Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:03 AM - HKS engine (michel)
2. 03:51 AM - Re: Looking for a compass (Bob Unternaehrer)
3. 06:11 AM - Re: HKS engine (Gary Algate)
4. 06:56 AM - Re: HKS engine (michel)
5. 07:25 AM - Carb Ice (Larry)
6. 07:40 AM - Re: HKS engine (John Larsen)
7. 08:27 AM - Jacking Question (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
8. 08:47 AM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
9. 08:48 AM - Re: HKS engine (Lowell Fitt)
10. 08:53 AM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Clifford Begnaud)
11. 08:55 AM - Re: Jacking Question (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
12. 09:04 AM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Clifford Begnaud)
13. 09:06 AM - tailwheel/tire (Fred Shiple)
14. 09:40 AM - Re: HKS engine (Gary Algate)
15. 09:45 AM - Re: Jacking Question (Bruce Harrington)
16. 09:57 AM - wheel landing (jareds)
17. 10:22 AM - Re: wheel landing (Aerobatics@aol.com)
18. 10:45 AM - Re: HKS engine (martin dovey)
19. 11:27 AM - Re: wheel landing (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
20. 11:28 AM - Re: Carb Ice (Clint Bazzill)
21. 11:29 AM - Re: tailwheel/tire (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
22. 11:32 AM - Re: Jacking Question (jeff.hays@aselia.com)
23. 11:33 AM - Can't get any messages through. (Clint Bazzill)
24. 11:49 AM - Re: wheel landing (John Anderson)
25. 11:57 AM - LED Nav lights. (Torgeir Mortensen)
26. 12:32 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (Ted Palamarek)
27. 01:03 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (kurt schrader)
28. 01:12 PM - Re: tailwheel/tire (Fred Shiple)
29. 01:14 PM - Re: tailwheel/tire (kurt schrader)
30. 01:17 PM - New Weight and Balance limits (Arthur Nation)
31. 01:37 PM - Re: wheel landing (dmorisse)
32. 01:38 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (Torgeir Mortensen)
33. 02:03 PM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Lowell Fitt)
34. 02:51 PM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Randy Daughenbaugh)
35. 03:06 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (Torgeir Mortensen)
36. 04:15 PM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Clifford Begnaud)
37. 05:19 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (kurt schrader)
38. 05:38 PM - Re: wheel landing (Bob Unternaehrer)
39. 06:28 PM - Re: wheel landing (Clifford Begnaud)
40. 06:30 PM - Re: New Weight and Balance limits (Clifford Begnaud)
41. 06:37 PM - swept wings (Bob Unternaehrer)
42. 06:37 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (Bob Unternaehrer)
43. 07:36 PM - Re: swept wings (John Anderson)
44. 07:36 PM - Re: Jacking Question (Bruce Harrington)
45. 07:54 PM - Re: wheel landing (Bruce Harrington)
46. 08:27 PM - Re: Jacking Question (jimshumaker)
47. 08:31 PM - Re: HKS engine (jimshumaker)
48. 09:01 PM - Re: LED Nav lights. (Dave & Wendy Grosvenor)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
Hello listers,
Has anyone ever mountend a HKS engine on a Kitfox?
http://hks700e.com/
I start thinking of what I would replace my 582 on a Kitfox 3, next year.
I'd appreciate any info you may have on this HKS engine. Thanks in advance,
Michel
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a compass |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
I have a C-150 that magnetises the motor mount. I have had it demaged on
the airplane and OFF the airplane and as soon as the engine is operated the
magnetism comes back and the compass doesn't work worth a hoot. Have tried
it mounted in the instrument panel,,on top of panel and nothing seems to
help. I added a large braded ground strap from engine to firewall and
didn't change a thing. Changed starter to geared permanent magnet
lightweight type and still no help... I just live with it.. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> 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" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com.FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Looking for a compass
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> > 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 <lcfitt@inreach.com> wrote:
> > > <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Michel
I have seen the HKS on a Flightstar and even though they claim 60 Hp (I
think) there was no way that it's performance is comparable with a 582. I
recall reading a review on the 700 and the writer calculated the horsepower
based on fuel flow / swept volume and efficiency and came up with about 55Hp
rather than the claimed 60.
I flew in both a 582 powered and HKS powered flightstar about 3 years ago
and there was a noticeable difference in climb rate (especially with a
passenger). It looks great though and sounds nice.
