---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 01/14/04: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:21 AM - Re: Looking for a compass (kurt schrader) 2. 04:31 AM - Re: Expanding foam (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 3. 07:00 AM - Re: Looking for a compass (Lowell Fitt) 4. 07:37 AM - Re: Looking for a compass (Rick) 5. 08:58 AM - Re: Re: Looking for a compass () 6. 10:00 AM - Re: Looking for a compass (Scott McClintock) 7. 03:54 PM - New Weight and Balance limits (Clifford Begnaud) 8. 04:36 PM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Jeff Hays) 9. 05:53 PM - Re: Looking for a compass (kurt schrader) 10. 06:02 PM - Re: Looking for a compass (kurt schrader) 11. 06:39 PM - Re: Looking for a compass (Lowell Fitt) 12. 06:52 PM - Re: Looking for a compass (kurt schrader) 13. 07:36 PM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (John E. King) 14. 11:42 PM - New list ? (Clint Bazzill) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:21:39 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Lowell, Some of us got the impression that we weren't letting the rest of you speak enough, so we got quiet. As for me, I am using a $30 boat compass that seems to adjust within 5 degrees. My attempts with one of those fancy compasses didn't work out either. I mounted the boat compass right on the glareshield and it swings the most with landing light operation on my plane. Goes a little one way with Nav/panel lights and the other way with the landing light, so it stays pretty close overall. (That doesn't count engine start when it spins like a top.) I didn't de-gauss my plane.... yet. Might try it later if needed. Still a lot of testing to do too, so results are preliminary. A grounded copper (no-ferrous) section of window screen under the compass might absorbe some of the electrically induced stray and varied magnetism. Just an idea. Could glue it to the underside of the glareshield. One sq ft should be large enough to see if it works, for anyone who wants to try it. Kurt S. --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > > Where are the Gurus that in the past, when this > thread came up, talked about > de-gaussing the airframe to make the compass work > accurately? > > Lowell __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:31:04 AM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Expanding foam --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com But the hollowing was done with a Skilsaw, and will leave a lot of gap directly behind the metal strut. Only the front edges reach forward to mate smoothly with the top and bottom of the round strut. I'd like to shoot some of this foam in behind the metal strut to fill that space, putting a blob Steve, I used the Great Stuff foam in several areas. It will bond to just about everything but I would not use it as a "glue". Also, in my experience, there is no such thing at putting on a small amount. It comes out of the can rather quickly and expands a bunch. If I understand your needs, you might consider using a two part epoxy with light weight filler powder. Once you apply it, get a piece of pipe (the size of the strut and use that to smooth out the epoxy. This should form a close replica of the strut itself. Then, get a suitable size pipe and wrap with sand paper to do the final shaping of the insides. Just a thought. BTW, as a side note...I found out something about Great Stuff foam. Spray it into an opening and let it set until it's tacky but won't stick to your fingers and then gently tap the foam (with your finger tips) back into whatever your filling. This removes much of the air and the end product is so hard you need a hack saw to cut it. I don't think this method would work too well in your described application. Don Smythe ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:00:04 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Anyway, Degaussing the airframe is a possible solution to this problem. A search of the archives might bring up the facts of the matter, but as I recall, a TV repair shop has degaussing equipment that can be used to reduce the magnetic signature of the airframe. My compass, a non TSO'd vertical card compass on the glare shield works fine. The only thing I notice is that when the Nav lights are on it needs a different set of corrections and when the strobes are on it precesses a bit - about 3 degrees - wich each strobe pulse. I guess my airframe doesn't have much magnetic memory from the welding process. Incidentally, my wiring behind the panel isn't tied to the tubing, but runs along a fiberglass arrow shaft that keeps the current flow a distance from the aircraft structure. