---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 02/23/04: 51 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:14 AM - Re: Performance charts (kurt schrader) 2. 12:28 AM - Re: Re: Performance charts / Mountain Flying (kurt schrader) 3. 02:24 AM - Fw: Bodgy 3 Bladed props (Richard Cottingham) 4. 03:42 AM - Weight and Balance (Patricia Truter) 5. 05:01 AM - (off-topic) Lovely pun WAS: Weight and Balance (michel) 6. 05:10 AM - Re: All those readings! (michel) 7. 05:44 AM - Re: Short Field Landings (Gary Algate) 8. 05:54 AM - Re: Short Field Landings (Clifford Begnaud) 9. 06:09 AM - Re: Re: Performance charts (Clifford Begnaud) 10. 07:45 AM - Re: Short Field Landings (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 11. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: Performance charts (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 12. 08:16 AM - Conti-I0-240 on Auto Fuel (Clifford Begnaud) 13. 08:52 AM - Young Eagle Credits (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 14. 08:52 AM - Re: Performance charts, (RiteAngle3@aol.com) 15. 08:59 AM - Re: firewall seal (Bruce Harrington) 16. 09:02 AM - Re: Rigging (Bruce Harrington) 17. 09:08 AM - Altitude attitude () 18. 09:09 AM - Re: Weight and Balance (Bruce Harrington) 19. 09:12 AM - Re: Short Field Landings (Michel Verheughe) 20. 09:14 AM - Cowling Cover (Scott McClintock) 21. 09:18 AM - Re: Young Eagle Credits (Fred Shiple) 22. 09:18 AM - Re: Young Eagle Credits (Steve Magdic) 23. 09:26 AM - Re: Conti-I0-240 on Auto Fuel (jeff.hays@aselia.com) 24. 09:26 AM - Re: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 (Jack Rabon) 25. 09:28 AM - Re: Altitude attitude (Clifford Begnaud) 26. 09:39 AM - Re: Rigging (Flybradair@cs.com) 27. 10:10 AM - Re: Short Field Landings / short commercial (RiteAngle3@aol.com) 28. 10:34 AM - Re: Cowling Cover (kurt schrader) 29. 10:58 AM - Re: All those readings! (kurt schrader) 30. 11:00 AM - Re: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 (Dave & Wendy Grosvenor) 31. 11:19 AM - Re: All those readings! (Michel Verheughe) 32. 11:20 AM - STOL & Cowling Cover (Scott McClintock) 33. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: Performance charts (kurt schrader) 34. 11:48 AM - Re: Cowling Cover (Bob Unternaehrer) 35. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: Performance charts (RiteAngle3@aol.com) 36. 11:51 AM - Re: Re: Performance charts (Ted Palamarek) 37. 12:00 PM - Re: Re: drag (RiteAngle3@aol.com) 38. 02:18 PM - Re: All those readings! (Torgeir Mortensen) 39. 03:22 PM - Re: Young Eagle Credits (kerrjohna@comcast.net) 40. 03:47 PM - Re: Altitude attitude (DPREMGOOD@aol.com) 41. 03:58 PM - Re: Young Eagle Credits (Steve Magdic) 42. 05:23 PM - Re: All those readings! (Jeff Smathers) 43. 05:48 PM - Picture (Glenn Horne) 44. 06:35 PM - Re: Picture (Dee Young) 45. 07:01 PM - Re: Short Field Landings (Clem Nichols) 46. 07:03 PM - Re: Cowling Cover (Lowell Fitt) 47. 07:39 PM - New Prop (Bruce Harrington) 48. 07:55 PM - Re: Rotax 532 cy. sound (Bob Robertson) 49. 08:48 PM - Anyone need CHT Probes? (John Bonewitz) 50. 09:30 PM - Re: 912S Starter Issue (Ted Palamarek) 51. 10:23 PM - Re: Weight and Balance (Patricia Truter) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:14:48 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Clifford, That is almost exactly what I am anticipating working up to - 500' strips at above 5,000' elevation. Trying to get everything working in my favor. Did my first landing today in my plane with the AOA system working. Set for 1.3 Vs for approach and Vs + 5 was hit in the flare. Came in well controlled and could almost hit the spot by pulling power 50' prior in the flare. Plop! I was down. There wasn't going to be a lot of float or bounce this way. Those tailwinds can get you. Doesn't matter what you are flying or how long you've been doing it. We still act visually to some degree. I hope my AOA will help me stay consistant here too. One thing I like about KF's is that they can almost always take off shorter than they land. If you got in, you should be able to leave. Soft field is one exception. Kurt S. --- Clifford Begnaud wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford > Begnaud" > > Kurt, > stir, stir, stir ;-) > Actually, I can think of an excellent use for a > chart when bush flying, but > not so much for takeoff. The best use would be for > landing with different tailwinds. > Here's the situation; yesterday a friend and I flew > into the aforementioned > 500' long landing spot at 5400'. This strip is one > way in and the other way > out. So if there is any wind, you will either land > with a tailwind or > takeoff with a tailwind. Yesterday required landing > with a tailwind. We > buzzed the field first to check it's condition and > get a feel for the winds, > my guess was about a 5 knot tailwind for landing. > Since the field is so long > we decided to go ahead and land there. I knew from > previous landings here > that this was doable, but it needed to be done just > right. We both