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of michel
Subject: Kitfox-List: HKS engine
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
Hello listers,
Has anyone ever mountend a HKS engine on a Kitfox?
http://hks700e.com/
I start thinking of what I would replace my 582 on a Kitfox 3, next year.
I'd appreciate any info you may have on this HKS engine. Thanks in advance,
Michel
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>===== Original Message From "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net> =====
>I have seen the HKS on a Flightstar and even though they claim 60 Hp (I
>think) there was no way that it's performance is comparable with a 582.
Thanks Gary. I expect it not to be as power performant as the 582 but then,
with a draggy model 3, speed is not my aim, anyway. But climb rate, for short
field, in the summer, with a passenger ... you have a point.
It's cheaper than a 912 but then, the TBO is only 500 hours and I am not sure
how to fit this engine in my round cowling.
I'll have to decide between a new blue-top 582, the Rotax 912, the Jabiru 2200
or this little guy. What would you recommend in a Kitfox model 3?
Cheers,
Michel
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Larry <Lmar@direcway.com>
I lost track of the posts. Who had the latest bought with carb ice? Was is a Bing? What was the temp/dewpoint, atmospheric conditions (visibility,etc) Any carb will ice up under the right (wrong?) conditions. We need to learn when ours is most likely to. For typical "butterfly" carbs, there is a good chart available (http://www.ez.org/carb_ice.htm). For those with the Bing, they are not as susceptible to icing, but does happen. Where in this chart does it appear? I have been using 75% humidity as a guide to be very cautious and aware. To date, I have not had the horror of ice. I am in the process of making a simple carb heater with nichrome wire to heat the throat of the carb. My idea is to keep the throat warm in high humidity. I'll advise on the results.
Larry
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
Hi;
I have flown all these engines, in one plane or another and come to the
conclusion that the HKS is more like a real 50 hp not 60, the Jabiru is
more like 70 hp not 80. There are a couple of pilots who tour the air
shows; one flies a 912 UL (not the 912S) equipped Model 4 with a belly
pod, and the other flies a apparently cleaner and considerably lighter
Skyraider II with a Jabiru 2200. The Skyraider has had to make a lot of
fairings and do modifications to be competitive with the Model 4, with
its bulbous belly pod, the engine obviously putting out less power and
burning more fuel in the process. The Jabiru is a good choice fora plane
like a Sonex which has a cowl with small frontal area, as you have to
run a 62 inch prop to get the 3300 rpm necessary for the hypothetical 80
hp. On a Fox, this prop will give climb out figures much poorer than a
582. Once you get up there, the plane will be faster (10%) than the 582
equipped Fox.
If you do find a 2200 Jabiru, avoid anything with a serial no. less than
712, as these early engines need $2500 worth of modifications to make
them reliable..
Gary Algate wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
>
>Michel
>
>I have seen the HKS on a Flightstar and even though they claim 60 Hp (I
>think) there was no way that it's performance is comparable with a 582. I
>recall reading a review on the 700 and the writer calculated the horsepower
>based on fuel flow / swept volume and efficiency and came up with about 55Hp
>rather than the claimed 60.
>
>I flew in both a 582 powered and HKS powered flightstar about 3 years ago
>and there was a noticeable difference in climb rate (especially with a
>passenger). It looks great though and sounds nice.
>
>
>Gary Algate
>Lite2/582
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of michel
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: HKS engine
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>
>Hello listers,
>
>Has anyone ever mountend a HKS engine on a Kitfox?
>
>http://hks700e.com/
>
>I start thinking of what I would replace my 582 on a Kitfox 3, next year.
>I'd appreciate any info you may have on this HKS engine. Thanks in advance,
>
>Michel
>
>
>advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jacking Question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Any advice on the best way to jack a fully assembled Kitfox
with the spring gear?
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
apart from the aerodynamics, shouldn't the empty CG fall between the most adverse
fore and aft?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> 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
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Michel, I believe this firmly, if you can financially manage the 912, you
will never have second thoughts about the choice.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "michel" <michel@online.no>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: HKS engine
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>
> >===== Original Message From "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net> =====
> >I have seen the HKS on a Flightstar and even though they claim 60 Hp (I
> >think) there was no way that it's performance is comparable with a 582.
>
> Thanks Gary. I expect it not to be as power performant as the 582 but
then,
> with a draggy model 3, speed is not my aim, anyway. But climb rate, for
short
> field, in the summer, with a passenger ... you have a point.