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > Lowell, > > Some of us got the impression that we weren't letting > the rest of you speak enough, so we got quiet. > > As for me, I am using a $30 boat compass that seems to > adjust within 5 degrees. My attempts with one of > those fancy compasses didn't work out either. I > mounted the boat compass right on the glareshield and > it swings the most with landing light operation on my > plane. Goes a little one way with Nav/panel lights > and the other way with the landing light, so it stays > pretty close overall. (That doesn't count engine > start when it spins like a top.) > > I didn't de-gauss my plane.... yet. Might try it > later if needed. Still a lot of testing to do too, so > results are preliminary. > > A grounded copper (no-ferrous) section of window > screen under the compass might absorbe some of the > electrically induced stray and varied magnetism. Just > an idea. Could glue it to the underside of the > glareshield. One sq ft should be large enough to see > if it works, for anyone who wants to try it. > > Kurt S. > > --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > > > > > Where are the Gurus that in the past, when this > > thread came up, talked about > > de-gaussing the airframe to make the compass work > > accurately? > > > > Lowell > > __________________________________ > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:37:35 AM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" I was told by another builder that one of our problems rest in the fact most of us use our airframe as ground. For those not finished building it might be worth looking into as well. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Lowell, Some of us got the impression that we weren't letting the rest of you speak enough, so we got quiet. As for me, I am using a $30 boat compass that seems to adjust within 5 degrees. My attempts with one of those fancy compasses didn't work out either. I mounted the boat compass right on the glareshield and it swings the most with landing light operation on my plane. Goes a little one way with Nav/panel lights and the other way with the landing light, so it stays pretty close overall. (That doesn't count engine start when it spins like a top.) I didn't de-gauss my plane.... yet. Might try it later if needed. Still a lot of testing to do too, so results are preliminary. A grounded copper (no-ferrous) section of window screen under the compass might absorbe some of the electrically induced stray and varied magnetism. Just an idea. Could glue it to the underside of the glareshield. One sq ft should be large enough to see if it works, for anyone who wants to try it. Kurt S. --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > > Where are the Gurus that in the past, when this > thread came up, talked about > de-gaussing the airframe to make the compass work > accurately? > > Lowell __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:58:33 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: RE: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: > When i had the local expert test my transponder and inst. for use in the DC airspace he graciously helped me with my compass and determined my frame had a nasty polarity. I ended up finding a neutral spot in the upper left portion of my dash where the field didnt effect it more than about + or - 3 degrees. Trial and error might be the only alternative for those late in build! Jared > From: "Rick" > Date: 2004/01/14 Wed AM 09:37:03 CST > To: > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:00:04 AM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock Rick, I have a Model 5 with a magnetic compass that works. I don't know why one wouldn't work in yours? Don't get me wrong, I'm a "gadget guy" myself. I too have a moving map GPS in the console, a PDA HSI which runs off the airplane battery and a handheld GPS, all of which are more useful than just a compass. I also have more than a few "old-timers" pilot friends that have been flying in Alaska for most of their lives. They don't think too much of my "gadgets". You would be pretty appalled by their "spartan" instruments as I am. However, I have to agree with their reasoning (as well as the FAA) that you should have the minimum required flight instruments on board AND have the ability to navigate with those ALONE. The "gadgets" are just extras as far as the regs go. (GPS equipment is NOT required as yet) (Remember: "there are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots)? I have been using GPS equipment since it's inception as a Professional Land Surveyor since the early/mid 1980's. I also know that (like most "gadgets") it is not completely foolproof nor always accurate. (Ever hear of a REIMS prediction?) (IFR pilots can chime in anytime!) The accuracy of your GPS is subject to many factors, most of which are out of your control. Things like signal interference, poor satellite geometry, multi-path environments, to name a few can and do degrade the GPS positional accuracies to un-acceptable levels. Unless you have had formal training and years of experience with this equipment, you probably wouldn't even be aware if you were experiencing a problem. Try this, Rick: Sit in your plane sometime on a nice sunny day, fire up your GPS and without moving the plane see what your GPS indicates in regards to speed, position and heading. You might be more than a little surprised to see that your good ol' GPS is saying that you are moving. The amount of apparent movement depends upon your particular receiver and the firmware installed. They ALL do this, some more than others. Before DoD turned SA (selective availability) off, the positional tolerances were in excess of 100+ meters elliptical. It is much better now but there is a reason that GPS is NOT approved for total navigation. They are still "fine tuning" the system as a whole and the receivers are getting better and better. The newer WASS enabled receivers are an example. I won't get into the technology (as I usually get paid for this kind of "spoon feeding") but these units use ground based stations to CORRECT the GPS positional data. Bottom line on all this is, Why not have one more redundant flight instrument on board, especially if it's required? No