landed > safely, but neither of us was really happy with our > performance. We didn't > bring the planes in "on the edge" as might have been > required in different > circumstances. (this is another topic I'd like to > get started) > Anyway, it got me thinking that here's a situation > where the chart would not > become completely obsolete in the bush. The reason > is that everything is the > same as when landing at an improved runway except > the rollout distance. And > in the bush, (on a level field at least) the rollout > will normally be less > than at the improved runway, so that becomes your > cushion. Of course, even > this chart will be suspect because it's more > difficult to duplicate precise > short field landing technique than it is to repeat > short field take-off > technique. Also, one would have to do lot's of > practice landing with a > tailwind because darn if it ain't harder to "hit the > spot" with a tail wind > than with a head wind. ;-) But at least one would > have an idea of how much > more room is needed to land with a tailwind if one > had a well prepared and > well "practiced" chart. > Best Regards, > Cliff __________________________________ http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:28:23 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Performance charts / Mountain Flying --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Thanks John, I am trying for the "consistant performance equals consistant results" here, since I am no good at golf. :-) Tis the better way to control risks, since as you said, mountain flying is dangerous. I am about 30 years experience short of being a good bush pilot too, so I need to know my limitations and where that "edge" is. Yes 6 inches of snow is a limit for us and no, they didn't put skis on our planes. They just don't want us to have fun! That is why I need a KF. :-) Kurt S. --- JMCBEAN wrote: > > Kurt, > I might add that they are a very good habit. > With the Kitfox almost > anywhere is a landing spot that one can get into and > out of... If it is a > charted spot (USFS) one can pretty much count on > being able to get a Kitfox > in and out if turf and temp conditions are suitable. > Although, if one knows > ahead of time that you are going into a questionable > strip then having those > charts and knowing how to use them is a very good > thing. > > Mountain flying really is enjoyable, scenic and > dangerous. One needs to > know how to fly their aircraft "on the edge" and do > it well. Knowing the > limits of the aircraft and having your own set of > personal limits is the > only way to stay safe. The Kitfox will let us get > away with things that you > could not get away with in a certificated > aircraft.... > > 6" of snow Kurt... don't they have ski's :) > > Blue Skies!! > John & Debra McBean __________________________________ http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 02:24:13 AM PST US From: "Richard Cottingham" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fw: Bodgy 3 Bladed props --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Cottingham" Can anyone on list help? Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: RJ & L Shanks Subject: Bodgy 3 Bladed props "HELP" I've been advised by a very learned and experienced operator that the 3 bladed (wood core-f/glass sheathed), 68" X ground adjustable, CATTO propellor fitted to my Rotax 582-powered T300 Thruster is lethal and should not be used by anyone intending to fly. This I accept and will abide by however, can any cosmopolitan bod out there advise me of an AD relating to the subject or any recorded instances when this style/type of prop actually shed blades? Next obvious query from the inexperienced and unknowledgeable is: Can I consider using the existing ground-adj. pitch hub and just changing out the "too stiff and vibration causing wood/glass" blades for some other make-up or must I start from scratch with an air screw of complete new dimensions? All advice and/or experiences solicited and gratefully received. Standing by for enlightenment Bob with the bodgie Catto. Caveat: This posting is opinion only, and is not Australian Ultralight Federation Inc. policy or advice. Copyright: Copyright remains with the original author whose approval must be gained prior to publication outside of this mailing list. Help: Email the word "help" (no quotes) to aufchat-request@auf.asn.au or visit http://www.auf.