> It's cheaper than a 912 but then, the TBO is only 500 hours and I am not
sure
> how to fit this engine in my round cowling.
> I'll have to decide between a new blue-top 582, the Rotax 912, the Jabiru
2200
> or this little guy. What would you recommend in a Kitfox model 3?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jeff,
This was without flaperons which should make it easier to land three point.
Our kitfox has the 0-235, so we also have concerns about being nose heavy.
We have an odyssey battery in the tail with no ballast. I can land tailwheel
first with ease, with or without flaperons. (I usually land with flaperons)
The point of my post was that I just don't believe that the new forward CG
limit is realistic and I'm looking for input on that subject so I can
understand why they did this.
Jeff, that's a great looking plane you've built!
Best Regards,
Cliff
>
>
> 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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> 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 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jacking Question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
with tube gear, a padded jack under the axle tube has worked well. chock the other
wheels
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> Any advice on the best way to jack a fully assembled Kitfox
> with the spring gear?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
John,
Thanks for the input. I'm aware of the new firewall forward. In fact this is
one of the main reasons that his plane came out nose heavy. Also, he is
using the Airmaster prop which is a bit heavier than most props used on the
912s.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my first post, I understand well why the
plane is nose heavy and I know what to do to fix it. The question is; why
has skystar moved the forward cg limit almost 2" forward? Do the changes to
the flaperons and elevator justify this? Anecdotal evidence from my friends
early flights suggest not!
Any ideas?
Cliff
> 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"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >
> >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 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
John,
Can I add air to Maule tire/tube if I remove the Hub cap? What pressure should
I use?
Fred
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net>
Michel,
I had initially intended to order my plane with a 912 but the dealer
happened to have a kit with a 582 ex-stock. In all honesty I prefer the
longevity of the 4 stroke 912 and 912S but when I recently looked at
upgrading I was amazed at the cost. Not only are you up for the engine cost
but by the time you add the firewall forward kit and new cowls you can just
about buy another good used Kitfox.
I am approaching 300 hrs on my 582 and will be up for around CD$2,000 for
the re-build back to new and I believe a new Bluehead is around CD$8,000 -
to change to a 912 or 912S I think you are going to be looking at around
$25,000.
I know that my climb rates are similar to a 912 and I can cruise at over 90
mph - the other advantage that you might consider is the effectiveness of a
2 stroke engine in sub zero climates that both you and I experience. My
friends with the 912 have a lot more work to do before they can fire up
whereas in about 5 minutes I am ready to go.
Would I prefer a 912/912S - probably.
Am I happy with the 582 - Very much so.
It's all a pretty subjective choice and I know most Kitfox drivers that I
meet are all happy with their individual choices whether they have a Subaru,
Rotax or Jabiru. - Different strokes??
Gary Algate
Lite2/582
>>>
I'll have to decide between a new blue-top 582, the Rotax 912, the Jabiru
2200
or this little guy. What would you recommend in a Kitfox model 3?
Cheers,
Michel
<<<
_
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jacking Question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Jeff,
I used a 2x4 propped under the forward wing strut where it attaches to the wing.
I did this for adjusting wheel bearings and lubing them. Also for doing
wheel/tire work.
Worked fine on my 582ed IV-1200, 575# empty weight.
bh
> Any advice on the best way to jack a fully assembled Kitfox
> with the spring gear?
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
My challenge for the new year is to master the wheel landing! Most of
my time has been spent in tri gear planes heavy enough to not be
succeptable to the winds. But my kitfox is another story and i know
that i'll be exposed to circumstances that warrant a wheel landing.
Any tips from the masters?
Jared
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
In a message dated 1/15/2004 11:58:33 AM Central Standard Time,
jareds@verizon.net writes:
> Any tips from the masters?
Well, I have found a 3 wheel full stall to be the safest because the tail
wheel has contact for directional control..... the wheels up landing in the KF
is fine until the tail is partially down ..then rudder is almost useless ....
a scarey time especially on pavement.... in a cross wind I know...been
there!
Best
Dave
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "martin dovey" <kitfox.england@ntlworld.com>
Michel
OK, no more advice about keeping your 582, or about having it
zeroed just put my name on it and I'll fly across the north sea
behind my 582 and collect it when you replace!
cheers
Martin Dovey
Kitfox 3.5
G-BTSV
----- Original Message -----
From: "michel" <michel@online.no>
> Hello listers,
>
> Has anyone ever mountend a HKS engine on a Kitfox?
