 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dougmoffitt(at)drum-fife.
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:12 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
 |
|
I have an Ultrastar, which is about to get airborne after 20 years of
neglect. We've done all the needed renovation.
However, the wings have no dihedral, and the local experts/doomsayers
are predicting unmanageable behavior.
Questions:
Do those of you who fly Ultrastars with no dihedral have manageability
problems?
Has anyone undertaken to modify the craft to provide dihedral? If so,
how and how much?
Grateful for any sound advice--
D
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Pike
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Blountville, Tennessee
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:51 am Post subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
You got me curious, this is a link to a large number of Ultrastar images. None of them appear to have any dihedral, although the various Kolb Flyers appear to have a little.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kolb+ultrastar+pictures&rlz=1C1GIGM_enUS662US662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaw6DBlt_NAhXL7yYKHUJACu8QsAQIHQ&biw=1777&bih=812&dpr=0.9#imgrc=_
I suspect that if any of them had problems, dihedral would have been added.
I do know that adding a little dihedral to our FSII makes it happily fly hands off, whereas it was not happy before, and refused to do it. I do know that adding dihedral to a MKIII is like adding fuzzy dice to your dirt bike: it doesn't help anything and just makes the other riders wonder what's wrong with you.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:42 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
I have not flown the Ultrastar or any other Kolb, but I do have a reasonable grasp of the physics in play here. None of the Kolb models have very much dihedral, and I'm guessing many have zero.
Tell your local airport doomsday naysayers to look at the large transport aircraft (C-5, C-17, AN-124, AN-225) and explain how they fly with NEGATIVE dihedral.
The key is the weight distribution. On any high-wing Kolb the pilot weight is far below the wing. On the Ultrastar the weight of the engine is below the wing as well.
So from a stability perspective, the airplane will have a "pendulum" effect, and 30+ years of history shows that the Kolb aircraft do not have any roll stability problems.
Now if instead of actual flight dynamics you are trying to address the aesthetic, visual, "if it looks right, it flies right" aspect, then the Kolb needs a little dihedral angle purely for visual effect. I would build a little bit into the airplane myself, but that is purely for visual effect, and perhaps a few inches of extra brush clearance under the tips for off-road use.
Some experienced Kolb pilots have mentioned that the airplane flies a little bit better with a couple of degrees of dihedral. But this is definitely fine-tuning, and the airplane is shown to fly perfectly well with little or no dihedral.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, Doug Moffitt <dougmoffitt(at)drum-fife.com> wrote:
Subject: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 7:11 AM
Doug Moffitt <dougmoffitt(at)drum-fife.com>
I have an Ultrastar, which is about to get airborne after 20
years of
neglect. We've done all the needed renovation.
However, the wings have no dihedral, and the local
experts/doomsayers
are predicting unmanageable behavior.
Questions:
Do those of you who fly Ultrastars with no dihedral have
manageability
problems?
Has anyone undertaken to modify the craft to provide
dihedral? If so,
how and how much?
Grateful for any sound advice--
D
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hauck
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:08 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Kolbers:
I think there was 1.5" dihedral measured at the outboard rib, bottom of wing
level. I believe that is the same dimension as the original Firestar, but
would have to check the Builders Manuals to be certain. Maybe they 1.0" and
the MKIII was 1.5".
I do know that Homer would have rather had zero dihedral in the wings
because he could then squeeze every ounce of lift and performance out of it.
His idea of flying was low and slow right over the tree tops so he could
stay in contact and enjoy what was going on below him. The only reason his
Kolb designs had dihedral was because the wings looked like they were
drooping with sitting on the ground. Dihedral was purely for aesthetics.
Not long before Home Kolb died, he rebuilt the 1985 Kolb Firestar that was
the 1985 Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight. There is a story about this
aircraft and how it got damaged, but I will save that for another time.
When Homer was rebuilding he added 3" of dihedral and replaced the 377 Rotax
with a 503 DC Rotax. I got a chance to fly this airplane at the Kolb Farm.
It was a great performer with the big engine. Handled well, like all
original Firestars. Can't say anything about the additional dihedral
because I never thought about it while I was flying. Was having too much
fun.