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/aufchat ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 03:42:18 AM PST US From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Kitfox-List: Weight and Balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" I was wondering what the W&B details are of other KitFox (model II's). We did our KitFox recently and here are the details: Empty weight = 585 lb (265kg) CoG arm (empty) = 11.9 in (from leading edge of wing, near root) CoG arm (fuel) = 23.6 in CoG arm (pilot / PAX) = 17.2 in CoG arm (baggage) = 50.3 in CoG range for KitFox II = 10.2 - 14.3 in The CAA limits for microlight in SA is 450kg (990lb) but the design' MTOW is 430kg (950lbs) for the KitFox. That does not leave us with a lot of weight to be added (pilot, passenger and fuel). Regards Patricia (By the way, our 618 has been transplanted with a new 582 - she's singing like a Singer. After a test flight by a test pilot, I flew ZU-PAT the first time on Saturday ...) -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:45 AM PST US From: michel Subject: Kitfox-List: (off-topic) Lovely pun WAS: Weight and Balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From "Patricia Truter" ===== >with a new 582 - she's singing like a Singer. Lovely pun, Patricia! I like the metaphore. Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:10:34 AM PST US From: michel Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: All those readings! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel >===== Original Message From Jeff Smathers >Hi Michael, >Where is your static system hole located? Er, ... nowhere, Jeff. The speed indicator, the VVI and the altitude converter to the mode Charlie transponder are simply open, in the instrument panel. When I ask a radar check at 1,500 ft, the tower answers: 1,500 ft. It is then my beginner's belief that the instruments are well calibrated, that my cockpit doesn't have an under- or over-pressure ... and that I sat correctly the QNH! :-) Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:44:02 AM PST US From: "Gary Algate" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Algate" I use my flaps for short field landings - basically it allows me to approach with a little power on and reduced forward speed (with the added lift) and steepen my approach angle over obstacles. Once I am where I want to be I can just chop the power and at around 45 mph drop into a very small area. How short do you want to land and take off ? As short as possible..... Taking off with flaps considerably shortens the distance - especially on floats. I still use a combination of slips etc when warranted but the flap are just another tool in the bag. Gary Algate Lite2/582 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Travis, from the top of my 50 hours in a model 3, I can say ... flaps? What is that? Oh yeah, that handle in the middle, that I use to hang my handbag from! :-) Seriously, I've never used it for landing or take-off. I do both so shortly that I don't see the use for it. Yesterday I landed on the marks and had to taxi forward to the exitway, that distance being only 500 feet or so. No, there was no head winds and no, I didn't even brake. I know because the runway condition was barren asphalt with patches of ice, the worst condition for braking. So, who needs to land even slower? How short can a short field be? But I've tried the flaps to trim at cruise level. It sure pitches the nose down. It also adds lift. You can easily see that if you remove the flaps a bit fast, oops, you go down! But my understanding is that, while the Kitfox flaperons add lift, they don't add much drag. And that is what we are looking for, on landing, isn't it? As someone said earlier on the list, air brakes on a Kitfox could be cool, though. Cheers, Michel <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:54:24 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Jeff, Thanks for posting this!! I like to use this technique to get in short over an obstacle, really works wonders. I also think this is a good way to deal with those tailwinds that I was talking about. I need to go practice that some more, hey, an excuse to go flying .... ;-) For those that are interested in such things you really should read this thread about STOL ops on supercub.org, http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1139&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=8120d38d7a9aa51f0b74eb6e47ad319f Jeff, there must be something wrong with your flaps, mine add a fair amount of drag. Maybe it's all the bullet holes in yours ;-O Using flaps when doing the "stall down" technique just makes it even better. Doesn't adding flaps lower your stall speed? Cliff do not archive > > > I agree with Michel about not using the Flaperons for landing, they just > pitch the nose down, and don't help much in the way of producing drag. > I like using the "Stall Down" landing technique mentioned in "Stick and > Rudder" and have been practicing it. Basically just fly a fairly moderate > speed approach not worrying too much about slowing down, then on high > final flaring and slipping to scrub off all the excess speed in such a > way that on short final I end up at minimum airspeed and just plunk it > onto the runway. I found mention of it on the www.supercub.org website, > and got interested, so went back to re-reading Stick and Rudder. It > works well. > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:09:24 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Kurt wrote: > > One thing I like about KF's is that they can almost > always take off shorter than they land. If you