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
You'll find that with those big flaperons you won't have any
need to do a wheel landing ever. You can handle huge crosswinds
with them, and wheel landing the fox in big winds is asking for
a trip into the weeds. At least that's my opinion.
My plane really keeps you busy on the rudder when wheel landed,
but is a complete baby when three pointed.
I practice wheel landings for fun, but three point when I'm
serious about landing on gusty days.
Jeff Hays
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
I have flown well over 900 hours at the coast just south of San Fransisco. Had
carb heat box installed and removed it. Perfect conditions here for ice all the
time. Near 100% hum almost all the time and temp usually in the 50's. Clint
912UL and 912ULS. Model IV-1200
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
I've got the Tundra tire, and put 20 in it ...
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Fred Shiple fredshiple@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Kitfox-List: tailwheel/tire
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
John,
Can I add air to Maule tire/tube if I remove the Hub cap? What pressure
should I use?
Fred
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jacking Question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Hi Bruce -
Trying to picture what you meant with the 2x4 propped under the
wing strut attach point?
Thanks,
Jeff
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Bruce Harrington aerowood@mcsi.net
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Jacking Question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Jeff,
I used a 2x4 propped under the forward wing strut where it attaches to the
wing.
I did this for adjusting wheel bearings and lubing them. Also for doing
wheel/tire work.
Worked fine on my 582ed IV-1200, 575# empty weight.
bh
> Any advice on the best way to jack a fully assembled Kitfox
> with the spring gear?
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Can't get any messages through. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
Hi Lowell, I have been trying to get some info on Kitfox list. Nothing is going
through for a few days. Clint
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Just begin a slight flare Jared and as the nose begins to rise, a slight check
forward on the stick. The trick is to be no more than 2 feet above the ground
when you do it.... I don't like high speed wheelers as the beast still has a lot
of energy there and if you fowl it up the bite is that much bigger!! If you
practice getting the height right it'll come natural, thing is with tri's one
never has to bother so you don't get good at it. -j-
From: jareds <JAREDS@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Kitfox-List: wheel landing
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <JAREDS@VERIZON.NET>
My challenge for the new year is to master the wheel landing!Most of
my time has been spent in tri gear planes heavy enough to not be
succeptable to the winds.But my kitfox is another story and i know
that i'll be exposed to circumstances that warrant a wheel landing.
Any tips from the masters?
Jared
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
Just uploaded a picture of the "LED" Nav lights used in helicopters when
flying NVG missions (night vision goggles).
This is the kind of NAV light to be used in our aircraft with "low"
rated generator.
Consumption for all three NAV lights is around one Amp., not bad..
Here is the direct link to the picture:
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1074195914
Torgeir.
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Torgeir
Are the R.H and L.H. lights green and red and is the one for
the rear (tail) white??? Where are these lights
available from?? Weather here is like spring --- but Eastern
Canada and USA are getting pounded with snow and cold temps
again. DO NOT ARCHIVE
Thanks
Ted
Edmonton, Ab
<<<<SNIP>>>>
Hi Folks,
Just uploaded a picture of the "LED" Nav lights used in
helicopters when
flying NVG missions (night vision goggles).
This is the kind of NAV light to be used in our aircraft
with "low"
rated generator.
Consumption for all three NAV lights is around one Amp., not
bad..
Here is the direct link to the picture:
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&e
poch=1074195914
Torgeir.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Torgier,
You are right on. We could all use an amp load
reduction and longer lasting lights.
My own lighting load was about 13 amps, plus 10 more
amps for the landing light. I have been working with
Elbie, my AOA system supplier, to provide LED lighting
for our KF's too. I have already replaced 7 of my own
panel lights for testing and we will be testing other
lights systems as well.
This is the wave of the future and should bring
lighting loads down to managable proportions for all
our low amp KF's.
Here is another source to look at:
<http://www.creativair.com/>
You all are free of course to back Elbie, or go out on
your own to buy them. I just think that Elbie can be
a good single source for us as an established supplier
and tester of aircraft systems from within our ranks.
Maybe he can get us a volume discount?
Kurt S.
--- Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no> wrote:
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Just uploaded a picture of the "LED" Nav lights used
> in helicopters when
> flying NVG missions (night vision goggles).
>
> This is the kind of NAV light to be used in our
> aircraft with "low" rated generator.
>
> Consumption for all three NAV lights is around one
> Amp., not bad..
>
> Here is the direct link to the picture:
>
>
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1074195914
>
> Torgeir.