To me, the only reason to add suggested dihedral or additional dihedral
would be to fly hands off and because the manual says so. 
john h
mkIII, original Firestar, and Ultrastar
Titus, Alabama
You got me curious, this is a link to a large number of Ultrastar images.
None of them appear to have any dihedral, although the various Kolb Flyers
appear to have a little.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kolb+ultrastar+pictures&rlz=1C1GIGM_enUS662U
S662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaw6DBlt_NAhXL7yYKHUJACu8QsA
QIHQ&biw=1777&bih=812&dpr=0.9#imgrc=_
I suspect that if any of them had problems, dihedral would have been added.
I do know that adding a little dihedral to our FSII makes it happily fly
hands off, whereas it was not happy before, and refused to do it.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:28 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
John H. or any other Kolb List folks, can you offer a comparison in flying qualities, maneuverability, performance, etc. between the original single place Firestar 1 and the later Firestar 2?
I have an opportunity to purchase a Firestar 1 that is flying or flyable. It had been upgraded or rebuilt with the 7 rib wing from the later Firestar. I am ASSUMING that the 7 rib wing is the structural upgrade that allows the gross weight increase from FS1 to FS2.
Anyone who is well educated on the advantages and/or disadvantages between the Firestar 1 and 2, I would very much welcome the education. I had asked about the performance difference previously and had a response or two, and n\ow I'm asking which one flies better and why.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 10:06 AM
"John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Kolbers:
I think there was 1.5" dihedral measured at the outboard
rib, bottom of wing
level. I believe that is the same dimension as the
original Firestar, but
would have to check the Builders Manuals to be
certain. Maybe they 1.0" and
the MKIII was 1.5".
I do know that Homer would have rather had zero dihedral in
the wings
because he could then squeeze every ounce of lift and
performance out of it.
His idea of flying was low and slow right over the tree tops
so he could
stay in contact and enjoy what was going on below him.
The only reason his
Kolb designs had dihedral was because the wings looked like
they were
drooping with sitting on the ground. Dihedral was
purely for aesthetics.
Not long before Home Kolb died, he rebuilt the 1985 Kolb
Firestar that was
the 1985 Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight. There is a
story about this
aircraft and how it got damaged, but I will save that for
another time.
When Homer was rebuilding he added 3" of dihedral and
replaced the 377 Rotax
with a 503 DC Rotax. I got a chance to fly this
airplane at the Kolb Farm.
It was a great performer with the big engine. Handled
well, like all
original Firestars. Can't say anything about the
additional dihedral
because I never thought about it while I was flying.
Was having too much
fun.
To me, the only reason to add suggested dihedral or
additional dihedral
would be to fly hands off and because the manual says
so.
john h
mkIII, original Firestar, and Ultrastar
Titus, Alabama
You got me curious, this is a link to a large number of
Ultrastar images.
None of them appear to have any dihedral, although the
various Kolb Flyers
appear to have a little.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kolb+ultrastar+pictures&rlz=1C1GIGM_enUS662U
S662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaw6DBlt_NAhXL7yYKHUJACu8QsA
QIHQ&biw=1777&bih=812&dpr=0.9#imgrc=_
I suspect that if any of them had problems, dihedral would
have been added.
I do know that adding a little dihedral to our FSII makes it
happily fly
hands off, whereas it was not happy before, and refused to
do it.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcottrell
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:49 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Try this:
https://vimeo.com/69917549 password - owyheeflyer
The plane belongs to Roger Hankins. about 175 lbs.6 gallons of fuel. He can soar with it, and take off and land shorter than any I have seen.
I would jump on it.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net (victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> Kolb-List message posted by: Bill Berle <victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net (victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.net)>
John H. or any other Kolb List folks, can you offer a comparison in flying qualities, maneuverability, performance, etc. between the original single place Firestar 1 and the later Firestar 2?
I have an opportunity to purchase a Firestar 1 that is flying or flyable. It had been upgraded or rebuilt with the 7 rib wing from the later Firestar. I am ASSUMING that the 7 rib wing is the structural upgrade that allows the gross weight increase from FS1 to FS2.