offense taken. We all have our opinions on the REGS, why should you be any different? Stay Safe and Have Fun Scott McClintock, PLS "Arctic Fox" N772HR Nome, AK. P.S. If your engine quits in flight, your right; you won't be needing a compass to point the way DOWN. Rick wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" > > Thanks and I will look. But I don't believe it says it has to be a compass > just something that indicates a magnetic direction. Also your are looking > under GA aircraft requirements. Might look at what is required in an > experimental VFR day aircraft. I cant remember the area but am almost > certain its there. When it was pointed out to me I remember being relieved > that I could use my GPS or nothing. My GPS is hard wired and has 4 hrs of > battery power. If my total electrical system fails one, the magnetic compass > is going to be so far out of wack from the absence of electrical fluxes it > wont matter. Second, if my electrical system fails I can fly at least 4 > hours on my RG35 battery. If the engine quits, which has happened I don't > need a compass to land on what's under me. Would I prefer to have a > dependable accurate compass, yes. Is there a stand alone magnetic that works > in a model 5 Kitfox, nope. So if I get rid of the GPS and put and unreliable > whisky compass in the cockpit what have I gained. I might be in your opinion > (legal) but in my opinion stupid. And no I am not mad or upset. > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott > McClintock > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock > > > So now I don't have either and it is my understanding a compass really > isn't > required for VFR flight anyway. > > Rick, > You need to go back to ground school. > Check out FAR-AIM Part 91.205(b) "For VFR flight during the day, the > following > instruments and equipment are REQUIRED: > 1) Airspeed Indicator > 2) Altimeter > 3) Magnetic Direction Indicator " (I.e. COMPASS) > and there are others, you need to know these. > > I agree on your statement about the GPS but when your panel fails or you > forget > to put fresh batteries in your handheld GPS, wouldn't you like to have that > nice > little compass that does not need electricity to get yourself back home??? > Technology is great, but a pilot is required to be able to operate his/her > aircraft using only the basic instruments. > Get your compass in working order, it may save your cookies someday! > > Scott McClintock > "Arctic Fox" N772HR > Nome, AK. > > Rick wrote: > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" > > > > Ditto on making any compass work in the fox. I wanted to do the remote > > sensor type as well but when I checked they were more than the good AOAs. > So > > now I don't have either and it is my understanding a compass really isn't > > required for VFR flight anyway. Besides my GPS works better than any > compass > > and even tells me to get back on course. To each his or her own. > > > > Rick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of > > AlbertaIV@aol.com > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com > > > > In a message dated 1/13/04 2:03:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > jsmathers@cybcon.com writes: > > > > > > > > I'm getting real close to sign-off on my KF Outback and need a > > > nice electronic compass with a remote fluxgate sensor that I can > > > place away from wires and tubing.......any suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, > > For what it's worth, I tried one of the electronic units and never > > could > > get it to work anywhere. I finally bought a regular compass from Spruce > and > > still couldn't get it to work anywhere above the instrument panel. I then > > started looking for other spots and found the best place was on a bracket > > just > > above the throttle. That the best place I could get any compass to work > and > > still have the installation look good.. Someone once mentioned that > > changing the > > inst panel support tubes to alum did the trick. I tried that and "NO" > good. > > > > Don Smythe > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:54:25 PM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" I was talking with a local pilot today that recently made his first flight in his newly completed model 7 with Rotax 912s. He was saying that he was having trouble getting the tail down for a three point landing. He has owned a model 4 for a while and was always able to get the tailwheel to touch first on that plane, so I think he knows what he is talking about. I took a look at his weight and balance and sure enough it showed and empty CG of 8.14 and a "Most Adverse Forward" CG of 10.23". I immediately recognized that this was too far forward, but his W&B showed it to be within limits. On all previous models 5 & 6 with NON swept wings, the forward CG limit was 11.37". He was given new CG limits by Skystar for the model 7; what follows is a comparison of the limits for models 5 & 6 and the model 7: Non Swept wings (i.e., Rotax 912s): Most forward- M5/6= 11.37, M7=9.5 Most Aft- M5/6= 16, M7=16 Swept Wing(i.e., Lyc or Continental) Most Forward-M5/6= 9.96, M7= 9.5 Most Aft- M5/6=14.75, M7=14.75 Obviously this begs the question "why the difference"? I can think of only two changes to the model 7 that could possibly affect the cg range. First is the flaperons; they are now asymmetrical which could be providing more lift at the aft edge of the wing, plus the new flaperons have a