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks,Jeff. Enjoy your web site-it's helped keep me going.
do no archieve
put 20 in it ...
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: tailwheel/tire |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Fred,
Some Maules are solid rubber. If there is a stem in
there, you got the better one. I keep mine at 20 psi
too, just like the mains. Series 5. If you have a
lighter plane, you can lower that pressure some.
Kurt S.
--- Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
>
> John,
>
> Can I add air to Maule tire/tube if I remove the Hub
> cap? What pressure should I use?
>
> Fred
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Arthur Nation <anation@w-link.net>
To the list:
I have read somewhere that the fuselage on the S7 or the 912 engine mount has
been extended 4 inches to counteract the CG problem with earlier models.
Can anyone verify this?
Thanks.
Arthur Tacoma, WA
S7
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "dmorisse" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Jared, the Kitfox is a big baby with wheel landings. Just keep the speed
up a bit with a little power and ease it down until you touch. As soon as
you touch plant it with a little forward stick and work the rudders to keep
you straight. I always use wheel landings on long runways because it's
faster and not as much time is spent taxiing, however when using short
fields I always use the three point method. Either way, the Kitfox is one
of the easiest.
Best get a little instruction with someone who's experienced.
Darrel
> My challenge for the new year is to master the wheel landing! Most of
> my time has been spent in tri gear planes heavy enough to not be
> succeptable to the winds. But my kitfox is another story and i know
> that i'll be exposed to circumstances that warrant a wheel landing.
>
> Any tips from the masters?
>
> Jared
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Ted,
Yes, they are red, green and white, in fact I'll think you can use a
blank lens cap on all of them, however we are using them together with
the original colored lens cap.
They are produced by the French company; ECT industries. The LED's they
are using go just below 550 nm wavelength.
Those units are quite expensive due to the NVG compatibility, however,
I'm sure they can be priced reasonable if the LED's selected are of the
standard "high intensity type".
Torgeir.
Ted Palamarek wrote:
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
>
> Torgeir
>
> Are the R.H and L.H. lights green and red and is the one for
> the rear (tail) white??? Where are these lights
> available from?? Weather here is like spring --- but Eastern
> Canada and USA are getting pounded with snow and cold temps
> again. DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Thanks
> Ted
> Edmonton, Ab
>
> <<<<SNIP>>>>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Just uploaded a picture of the "LED" Nav lights used in
> helicopters when
> flying NVG missions (night vision goggles).
>
> This is the kind of NAV light to be used in our aircraft
> with "low"
> rated generator.
>
> Consumption for all three NAV lights is around one Amp., not
> bad..
>
> Here is the direct link to the picture:
>
> http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&e
> poch=1074195914
>
> Torgeir.
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Not necessarily, Cliff. consider the VariEze. It's empty CG will not allow
it to rest on the gear. It needs the pilot to bring it into the proper CG
range. In fact an empty B-727 will rest on it's tail without at least some
fuel. On arrival at a gate, they always deploy the aft stairs. As
passengers deplane and the cargo is removed it is possible for the (empty)
CG to be aft of the mains. The aft stairs has a strut that will support
the aircraft to prevent tail tipping.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> apart from the aerodynamics, shouldn't the empty CG fall between the most
adverse fore and aft?
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> > <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >
> > 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 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Cliff,
This is a real interesting question. Especially since I have a series 7
firewall forward on my series 5. It doesn't seem to me that the
firewall forward should change the CG limits - It may change the CG, but
not the acceptable limits. The CG limits should depend (as you point
out) on the aerodynamics, But I am going to have to ask John McBean.
My comment may be slightly off topic, but has your friend tried sealing
the elevator gap. This is a change in the aerodynamics that should give
him more ability to get the tail down.
Randy - Series 5/7 912S that may be completed this summer???
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jeff,
This was without flaperons which should make it easier to land three
point.
Our kitfox has the 0-235, so we also have concerns about being nose
heavy.
We have an odyssey battery in the tail with no ballast. I can land
tailwheel
first with ease, with or without flaperons. (I usually land with
flaperons)
The point of my post was that I just don't believe that the new forward
CG
limit is realistic and I'm looking for input on that subject so I can
understand why they did this.
Jeff, that's a great looking plane you've built!
Best Regards,
Cliff
>
>
> 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
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> 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 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Kurt,
Yes, I'll think this is a good idea. The units we are using on the
helicopters, goes right into the old standard holder and they contain 36
ea. LED's- and are "very" bright.