Anyone who is well educated on the advantages and/or disadvantages between the Firestar 1 and 2, I would very much welcome the education. I had asked about the performance difference previously and had a response or two, and n\ow I'm asking which one flies better and why.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com (jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com)> wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 10:06 AM
--> Kolb-List message posted by:
"John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com (jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com)>
Kolbers:
I think there was 1.5" dihedral measured at the outboard
rib, bottom of wing
level. I believe that is the same dimension as the
original Firestar, but
would have to check the Builders Manuals to be
certain. Maybe they 1.0" and
the MKIII was 1.5".
I do know that Homer would have rather had zero dihedral in
the wings
because he could then squeeze every ounce of lift and
performance out of it.
His idea of flying was low and slow right over the tree tops
so he could
stay in contact and enjoy what was going on below him.
The only reason his
Kolb designs had dihedral was because the wings looked like
they were
drooping with sitting on the ground. Dihedral was
purely for aesthetics.
Not long before Home Kolb died, he rebuilt the 1985 Kolb
Firestar that was
the 1985 Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight. There is a
story about this
aircraft and how it got damaged, but I will save that for
another time.
When Homer was rebuilding he added 3" of dihedral and
replaced the 377 Rotax
with a 503 DC Rotax. I got a chance to fly this
airplane at the Kolb Farm.
It was a great performer with the big engine. Handled
well, like all
original Firestars. Can't say anything about the
additional dihedral
because I never thought about it while I was flying.
Was having too much
fun.
To me, the only reason to add suggested dihedral or
additional dihedral
would be to fly hands off and because the manual says
so.
john h
mkIII, original Firestar, and Ultrastar
Titus, Alabama
You got me curious, this is a link to a large number of
Ultrastar images.
None of them appear to have any dihedral, although the
various Kolb Flyers
appear to have a little.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kolb+ultrastar+pictures&rlz=1C1GIGM_enUS662U
S662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaw6DBlt_NAhXL7yYKHUJACu8QsA
QIHQ&biw=1777&bih=812&dpr=0.9#imgrc=_
I suspect that if any of them had problems, dihedral would
have been added.
I do know that adding a little dihedral to our FSII makes it
happily fly
hands off, whereas it was not happy before, and refused to
do it.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
===========
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
===========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
--
The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of others.
If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email address before sending.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
do not archive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hauck
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:36 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
I have always liked the original Firestar better than the FSII, and the original MKIII rather than the MKIIIx.
With a few modifications on the original FS and MKIII, both are really good performing, fun flying airplanes.
A fully enclosed fuselage on both models encourages better performance. A few tube here and there in the wing and the fuselage make them even more crashworthy. The angle of the landing gear makes fitting 36" 4130 gear legs a breeze on the original FS. Open cockpit is nice, and a 3" Lexan fairing on top of the windshield will increase cruise speed 5 mph and keep the wind out of your face and over the top of the center section. My Firestar was configured with an 18 gal 5052 fuel tank above and behind the center bulkhead, opening up the bottom of the rear fuselage for cargo. Stuff could also be stored behind the seat and under the seat depending on what kind of hard seat and 4130 seat frame you decided on. Weakness in the original FS was the wings and lower longerons on the rear of the fuselage. Additional bracing too care of the fuselage. 7 ribs and additional larger tubing for lateral bracing of the leading edge of the wing to keep the rib noses in column is another important improvement. Small 4130 streamlined lift struts increase speed and glide, reducing vibration.
Been a long time since I have been involved with an original FS. My last flight was March 1990, 26 years ago. A lot of the improvements Brother Jim Hauck and I made to the FS, we incorporated into the MKIII.
The red partially covered fuselage is my FS during the winter of 1988 rebuild. The photos show the 18 gal fuel tank, additional 4130 bracing, 36" 4130 gear legs, 4130 windshield bow with mounting tabs to hang the instrument panel.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
--
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
340.55 KB |
| Viewed: |
16186 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
325.92 KB |
| Viewed: |
16186 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
296.33 KB |
| Viewed: |
16186 Time(s) |
|
_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:39 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
John H. thank you for your comments. Do you or any of the other Kolb List folks recognize this aircraft (photos attached) and/or know anything about it? I am possibly interested in purchasing it. It has some pretty strange visual things, the nose cone looks a lot different, and the bottom of the fuselage looks different (fabric covering contour).