got > in, you should be able to leave. Soft field is one > exception. Kurt, That's an interesting statement. Maybe it works that way down there in the thick air where most people live, but up here the opposite is true. I have found that the following kitfoxes can land shorter than they can take off at 5000'+: Kitfox 4, long wing, Rotax 912 80 hp Kitfox 4 speedster, Rotax 912 80 hp Kitfox 5 long wing, Rotax 912 xtra 95 hp Kitfxox 7 long wing, Rotax 912s, 100 hp with constant speed prop Kitfox 5 long wing, Lycoming 0-235, 118 hp + The last one in the list comes closest to taking off in the same distance as landing, but still not quite there. And this is lightly loaded. When you load them up, the takeoff distance increases more than the landing distance increases. It may be that with more time in your plane your landings may get shorter, I don't know cause I haven't had the opportunity to test this down there in the thick, dense air that you lowlanders live in. Geez, how can you breath that stuff? ;-) Cliff Erie, CO 5100' do not archive ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:28 AM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Cliff - I don't use the flaperons for landing very much, simply because I don't like the way the plane feels with the flaperons deployed. I usually fly quite high on base, and then use slips to regulate glide path. With regard to bullet holes, that's no big deal. Generally the bullets are coming from down below rather than up above. Take Care, Jeff. Original Message: ----------------- From: Clifford Begnaud shoeless@barefootpilot.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Jeff, Thanks for posting this!! I like to use this technique to get in short over an obstacle, really works wonders. I also think this is a good way to deal with those tailwinds that I was talking about. I need to go practice that some more, hey, an excuse to go flying .... ;-) For those that are interested in such things you really should read this thread about STOL ops on supercub.org, http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1139&postdays=0&postorder=asc &start=0&sid=8120d38d7a9aa51f0b74eb6e47ad319f Jeff, there must be something wrong with your flaps, mine add a fair amount of drag. Maybe it's all the bullet holes in yours ;-O Using flaps when doing the "stall down" technique just makes it even better. Doesn't adding flaps lower your stall speed? Cliff do not archive > > > I agree with Michel about not using the Flaperons for landing, they just > pitch the nose down, and don't help much in the way of producing drag. > I like using the "Stall Down" landing technique mentioned in "Stick and > Rudder" and have been practicing it. Basically just fly a fairly moderate > speed approach not worrying too much about slowing down, then on high > final flaring and slipping to scrub off all the excess speed in such a > way that on short final I end up at minimum airspeed and just plunk it > onto the runway. I found mention of it on the www.supercub.org website, > and got interested, so went back to re-reading Stick and Rudder. It > works well. > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:07:23 AM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net kurt, you are exploring that part of the flight envelope for the Kitfox that many find the most intriguing (enjoyable). Keep up the good work. If you haven't you may want to spend some time at altitude exploring controlability at that Vs+5. It is amazing what it will do. Idle speed, semi-flare, see what your vsi tells you. > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > Clifford, > > That is almost exactly what I am anticipating working > up to - 500' strips at above 5,000' elevation. Trying > to get everything working in my favor. Did my first > landing today in my plane with the AOA system working. > Set for 1.3 Vs for approach and Vs + 5 was hit in the > flare. Came in well controlled and could almost hit > the spot by pulling power 50' prior in the flare. > Plop! I was down. There wasn't going to be a lot of > float or bounce this way. > > Those tailwinds can get you. Doesn't matter what you > are flying or how long you've been doing it. We still > act visually to some degree. I hope my AOA will help > me stay consistant here too. > > One thing I like about KF's is that they can almost > always take off shorter than they land. If you got > in, you should be able to leave. Soft field is one > exception. > > Kurt S. > > --- Clifford Begnaud > wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford > > Begnaud" > > > > Kurt, > > stir, stir, stir ;-) > > Actually, I can think of an excellent use for a > > chart when bush flying, but > > not so much for takeoff. The best use would be for > > landing with different tailwinds. > > Here's the situation; yesterday a friend and I flew > > into the aforementioned > > 500' long landing spot at 5400'. This strip is one > > way in and the other way > > out. So if there is any wind, you will either land > > with a tailwind or > > takeoff