Another big consumer is the landing light, -maybe someone have tested
the new xenon type of lights, they are small, give lots of "Lumen" and
take less Amps. But-, they are expensive and have it's own special power
supply.
Torgeir.
kurt schrader wrote:
>
> <http://www.creativair.com/>
>
> You all are free of course to back Elbie, or go out on
> your own to buy them. I just think that Elbie can be
> a good single source for us as an established supplier
> and tester of aircraft systems from within our ranks.
> Maybe he can get us a volume discount?
>
> Kurt S.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
John,
Not necessarily. The empty cg can be outside the range, it just has to be
within range at flight loads. That's why you calculate the "most adverse"
forward and aft cg. On our kitfoxes the empty cg is too far forward, but as
soon as you put a pilot in the plane it is within limits.
Cliff
>
> apart from the aerodynamics, shouldn't the empty CG fall between the most
adverse fore and aft?
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi again Torgier,
It is good to have people like you on the list who
have such good practicle knowledge. You are always a
good source of info.
I would like to know the source of those LED clusters
in your pic too. They are much better than hand
assembling and entire unit.
At our auto stores they have some LED clusters for
cars now and these may fit. I haven't tried them yet,
but they look close to your pictured ones.
The new xenon systems are great and are not easily
burned out or broken by vibration, but cost about $500
US. I forgot who, but someone is looking into
supplying these for kit planes.
I bought a quartz halogen 2,000,000 candle power light
that works very well too, but the 8 inch lense seems
too big to put on my plane. Right now I have 2 about
500,000 candle power lights that don't go far enough,
but draw 10 amps. That is my cutoff for power.
Kurt S.
--- Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen
> <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
>
> Yes, I'll think this is a good idea. The units we
> are using on the
> helicopters, goes right into the old standard holder
> and they contain 36
> ea. LED's- and are "very" bright.
>
> Another big consumer is the landing light, -maybe
> someone have tested
> the new xenon type of lights, they are small, give
> lots of "Lumen" and
> take less Amps. But-, they are expensive and have
> it's own special power
> supply.
>
>
> Torgeir.
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
It's all about speed control (a little faster than 3 point) and angle of
attact. You have to get over the fear of putting that stick forward at the
right time to lessen the angle of attack and keep it on the ground.....
otherwise it will be hippity hop, hippity hop. If you have the choice start
out on grass and stay there untill you really feel good with them, even on
one wheel for crosswinds, but start with no wind for sure. Also realize
that the speed must be changed as your weight increases so the relative rate
of descent to the runway is about the same... My 1st hour of wheel landing
instruction was HORIBLE. When you get the idea of them, you won't do
anything else. I learned to wheel land after 40 years of taildragger time,
all 3 points.
Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jareds" <jareds@verizon.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: wheel landing
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
>
> My challenge for the new year is to master the wheel landing! Most of
> my time has been spent in tri gear planes heavy enough to not be
> succeptable to the winds. But my kitfox is another story and i know
> that i'll be exposed to circumstances that warrant a wheel landing.
>
> Any tips from the masters?
>
> Jared
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jared,
This topic has been hashed out here numerous times, (and likely will be
again) and usually sparks some interesting discussions. You will find in one
camp those that think you should always do 3 point landings and others that
disagree.
I happen to be one that thinks being skilled at wheel landings is a very
valuable skill.
It will be said that wheel landings are more difficult because you are
moving faster while on the ground than during a 3 point. This is true, and
that is exactly why you should master it! If you are skilled at wheel
landings, your 3 pt landings will become much smoother, more in control and
more precise. Also, if you ever plan to do bush flying in your kitfox there
are many instances where it is best to keep the tailwheel off the ground
until the last possible moment because of rough obstacles. If you did a 3
point landing in these circumstances you could damage the tailweel, the
spring, the rudder or all of them. You could even cause the tail to bounce
into the air lowering the nose enough to hit the prop!
Then there are times when you are traveling cross country and the winds were
forecast to be 25 knots; hey you are a skilled pilot and you can handle
that, right. But when you get to your destination you find they are 32
gusting to 40. Your best course of action is to attempt to land as close to
the wind as possible. You could even land across the runway or on a taxiway.