Also John H. the landing gear legs on this aircraft look different than other Firestars I have seen, they are swept forward. The sockets welded in the fuselage come straight out spanwise3 (not forward or rearward), and the builder apparently BENT the gear legs forward so the airplane would not be as easy to nose over. Is this standard on a Firestar 1? I would very much want to install the longer 36 inch gear legs as you mentioned, but I am worried that it could cause a nose-over problem.
Any experience, historical knowledge, and recommendations for this are very much welcome. Anyone who knows this airplane,a nd can tell me it is good, bad, safe, unsafe, problematic, etc. please speak up 
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 12:35 PM
I have always liked the original
Firestar better than the FSII, and the original MKIII rather
than the MKIIIx.
With a few modifications on the original FS and MKIII, both
are really good performing, fun flying airplanes.
A fully enclosed fuselage on both models encourages better
performance. A few tube here and there in the wing and
the fuselage make them even more crashworthy. The
angle of the landing gear makes fitting 36" 4130 gear legs a
breeze on the original FS. Open cockpit is nice, and a
3" Lexan fairing on top of the windshield will increase
cruise speed 5 mph and keep the wind out of your face and
over the top of the center section. My Firestar was
configured with an 18 gal 5052 fuel tank above and behind
the center bulkhead, opening up the bottom of the rear
fuselage for cargo. Stuff could also be stored behind
the seat and under the seat depending on what kind of hard
seat and 4130 seat frame you decided on. Weakness in
the original FS was the wings and lower longerons on the
rear of the fuselage. Additional bracing too care of
the fuselage. 7 ribs and additional larger tubing for
lateral bracing of the leading edge of the wing to keep the
rib noses in column is another important improvement.
Small 4130 streamlined lift struts increase speed and glide,
reducing vibration.
Been a long time since I have been involved with an original
FS. My last flight was March 1990, 26 years ago.
A lot of the improvements Brother Jim Hauck and I made to
the FS, we incorporated into the MKIII.
The red partially covered fuselage is my FS during the
winter of 1988 rebuild. The photos show the 18 gal
fuel tank, additional 4130 bracing, 36" 4130 gear legs, 4130
windshield bow with mounting tabs to hang the instrument
panel.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
--
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
121.79 KB |
| Viewed: |
16184 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
52.55 KB |
| Viewed: |
16184 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hauck
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:03 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Not familiar with this aircraft.
Longer gear legs actually reduce the tendency to nose over. I had good luck with 36" legs.
john h
Also John H. the landing gear legs on this aircraft look different than other Firestars I have seen, they are swept forward. The sockets welded in the fuselage come straight out spanwise3 (not forward or rearward), and the builder apparently BENT the gear legs forward so the airplane would not be as easy to nose over. Is this standard on a Firestar 1? I would very much want to install the longer 36 inch gear legs as you mentioned, but I am worried that it could cause a nose-over problem.
Any experience, historical knowledge, and recommendations for this are very much welcome. Anyone who knows this airplane,a nd can tell me it is good, bad, safe, unsafe, problematic, etc. please speak up
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:18 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Thank you John H, but I believe this Firestar was part of one of the Monument Valley fly-ins. I have a photo of it that was apparently taken at MV airport.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 4:02 PM
"John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Not familiar with this aircraft.
Longer gear legs actually reduce the tendency to nose
over. I had good luck with 36" legs.
john h
Also John H. the landing gear legs on this aircraft look
different than other Firestars I have seen, they are swept
forward. The sockets welded in the fuselage come straight
out spanwise3 (not forward or rearward), and the builder
apparently BENT the gear legs forward so the airplane would
not be as easy to nose over. Is this standard on a Firestar
1? I would very much want to install the longer 36 inch gear
legs as you mentioned, but I am worried that it could cause
a nose-over problem.
Any experience, historical knowledge, and recommendations
for this are very much welcome. Anyone who knows this
airplane,a nd can tell me it is good, bad, safe, unsafe,
problematic, etc. please speak up
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance
upgrade for light aircraft www.grantstar.net
- winning proposals for
non-profit and for-profit entities
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hauck
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:23 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
I made every Kolb Unplanned/Unorganized Monument Valley Flyin except the last in 2010, and there were no Kolbs at MV that year.
I have never seen this FS before. Do any of the other MV Kolbers remember seeing it?