deeper chord. Generally, a wing with a deeper chord should have a broader cg range than one with a shallower chord. But intuitively, it seems like the new flaperons would allow a further aft CG, not a further forward CG because they are providing more lift on the aft edge of the wing. Hopefully some of you aeronautical engineers can comment on this. The other change that I'm aware of is the elevator. Instead of having a movable stabilizer that provides pitch trim, they have switched to a fixed stabilizer with trim tabs on the elevator. I believe that they have made the elevator larger to make up for the decreased effectiveness caused by the trim tabs. I can see how a larger elevator can allow the CG to be further forward because a larger elevator will give more pitch authority than a smaller one. But, the new elevator has trim tabs on both halves that effectively reduce the size of the elevator. I don't know how much it does this but it seems to be significant. Especially if you consider that you can't move the leading edge of the stabilizer while in flight like on the older models. The point of all this is that it seems to me, in my limited scope of experience, that the changes to the model 7 don't justify moving the forward CG limit almost 2" forward on planes with unswept wings. On planes with 1 degree of forward sweep the change in CG range is only about 1/2" forward. This seems reasonable. Note that there has been no change to the aft CG limit on any planes. If my friends flight experiences in his new plane are any indication, it may be that these new limits are in error. He made a flight this weekend that would put his flight CG at 10.91 (full fuel+pilot) and he could not get the tail down. Also, he reported that even with full up trim that the stick forces required to hold the nose up on approach were very high. I dread to think what it would be like flying it at a CG of 9.5". There is some adjustment to the angle of the stabilizer, but my friend already has it near it's down limit. (the leading edge can be ground adjusted within a small range) Lowering the leading edge of the stab should provide some additional nose up trim. He will try adjusting it further to see if this helps. Obviously he could add weight to the tail, but that is not the ideal solution. I'm sure we'll find a way to get the CG where it needs to be, but I'm really puzzled by the new limits and would like to hear from others. Do you think the changes justify the new limits? One last thing that I thought of; I was told by my friend that when he first got the kit it had an elevator with no trim tabs. He later switched to the manual trim system. He told me that the elevator with no tabs is the same size as the one with the trim tabs. If these elevators are indeed larger than the ones on the older models, this might help explain the expanded cg range. It's possible that Skystar did their calculations using the new larger elevator with no trim tabs, plus having the trimmable stabilizer. With this combination it may be that the cg would work fine at something near 9.5". However, they may need to adjust it slightly aft now that the elevator has two trim tabs on it. Comments? Cliff Erie, Co ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 04:36:19 PM PST US From: "Jeff Hays" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeff Hays" Does he use flaperons for landing? I never do in mine, I pretty much just slip mine in. I fly approach at 60-65, and short final at about 50. With my heavy nose plane (IO-240) I can tail wheel first every time. Speeds higher than 60 on final guarantee that I'll float from one end of the runway to the other with no touchdown. With flaperons deflected, I pretty much run out of trim to keep the control pressures reasonable. I added 12 lb.s of ballast to my tail though to keep the CG more aft... Jeff Hays -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford Begnaud Subject: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" I was talking with a local pilot today that recently made his first flight in his newly completed model 7 with Rotax 912s. He was saying that he was having trouble getting the tail down for a three point landing. He has owned a model 4 for a while and was always able to get the tailwheel to touch first on that plane, so I think he knows what he is talking about. I took a look at his weight and balance and sure enough it showed and empty CG of 8.14 and a "Most Adverse Forward" CG of 10.23". I immediately recognized that this was too far forward, but his W&B showed it to be within limits. On all previous models 5 & 6 with NON swept wings, the forward CG limit was 11.37". He was given new CG limits by Skystar for the model 7; what follows is a comparison of the limits for models 5 & 6 and the model 7: Non Swept wings (i.e., Rotax 912s): Most forward- M5/6= 11.37, M7=9.5 Most Aft- M5/6= 16, M7=16 Swept Wing(i.e., Lyc or Continental) Most Forward-M5/6= 9.96, M7= 9.5 Most Aft- M5/6=14.75, M7=14.75 Obviously this begs the question "why the difference"? I can think of only two changes to the model 7 that could possibly affect the cg range. First is the flaperons; they are now asymmetrical which could be providing more lift at the aft edge of the wing, plus the new flaperons have a deeper chord. Generally, a wing with a deeper chord should have a broader cg range than one with a shallower chord. But intuitively, it seems like the new flaperons would allow a further aft CG, not a further forward