  without getting it off the ground!

                                          Bill Sullivan

                                          antique Firestar

 [quote][b]

John Hauck

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

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: Firestar project

Bill S:

  

 What is your aviation background, i.e., flying  experience?

  

 I know you said you planned only to fly locally for  an hour at a time.  I said the same thing before I flew my first Kolb 24  years ago.  That lasted two weeks and I had begun my cross country  career.

  

 Another thing to remember.  Take a look around  and see how many folks are flying with Azusa nylon wheels.  Probably not  more than a couple out of the thousands that have been sent out with kits over  the many years Kolb has been producing kits.  There is a reason for  that.  They are built light and weak.  Brakes, I flew without them for  several years.  Even did a flight from Alabama to New York State and back  without them.  However, it was a pain in the ass and brakes, later on, made  my aircraft much, much safer.

  

 Guess it all depends on what you want.  If you  are like most of us, you will want to improve your airplane and not degrade it  attempting to reduce weight.

  

 As far as meeting the FAR 103 requirement of 254  lbs, that one is going to be extremely tough to make with a Firestar.  You can go to a smaller, lighter engine.  The FS  was designed to fly on 35 hp.  It will probably fly on half  that.   I think you will be degrading performance and the  fun of flying a sporty airplane.  

  

 Good luck,

  

 john h

 mkIII

 [quote]      Another thing to keep in mind is    that I am not an engineer. My background is more of welding and fabricating    with heavy steel. That is why I'm having fun with all this, and my back hasn't    hurt doing it. Love the Kolb, even without getting it off the ground!

                                              Bill Sullivan

    

[b]

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

williamtsullivan(at)att.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Progress- I took off the tailwheel bracket in order to change the wheel and straighten the clevis glued to the fiberglass strut. The clevis had been glued on twisted, and the tail wheel was badly worn on one side. I heated the clevis to soften the glue, and it went bang and gave a small jet of flame. Luckily, I was wearing glasses and was off to one side. I twisted it gently and let it cool down. Worked great. The tailwheel axle was held in by two aluminum rivets. It was also rusted in place. I turned down and cut a 7/16" clevis pin into a bushing driver, heated the axle brackets, and it slid out. Cleaned it up with a Dremel. Travis at Kolb has it in stock. I have to repair the tubing where the steering cables attach. They were almost worn through. Lots of detail work on something this old. I also have to cut off the aluminum sleeve that holds one wheel on, with a cotter pin through it. Siezed up on the steel axle. Travis is sending some tube stock. Tip on  jacking: This plane has tubular axles. Stick a lon 5/8" bolt in the back of the axle, and use an old Chevy truck jack. This is the jack with an internal screw, and has a drop-down hook plate. Works great. Only problem was that the ice was slowly melting. and the jack was sinking. I am jealous of all you indoor plane fixers.

                                         Bill Sullivan

 [quote][b]

DAquaNut(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: Firestar project

In a message dated 1/30/2008 7:05:46 A.M. Central Standard Time,  williamtsullivan(at)att.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Someone    said the original had Azusa nylon wheels with 4" tires. Does anyone know the    weight savings by    switching?                Bill, 	


 

           You should save a  minimum of 2 lbs going to 4" Azusa from 6 " Azusa.  Very likely More  especially if your 6" wheels are of the aluminum variety.  Personally ,even  though I have the 4 " wheels, the 6'' wheels are my preference as far as  handling goes.

  

  

            Ed    FF62



Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:23 am Post subject: Firestar project

For "Light-Sport Aircraft" (comparable to your microlight category) it's 

1320 lbs empty>>



Hi Dana,



I think our new sub 115Kg category will closely approximate your ultralight. 

Not completely uncontrolled but much more so than our usual 

`microlight`spec.



Our `microlights` are still well below the Sports category weight. My Xtra 

has to be below 950lbs MTOW.



Fascinating how different countries have dealt with this problem. Some have 

specified empty weight some MTOW some  countries do not allow flight above a 

certain height some do not allow it below a certain height. Switzerland 

allowed no microlights at all until last year. Spain had no legal 

microlights a few years ago but there were plenty flying. The legal spec was 

so tight that no one could possible fly. Apparently all applications to fly 

microlights finished up on the desk of a guy in the Spanish equivalant of 

the FAA and he was a microlight pilot himself. He just `lost` them.



Apparently in Australia until a short time ago there were many pilots with 

no pilots licence because they lived on large homesteads and and learned to 

fly in the same way that they learned to drive a car. Their Dad taught them. 

They were never `official` beacause they flew on and over their own land and 

never landed at a `proper`  airfield. However when they began to fly from 

their own homesteads to the neighbours, and then on to the next one, and the 

next, in increasing numbers the authorities lowered the boom on them.  Good 

while it lasted though.



No more posts from me for a couple of weeks as I am off to supposedly 

`sunny` Tenerife in the morning. In fact Tenerife has rain and high winds 

forecast for at least the next few days. Warm though, in the 70`s so that 

will be OK



Cheers everybody



Pat

williamtsullivan(at)att.n
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: Firestar project

Pat, thanks for the information on the latest developments over there. I am new to this, so the term "ultralight" means something different to all of us. Keep the info coming.

    As far as the three mounting hole at the front of the wings, they appear to have a lot of stock around them. They are tarped in the back yard, and when the weather is good I will get some measurements. Too windy yesterday. They appear to be well made and cared for, and I don't know why they were for sale- no damage except for 4 small (under 2") holes in the ailerons from shipping damage. They are 5 rib. Some stray weight can be taken off them, like an antenna mount, and something that I think is a fancy tie-down attachment. Paint and fabric is very nice. The Millers are sending a patch kit.