However, if you do a 3 point landing in these winds you are taking a big
risk that the plane will be lifted back into the air after landing during
the rollout or while taxiing. In fact in these conditions you need to forget
what your instructor told you about holding the stick all the way back while
taxiing. When the winds are this strong and you are taxiing into the wind, I
find it most prudent to hold stick slightly forward so that a strong gust
will lift the tail, thus lowering the wings angle of attack and preventing
the plane from taking off again! This technique has saved my bacon numerous
times. In fact, any time the winds get over 25 knots I use the stick forward
method to some extent, moving it aft when getting crossways to the wind.
It's a dynamic thing, you constantly put the stick where it needs to be
based on the wind direction relative to your plane.
Ok, enough of my rambling about why to do wheel landings. Now for some
techniques. Here's a method that I would suggest using initially: make your
approach just like you were going to do a 3 point landing, with the tail
low, but not so low that it would touch before the mains. Then, just as the
mains touch down, raise the tail to keep the plane planted on the ground. If
you do it this way at first you won't need to carry any extra speed and your
roll-out won't be nearly as long and your speed on the ground will be lower.
I have used this technique in Model 4's and 5's and it works great as long
as there is not too strong of a crosswind.
Once you get good at this method, then try approaching a little faster and
doing a full blown wheel landing without the tail low. This will be less
difficult than doing the fast wheel landing right off the bat. Just control
your descent into ground effect and gently fly the plane onto the runway
using mostly the throttle to control descent. The most important thing in
any wheel landing is to make sure the plane is lined up perfectly straight.
Any deviation from straight will send you off wandering around the runway.
One other thing that I find helpful is to always touch one wheel down on the
runway before the other. Touch the upwind wheel if there is crosswind, but
either is ok if there is no wind. This applies to wheel landings and 3 point
landings.
Now once you get really good at wheel landings, go out and practice "one
wheel landings" on a mildly windy day (7-8 knots of crosswind, but not too
gusty, is just right) and keep the plane up on just one wheel until it won't
stay up any longer. This is lots of fun and really gets you in touch with
your plane. If you can do this well, you will be able to handle crosswinds
that most people in tri gear planes would never attempt.
So go out and master wheel landings, but take it one careful step at a time.
You won't master it overnight, but it is a very worthwhile objective.
Best Regards,
Cliff
Erie, CO
>
> My challenge for the new year is to master the wheel landing! Most of
> my time has been spent in tri gear planes heavy enough to not be
> succeptable to the winds. But my kitfox is another story and i know
> that i'll be exposed to circumstances that warrant a wheel landing.
>
> Any tips from the masters?
>
> Jared
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Weight and Balance limits |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Randy,
I agree with your statements about the CG. I don't think that he has sealed
the gap. This would be a good item to address.
Cliff
>
> Cliff,
> This is a real interesting question. Especially since I have a series 7
> firewall forward on my series 5. It doesn't seem to me that the
> firewall forward should change the CG limits - It may change the CG, but
> not the acceptable limits. The CG limits should depend (as you point
> out) on the aerodynamics, But I am going to have to ask John McBean.
>
> My comment may be slightly off topic, but has your friend tried sealing
> the elevator gap. This is a change in the aerodynamics that should give
> him more ability to get the tail down.
>
> Randy - Series 5/7 912S that may be completed this summer???
>
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford
> Begnaud
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
>
> Jeff,
> This was without flaperons which should make it easier to land three
> point.
> Our kitfox has the 0-235, so we also have concerns about being nose
> heavy.
> We have an odyssey battery in the tail with no ballast. I can land
> tailwheel
> first with ease, with or without flaperons. (I usually land with
> flaperons)
> The point of my post was that I just don't believe that the new forward
> CG
> limit is realistic and I'm looking for input on that subject so I can
> understand why they did this.
>
> Jeff, that's a great looking plane you've built!
> Best Regards,
> Cliff
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: New Weight and Balance limits
> >
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> > <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
> >
> > 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 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
What weight engine do you have to sweep the wings forward on a Model 4. I'm putting
a 2180 VW with redrive and 84 inch prop. Not sure what the total weight
will be, but great plaines shows it at 191lbs, but looks like it doesn't include
prop and exhaust or engine mount., and oil,,so I'd expect the total FWF
to be between 200 and 210. Does anybody have an accurate weight on this installation.
Blue Skies
Bob Unternaehrer
shilocom@c-magic.com
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
How can you get these lights??
Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: LED Nav lights.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
> Just uploaded a picture of the "LED" Nav lights used in helicopters when
> flying NVG missions (night vision goggles).