CG because they are providing more lift on the aft edge of the wing. Hopefully some of you aeronautical engineers can comment on this. The other change that I'm aware of is the elevator. Instead of having a movable stabilizer that provides pitch trim, they have switched to a fixed stabilizer with trim tabs on the elevator. I believe that they have made the elevator larger to make up for the decreased effectiveness caused by the trim tabs. I can see how a larger elevator can allow the CG to be further forward because a larger elevator will give more pitch authority than a smaller one. But, the new elevator has trim tabs on both halves that effectively reduce the size of the elevator. I don't know how much it does this but it seems to be significant. Especially if you consider that you can't move the leading edge of the stabilizer while in flight like on the older models. The point of all this is that it seems to me, in my limited scope of experience, that the changes to the model 7 don't justify moving the forward CG limit almost 2" forward on planes with unswept wings. On planes with 1 degree of forward sweep the change in CG range is only about 1/2" forward. This seems reasonable. Note that there has been no change to the aft CG limit on any planes. If my friends flight experiences in his new plane are any indication, it may be that these new limits are in error. He made a flight this weekend that would put his flight CG at 10.91 (full fuel+pilot) and he could not get the tail down. Also, he reported that even with full up trim that the stick forces required to hold the nose up on approach were very high. I dread to think what it would be like flying it at a CG of 9.5". There is some adjustment to the angle of the stabilizer, but my friend already has it near it's down limit. (the leading edge can be ground adjusted within a small range) Lowering the leading edge of the stab should provide some additional nose up trim. He will try adjusting it further to see if this helps. Obviously he could add weight to the tail, but that is not the ideal solution. I'm sure we'll find a way to get the CG where it needs to be, but I'm really puzzled by the new limits and would like to hear from others. Do you think the changes justify the new limits? One last thing that I thought of; I was told by my friend that when he first got the kit it had an elevator with no trim tabs. He later switched to the manual trim system. He told me that the elevator with no tabs is the same size as the one with the trim tabs. If these elevators are indeed larger than the ones on the older models, this might help explain the expanded cg range. It's possible that Skystar did their calculations using the new larger elevator with no trim tabs, plus having the trimmable stabilizer. With this combination it may be that the cg would work fine at something near 9.5". However, they may need to adjust it slightly aft now that the elevator has two trim tabs on it. Comments? Cliff Erie, Co ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:53:24 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader This is why I didn't de-gauss mine. After being de-gaussed, the frame will eventually reimprint/magnetize again from normal operations, when used as a ground conductor. Instead I just looked for a compass with enough adjustable compensation. If you don't use the frame as a ground, you need to wire in a ground for everything including the antennas. If you want to keep the frame demagnetized, you need to have a small AC current passing thru the entire frame for a long time, or more current for a short time, repeated as necessary. I have heard of some using a welder at a low current setting (and over 14 volts) connected at the front and rear of the frame at every annual. You need to reswing and adjust the compass after each application. Then again, the remote senser sounds better all the time. Kurt S. --- Rick wrote: > > > I was told by another builder that one of our > problems rest in the fact most > of us use our airframe as ground. For those not > finished building it might > be worth looking into as well. > > Rick __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:48 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Lowell, You are right. My father was a TV repairman and had a big homemade degaussing loop he used. In a pinch, he used his soldering gun, but you have to be careful where you put that hot tip. Not recommended for covered aircraft. Maybe degaussing the frame within 2 feet of the compass will be enough, but any degaussing is still temporary. If your battery is up front, the degaussing will last a lot longer than with the battery in back and the whole frame getting magnetized. Those starter current loads are the biggest culpret. Kurt S. --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > > > Anyway, Degaussing the airframe is a possible > solution to this problem. A > search of the archives might bring up the facts of > the matter, but as I > recall, a TV repair shop has degaussing equipment > that can be used to reduce > the magnetic signature of the airframe. __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:32 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Interesting, Kurt, but I have been flying since 1998 - 560 hours and the compass will still get me home. My battery is on the firewall, however and the ground wire - 6 Ga. - runs from the battery to a lug on the engine and then a braid runs from that point to an engine mount bolt. The only current draw through the frame is from the aft position light and it is aobut 4 amps. All other ground wires - except the antenna grounds - run to a ground buss that is connected directly to the engine mount bolt already mentioned. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > Lowell, > > You are right. My father was a TV repairman and had a > big homemade degaussing loop he used. In a pinch, he > used his soldering gun, but you have to be careful > where you put that hot tip. Not recommended for > covered aircraft. > > Maybe degaussing the frame within 2 feet of the > compass will be enough, but any degaussing is still > temporary. If your battery is up front, the > degaussing will last a lot longer than with the > battery in back and the whole frame getting > magnetized. Those starter current loads are the > biggest culpret. > > Kurt S. > > --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, Degaussing the airframe is a possible > > solution to this problem. A > > search of the archives might bring up the facts of > > the matter, but as I > > recall, a TV repair shop has degaussing equipment > > that can be used to reduce > > the magnetic signature of the airframe. > > __________________________________ > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:39 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Well, there is the solution Lowell. Keep those currents out of the frame and it should not magentize much at all. If you have the frame included in the ground, but at only one point (other than your tail light) it will be a good ground for the antennas too. Unfortunately my battery is in the back. I thought of running an extra ground wire up front. It takes 14 feet and I just didn't want to add that extra weight. For everyone with a front mounted battery, your system should work since the frame really isn't the active ground, especially for those starter currents. Kurt S. --- Lowell Fitt wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > > Interesting, Kurt, but I have been flying since 1998 > - 560 hours and the > compass will still get me home. > > My battery is on the firewall, however and the > ground wire - 6 Ga. - runs > from the battery to a lug on the engine and then a > braid runs from that > point to an engine mount bolt. The only current > draw through the frame is > from the aft position light and it is aobut 4 amps. > All other ground > wires - except the antenna grounds - run to a ground > buss that is connected > directly to the engine mount bolt already mentioned. > > Lowell __________________________________ http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:53 PM PST US From: "John E. King " Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John E. King " Clifford, There is another difference in the Series 7 with a Rotax 912S. The engine is several inches farther forward I am told. Also the oil tank is moved. I believe that was done to allow a full 150 pounds in the cargo bay with a 912. I have a Series 6 with a 912S and had to sweep my wings back to accommodate for the 150 pounds in the cargo bay. Moving the engine forward will move the CG forward. -- John King Warrenton, VA Clifford Begnaud wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" > >I was talking with a local pilot today that recently made his first flight >in his newly completed model 7 with Rotax 912s. He was saying that he was >having trouble getting the tail down for a three point landing. He has owned >a model 4 for a while and was always able to get the tailwheel to touch >first on that plane, so I think he knows what he is talking about. I took a >look at his weight and balance and sure enough it showed and empty CG of >8.14 and a "Most Adverse Forward" CG of 10.23". I immediately recognized >that this was too far forward, but his W&B showed it to be within limits. >On all previous models 5 & 6 with NON swept wings, the forward CG limit was >11.37". He was given new CG limits by Skystar for the model 7; what follows >is a comparison of the limits for models 5 & 6 and the model 7: > >Non Swept wings (i.e., Rotax 912s): >Most forward- M5/6= 11.37, M7=9.5 >Most Aft- M5/6= 16, M7=16 > >Swept Wing(i.e., Lyc or Continental) >Most Forward-M5/6= 9.96, M7= 9.5 >Most Aft- M5/6=14.75, M7=14.75 > >Obviously this begs the question "why the difference"? >I can think of only two changes to the model 7 that could possibly affect >the cg range. First is the flaperons; they are now asymmetrical which could >be providing more lift at the aft edge of the wing, plus the new flaperons >have a deeper chord. Generally, a wing with a deeper chord should have a >broader cg range than one with a shallower chord. But intuitively, it seems >like the new flaperons would allow a further aft CG, not a further forward >CG because they are providing more lift on the aft edge of the wing. >Hopefully some of you aeronautical engineers can comment on this. > >The other change that I'm aware of is the elevator. Instead of having a >movable stabilizer that provides pitch trim, they have switched to a fixed >stabilizer with trim tabs on the elevator. I believe that they have made the >elevator larger to make up for the decreased effectiveness caused by the >trim tabs. > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:28 PM PST US From: "Clint Bazzill" Subject: Kitfox-List: New list ? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill" Clint Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.