    By the way- I weighed it with wood strips on the rudder and elevator, and an unknown weight of gas in it, maybe 4-5 gallons. Also, the wind was blowing. And the  scale read differently every time I bounced it. I just wanted a rough idea how much to trim. Now I'm waiting for weather or parts.

                                          Bill Sullivan

 [quote][b]

lucien

Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: Re: Firestar project

My .02...



My personal preference nowadays is to be legal and that's always what I suggest to others. OTOH, I try not to be anal retentive about the R&R's especially if they keep me completely grounded with a perfectly good flying machine.

I like many of us flew illegally for a long time - I don't regret it because I feel that I used my best judgment and flew only good equipment. But these days I simply prefer to be legal for both safety and "Da Man" reasons.



Much as I hate to say it, it's really quite true: many of the R&R' we fly under nowadays came about because someone flew an airplane into the ground. This especially applies to airworthiness; I hate to think of how much of AC 43.13 came about because of crashes and etc. 

Good designs like the kolb, titan quicksilver, RV, etc are safe designs because someone got in the things and found the bugs. 

A lot of what has been discovered over the years then comes down to us partially in the regs and partially in AC's like 43.13.



Even weight limits have a little sanity to them, the idea behind them being the greater the "commanded kinetic energy" the more qualified the pilot should be.



Finally, while I think R&R's can be a good thing, I don't want to live in a police state either. I'd hate to think that the max punishment for the most minimal infraction will always come about and I'll probably always resist that.



I'll still bend regs as necessary to insure the safety of the flight or even to enhance the quality of my flying experience within what I consider to be reasonable bounds. But that's just me.



As for part 103, that's still being hashed out all these years later and I can see both sides of it. 



LS

_________________
LS
Titan II SS

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Firestar project

Being legal is good, and most of us make every effort to follow the spirit of the law.  But good judgment and safety must always your primary concern.   



I have never been ramp checked,  these guys talk about Ramp checks, and maybe if you are flying into Oshkosh or Sun and Fun, or some other event you might get ramp checked, but chances are very low that it will you will ever get checked at the small airports that most ultralights fly out of.  



The other thing you need to take into account is they are probably not going to be weighing planes without cause while doing ramp checks, has anyone ever been weighted in a routine ramp check ???  ( not event related, but standard run of the mill ramp check )  I seriously doubt it...   If you have 10 gallons of gas (double the limit), or 2 seats (double the limit), that will stand out like a sore thumb, and is likely to get your a violation on a ramp check, just like driving 110 MPH in a 55 MPH zone will draw attention on the highway (double the limit)....   In the case of your single seat statistic, with a 5 gallon tank and a single seat, will not likely generate any any unwanted attention.  No one is going to be able to look at you plane and say "its 15 pounds overweight"...    



So don't let some self righteous individuals tell you to go to an undue amount of work or make your plane less safe, by degrading the performance due to being 6 % overweight.  I'm sure since this thread started, every one of these guys has driven 3 MPH over the speed limit.  The problem here is, these guys have taken a position publicly on this list, and they are not about to let a new guy like me or anyone else point out that what they are suggesting is nothing short of  stupid.



We are very fortunate that Richard and a couple others here are not in positions of authority.  I can see it now, " sir, you were doing 58 in a 55 zone, I am going to give you a ticket "   or " Sir, your plastic fuel tank has bulged and now holds 5.25 gallons of gas, which is 6 % over the limit, I am going to have to violate you ".



It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how many "reasons" they give,  worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even worrying about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and anal.   



How many of these guys do think actually tell their friends to slow down and start self righteously preaching " the law " when they drive 3 MPH over the speed limit using all the same arguments they have been using here in this thread.   I'm sure the response they would get would be something to the effect of "stick it where the sun don't shine" or " get out of my car "...



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: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: Firestar project

Please just drop it. As the lists DH, "Designated Hitman",  you just 

refuse to quit.

You make it sound like others are suggesting we turn our wing struts down in 

a lathe in order to make our planes lighter.



Dennis Rowe



---

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: Firestar project

It does not matter how much they say " the law is the law ", or how how many 

"reasons" they give,  worrying about 3 MPH, or .25 gallons, or even worrying 

about 15 pounds extra on an ultralight is just plain stupid and anal.  >>



Oh Yeah!  And how does `Well officer, I only shot him a little bit` sound as 

a defence.



Cheers



Pat  (away for the next two weeks)

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Much as I hate to say it, it's really quite true: many of the R&R' we fly 

under nowadays came about because someone flew an airplane into the ground. 

 >>



Thats what happened in the UK. We had a good thing going which the 

authorities treated merely as an extension of hang gliding. Then there were 

a series of fatalities and Authority swooped.  Luckily we had Anne Welch, a 

long time gliding enthusiast who had helped fight the CAA to keep the 

gliding movements training, safety, licensing etc in its own hands. She 

realised that the microlight movement was in a similar position to gliding 

in the 30`s and became the Chairman of the fledgeling organisation. She did 

to a great extent what she and her husband had done for the Gliding 

fraternity and kept us `comparitively` rule free..



Pat

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: Firestar project

Good luck Bill,

 its nice to be appreciated. .

  

 i have no opinions about holes in spars. There are  plenty on the list who are really very expert indeed. You will have to sort out  which ones they are. Whatever you do, don`t believe them all. Some are , shall  we say, not so clewed up as others.

  

 cheers#

  

 Pat.

   [quote][b]

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 4 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