>
> This is the kind of NAV light to be used in our aircraft with "low"
> rated generator.
>
> Consumption for all three NAV lights is around one Amp., not bad..
>
>
> Here is the direct link to the picture:
>
>
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1074195914
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Yikes Bob, that's a big prop for a wee fox!!
From: "Bob Unternaehrer" <SHILOCOM@C-MAGIC.COM>
Subject: Kitfox-List: swept wings
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <SHILOCOM@C-MAGIC.COM>
What weight engine do you have to sweep the wings forward on a Model 4. I'm putting
a 2180 VW with redrive and 84 inch prop. Not sure what the total weight will
be, but great plaines shows it at 191lbs, but looks like it doesn't include
prop and exhaust or engine mount., and oil,,so I'd expect the total FWF to be
between 200 and 210.Does anybody have an accurate weight on this installation.
Blue Skies
Bob Unternaehrer
shilocom@c-magic.com
With Xtra Jetstream - you don't need a separate phone line for the internet!
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jacking Question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Jeff,
There is a tie down loop on the outer front lift strut. I place the top of a
2x4 there, and push up until the wheel is off the ground. I use a long enough
2x4! Best to chock the other wheel. I used the wrong phrase before! Sorry.
Old age is rapidly approaching.
Cheers,
bh
> Hi Bruce -
>
> Trying to picture what you meant with the 2x4 propped under the
> wing strut attach point?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel landing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
> My challenge for the new year is to master the wheel landing! Most of
> my time has been spent in tri gear planes heavy enough to not be
> succeptable to the winds. But my kitfox is another story and i know
> that i'll be exposed to circumstances that warrant a wheel landing.
>
> Any tips from the masters?
>
> Jared
Hi Jared,
In my 582ed IV-1200, this is what I did.
Across the fence about 5 mph faster than for full stall.
Fly the Fox onto the runway, then a touch of forward stick.
Hold the tail up until it's ready to drop, then plant it.
For winds 15 mph, I wheel land with power. And if over 20
I keep power up and taxi with the tail above level so the wind
forces the Fox into the ground. Then I try to tail up taxi to
behind a wind obstruction (hangar,...).
I've done this in winds gusting to 35mph or more.
When I tried stall landings in high winds and gusts,
the wind could change faster than I could respond,
and lift a wing enough to scare me too much!
After 2 or 3 attempts like this, I read on this list years ago
about keeping the tail up and wheel landing in high winds.
Now you have lots of advice!
Enjoy, bh
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jacking Question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Jeff
I lift mine from the rafters with a cable hoist and a rope tied around the
frame at the windshield/side junction.
Jim Shumaker
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff.hays@aselia.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Jacking Question
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com"
<jeff.hays@aselia.com>
>
>
> Any advice on the best way to jack a fully assembled Kitfox
> with the spring gear?
>
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Michel
With a 912 in my model I am the climb king at the airport. The only thing
that can outclimb me is a helecoptor....or a model III with a 582.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "michel" <michel@online.no>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: HKS engine
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel <michel@online.no>
>
> >===== Original Message From "Gary Algate" <algate@attglobal.net> =====
> >I have seen the HKS on a Flightstar and even though they claim 60 Hp (I
> >think) there was no way that it's performance is comparable with a 582.
>
> Thanks Gary. I expect it not to be as power performant as the 582 but
then,
> with a draggy model 3, speed is not my aim, anyway. But climb rate, for
short
> field, in the summer, with a passenger ... you have a point.
> It's cheaper than a 912 but then, the TBO is only 500 hours and I am not
sure
> how to fit this engine in my round cowling.
> I'll have to decide between a new blue-top 582, the Rotax 912, the Jabiru
2200
> or this little guy. What would you recommend in a Kitfox model 3?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED Nav lights. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
Here's another source of LED nav lights. Originally designed for an RV-7,
they can be firred to anything. Output exceeds FAA requirements.
http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
Cheers
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: LED Nav lights.
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@c-magic.com>
How can you get these lights??
Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Torgeir Mortensen" <torgemor@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: LED Nav lights.
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
> Just uploaded a picture of the "LED" Nav lights used in helicopters when
> flying NVG missions (night vision goggles).
>
> This is the kind of NAV light to be used in our aircraft with "low"
> rated generator.
>
> Consumption for all three NAV lights is around one Amp., not bad..
>
>
> Here is the direct link to the picture:
>
>
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1074195914
>
>
> Torgeir.
>
>
> ---
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|