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Thank you John H, but I believe this Firestar was part of one of the Monument Valley fly-ins. I have a photo of it that was apparently taken at MV airport.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UltrastarFlyer
Joined: 01 Aug 2016
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Hi,
I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are my observations.
The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is no tendency for the aircraft to right itself when displaced from level flight. The ailerons are quite effective and the aircraft is easy to control.
There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the rudder generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not a problem unless a flight malfunction results in loss if ailerons. In this scenario a bailout is necessary as control is lost.
It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The Ultrastar is still a very fine strong reliable aircraft. Enjoy
Bob
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UltrastarFlyer
Joined: 01 Aug 2016
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Hi,
I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are my observations.
The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is no tendency for the aircraft to right itself when displaced from level flight. The ailerons are quite effective and the aircraft is easy to control.
There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the rudder generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not a problem unless a flight malfunction results in loss if ailerons. In this scenario a bailout is necessary as control is lost.
It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The Ultrastar is still a very fine strong reliable aircraft. Enjoy
Bob
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:09 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
By adding a little bit of dihedral you will gain one or two advantages, at very little cost. Dihedral will make cruising flight a little more stable and less tiring. If for any reason you have a control system failure in the stick or yoke assembly, or a failure in the aileron control circuit, you can safely land the aircraft using yaw-roll coupling if you have a little bit of dihedral. This can even be used to control pitch attitude (very very loosely) like we used to do with the old "rudder only" R/C model airplanes. The old R/C rudder models (with a lot of dihedral) could perform full aerobatic routines.
You will not have this capability with a flat wing.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer <Crankpot(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 3:26 PM
"UltrastarFlyer" <Crankpot(at)gmail.com>
Hi,
I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are my
observations.
The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is no
tendency for the aircraft to right itself when displaced
from level flight. The ailerons are quite effective and the
aircraft is easy to control.
There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the rudder
generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not a problem
unless a flight malfunction results in loss if ailerons. In
this scenario a bailout is necessary as control is lost.
It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The Ultrastar is
still a very fine strong reliable aircraft. Enjoy
Bob
--------
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459055#459055
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UltrastarFlyer
Joined: 01 Aug 2016
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
You just repeated everything I said??? Are you a troll or just bored? And why would I modify a fine flying well proven aircraft so I flies like a toy radio control airplane? I can recommend some model airplane forums if you like.
| victorbravo(at)sbcglobal. wrote: | By adding a little bit of dihedral you will gain one or two advantages, at very little cost. Dihedral will make cruising flight a little more stable and less tiring. If for any reason you have a control system failure in the stick or yoke assembly, or a failure in the aileron control circuit, you can safely land the aircraft using yaw-roll coupling if you have a little bit of dihedral. This can even be used to control pitch attitude (very very loosely) like we used to do with the old "rudder only" R/C model airplanes. The old R/C rudder models (with a lot of dihedral) could perform full aerobatic routines.
You will not have this capability with a flat wing.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer <Crankpot> wrote:
Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 3:26 PM
"UltrastarFlyer" <Crankpot>
Hi,
I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are my
observations.
The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is no
tendency for the aircraft to right itself when displaced
from level flight. The ailerons are quite effective and the
aircraft is easy to control.
There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the rudder
generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not a problem
unless a flight malfunction results in loss if ailerons. In
this scenario a bailout is necessary as control is lost.
It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The Ultrastar is
still a very fine strong reliable aircraft. Enjoy
Bob
--------
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459055#459055
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin. |
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:11 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Very sorry to have insulted you, please disregard my posting.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer <Crankpot(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 6:49 PM
"UltrastarFlyer" <Crankpot(at)gmail.com>
You just repeated everything I said??? Are you a troll or
just bored? And why would I modify a fine flying well proven
aircraft so I flies like a toy radio control airplane? I can
recommend some model airplane forums if you like.
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal. wrote:
> By adding a little bit of dihedral you will gain one or
two advantages, at very little cost. Dihedral will make
cruising flight a little more stable and less tiring. If for
any reason you have a control system failure in the stick or
yoke assembly, or a failure in the aileron control circuit,
you can safely land the aircraft using yaw-roll coupling if
you have a little bit of dihedral. This can even be used to
control pitch attitude (very very loosely) like we used to
do with the old "rudder only" R/C model airplanes. The old
R/C rudder models (with a lot of dihedral) could perform
full aerobatic routines.
>
> You will not have this capability with a flat wing.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance
upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net      - winning
proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 3:26 PM
>
>
> "UltrastarFlyer"
>
> Hi,
> I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are
my
> observations.
>
> The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is
no
> tendency for the aircraft to right itself when
displaced
> from level flight. The ailerons are quite
effective and the
> aircraft is easy to control.
>
> There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the
rudder
> generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not
a problem
> unless a flight malfunction results in loss if
ailerons. In
> this scenario a bailout is necessary as control
is lost.
>
> It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The
Ultrastar is
> still a very fine strong reliable aircraft.
Enjoy
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> 1984 Kolb Ultrastar
> Cuyuna ULII-02
> Ultraprop
> 252 lbs
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459055#459055
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum -
> Â Â Â - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
--------
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459066#459066
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:23 pm Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
This has irked me a little more than I originally thought.
To answer your rather pointed question Bob... the reason that I suggested someone might modify an Ultrastar or other Kolb with a little dihedral is to create a little better stability and control balance, so as to have a little more ideal handling for the VAST majority of pilots whose usual mission profile includes some amount of cruising flight.
As you might know, the overwhelming majority of aircraft that are intentionally set up with neutral roll stability are purpose-built aerobatic aircraft. And as you also (hopefully) are well aware, ALL of the Kolb designs are not intended for, or stressed for, aerobatic flight. So what is the purpose of having an aerobatic feature on an airplane that should never be used for aerobatics?
As for modifying a well proven aircraft, those of us in the aviation business do it all the time for a variety of reasons. The DC-3, J-3, F-4, 747, Cessna 172, Piper Cherokee, and many other well-proven aircraft have hundreds of FAA approved modifications done to them, for a hundred different reasons.
Matter of fact, why don't you take a moment and point out ONE well-proven and fine flying aircraft that DOESN'T get modified on a routine basis for any number of reasons.
In internet language, a "troll" is a person who posts inflammatory or antagonistic content in an attempt to create an argument or disagreement where none would have existed. So which one of us is the troll?
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer <Crankpot(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 6:49 PM
"UltrastarFlyer" <Crankpot(at)gmail.com>
You just repeated everything I said??? Are you a troll or
just bored? And why would I modify a fine flying well proven
aircraft so I flies like a toy radio control airplane? I can
recommend some model airplane forums if you like.
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal. wrote:
> By adding a little bit of dihedral you will gain one or
two advantages, at very little cost. Dihedral will make
cruising flight a little more stable and less tiring. If for
any reason you have a control system failure in the stick or
yoke assembly, or a failure in the aileron control circuit,
you can safely land the aircraft using yaw-roll coupling if
you have a little bit of dihedral. This can even be used to
control pitch attitude (very very loosely) like we used to
do with the old "rudder only" R/C model airplanes. The old
R/C rudder models (with a lot of dihedral) could perform
full aerobatic routines.
>
> You will not have this capability with a flat wing.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance
upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net      - winning
proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 3:26 PM
>
>
> "UltrastarFlyer"
>
> Hi,
> I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are
my
> observations.
>
> The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is
no
> tendency for the aircraft to right itself when
displaced
> from level flight. The ailerons are quite
effective and the
> aircraft is easy to control.
>
> There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the
rudder
> generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not
a problem
> unless a flight malfunction results in loss if
ailerons. In
> this scenario a bailout is necessary as control
is lost.
>
> It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The
Ultrastar is
> still a very fine strong reliable aircraft.
Enjoy
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> 1984 Kolb Ultrastar
> Cuyuna ULII-02
> Ultraprop
> 252 lbs
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459055#459055
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum -
> Â Â Â - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
--------
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459066#459066
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:29 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Well, Crankpot, while there are numerous insults that beg to be thrown in response to insulting posts, let's stick to technical answers.
The primary reason to modify an a/c that doesn't respond to rudder input with roll, is to add at least some chance of survival if there is a failure of roll control. That's why it's included in certification requirements for type certificated a/c (unless they have specific missions that rule it out).
Your a/c; your choice, if it's experimental or ultralite.
Charlie
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, UltrastarFlyer <Crankpot(at)gmail.com (Crankpot(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> Kolb-List message posted by: "UltrastarFlyer" <Crankpot(at)gmail.com (Crankpot(at)gmail.com)>
You just repeated everything I said??? Are you a troll or just bored? And why would I modify a fine flying well proven aircraft so I flies like a toy radio control airplane? I can recommend some model airplane forums if you like.
victorbravo(at)sbcglobal. wrote:
> By adding a little bit of dihedral you will gain one or two advantages, at very little cost. Dihedral will make cruising flight a little more stable and less tiring. If for any reason you have a control system failure in the stick or yoke assembly, or a failure in the aileron control circuit, you can safely land the aircraft using yaw-roll coupling if you have a little bit of dihedral. This can even be used to control pitch attitude (very very loosely) like we used to do with the old "rudder only" R/C model airplanes. The old R/C rudder models (with a lot of dihedral) could perform full aerobatic routines.
>
> You will not have this capability with a flat wing.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 8/1/16, UltrastarFlyer wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)
> Date: Monday, August 1, 2016, 3:26 PM
>
>
> "UltrastarFlyer"
>
> Hi,
> I own and fly an Ultrastar regularly. These are my
> observations.
>
> The aircraft has neutral roll stability. There is no
> tendency for the aircraft to right itself when displaced
> from level flight. The ailerons are quite effective and the
> aircraft is easy to control.
>
> There is no yaw/roll coupling. Pressing on the rudder
> generates zero roll, even full rudder. Again not a problem
> unless a flight malfunction results in loss if ailerons. In
> this scenario a bailout is necessary as control is lost.
>
> It's not a perfect aircraft but none are. The Ultrastar is
> still a very fine strong reliable aircraft. Enjoy
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> 1984 Kolb Ultrastar
> Cuyuna ULII-02
> Ultraprop
> 252 lbs
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459055#459055
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum -
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
--------
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
Cuyuna ULII-02
Ultraprop
252 lbs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459066#459066
===========
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
===========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hauck
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:10 am Post subject: Ultrastar dihedral |
|
|
Kolbers:
Thought I had made a comment about Kolb dihedral recently, but undoubtedly I didn't. I can't find it. Another senior moment.
Homer Kolb wanted to squeeze every bit of performance out of his aircraft. He initially designed straight wings, no dihedral. His idea of flying was right over the trees as slow as he could go, not as fast as he could go. He wanted to stay in contact with the ground. The Ultrastar had huge barn door ailerons to control roll right through stall. All of Homer's designs have aileron authority below stall. Yep, the ailerons work when the Kolb is mushing and isn't flying anymore.
Homer didn't like the way the wings looked drooped when sitting on the ground. He put 1" of dihedral measured at the outboard rib, for aesthetic purposes, for the US and FS. The MKIII got 1.5". Not long before Homer died, he rebuilt the factory Firestar that Dick Rahill crashed at Oshkosh 1989. This was the 1985 Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight. In 1985, there weren't any ultralights that performed like the FS. During the rebuild Homer put 3" of dihedral in the wings. I flew the FS after the rebuild, but only around the farm. Didn't even think about the increased dihedral, so can't comment on any improvements.
Experience flying a Kolb indicates Homer's designs don't need to be redesigned to fly quite well.
Kolbs are not rudder, but aileron aircraft. If you lose ailerons you lose the aircraft. They don't fly long without aileron control.
1985, I experienced total aileron loss on my Ultrastar. One of the aileron bell cranks pulled the weld out of the upper torque tube. Immediately went into aileron flutter (no counter balance weights back then). Luckily, I was flying 75 MPH straight and level, but at 250 feet AGL. Without hesitation, I deployed my Jim Handbury hand deployed parachute. Half an oscillation later, the blink of an eye, and I was on the ground without a scratch. Airspeed was a major contributing factor in getting a full canopy before I hit the ground. Thanks, Jim.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 8:29 AM
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: Ultrastar dihedral
Well, Crankpot, while there are numerous insults that beg to be thrown in response to insulting posts, let's stick to technical answers.
The primary reason to modify an a/c that doesn't respond to rudder input with roll, is to add at least some chance of survival if there is a failure of roll control. That's why it's included in certification requirements for type certificated a/c (unless they have specific missions that rule it out).
Your a/c; your choice, if it's experimental or ultralite.
Charlie
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