with a tailwind. Yesterday required landing > > with a tailwind. We > > buzzed the field first to check it's condition and > > get a feel for the winds, > > my guess was about a 5 knot tailwind for landing. > > Since the field is so long > > we decided to go ahead and land there. I knew from > > previous landings here > > that this was doable, but it needed to be done just > > right. We both landed > > safely, but neither of us was really happy with our > > performance. We didn't > > bring the planes in "on the edge" as might have been > > required in different > > circumstances. (this is another topic I'd like to > > get started) > > Anyway, it got me thinking that here's a situation > > where the chart would not > > become completely obsolete in the bush. The reason > > is that everything is the > > same as when landing at an improved runway except > > the rollout distance. And > > in the bush, (on a level field at least) the rollout > > will normally be less > > than at the improved runway, so that becomes your > > cushion. Of course, even > > this chart will be suspect because it's more > > difficult to duplicate precise > > short field landing technique than it is to repeat > > short field take-off > > technique. Also, one would have to do lot's of > > practice landing with a > > tailwind because darn if it ain't harder to "hit the > > spot" with a tail wind > > than with a head wind. ;-) But at least one would > > have an idea of how much > > more room is needed to land with a tailwind if one > > had a well prepared and > > well "practiced" chart. > > Best Regards, > > Cliff > > __________________________________ > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:16:47 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Kitfox-List: Conti-I0-240 on Auto Fuel --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Forwarded for Vic Jacko, Hi List, Got a question about the use of auto fuel in the Conti 10-240 that many Kitfoxers have installed. Do you use auto fuel? If you don't, how often do you have to clean your sparkplugs using just 100 LL? Do you notice any difference in using auto fuel vs 100 LL? Thanks in advance, Vic ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:08 AM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net I have Young Eagle credits is someones EAA Chapter is putting together a scholarship. Let me know. John Kerr ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:41 AM PST US From: RiteAngle3@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts, --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com In a message dated 2/21/04 9:44:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes: . It is to be my mountain/bush plane, so I do want to prepare, "Will we make it?" data to be used later. That is just me... Great Kurt, This is one reason the aircarrier accident rate is lower than the general aviation accident rate. That is also what makes Old pilots :-) Sadly we have all lost some friends that were Bold pilots. I tell my students: Prior planning = planned performance. Poor planning = Poor performance Elbie ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:03 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: firewall seal --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Albert, I sealed mine with stick-on insulation from the hardware store. Clean cowl where firewall meets it, mark the joint, then apply the self-sticking insulation on the mark. bh > I am worried about the air leaking in from the engine compartment around the firewall. It is a tight fit but still leaks at the top corners of the firewall. Anyone have this problem or mods to stop it? > > Albert Smith > 5TD NSIT CAP > Still test flying and cold ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:57 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rigging --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Brad, 1. it helps if you note up front that you have a model 5. 2. looks like your stick goes the wrong way! Full up it should hit the seat. bh > Rigging the controls this weekend, the flaperon angles turned out > good---both deflect the same up, neutral, and down with or without the flaps added, but > the deflection angle did not turn out properly. ...... > The elevator deflection came out okay---if you don't mind the stick > impacting the instrument panel at the full 39 degrees up! > > Anyone else encounter this? ... > Thanks for any info! > > Brad Martin > Wichita > 5 o-235 l2c > rigging ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:02 AM PST US From: Subject: Kitfox-List: Altitude attitude --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gee Cliff, How can you breath that stuff down there? (of course someone will top ME next!) Rex South Park, Colorado 9200' (yeah, I moved from COS) On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:10:31 -0700 "Clifford Begnaud" wrote: >I don't know cause I haven't had the opportunity to test >this down there in >the thick, dense air that you lowlanders live in. Geez, >how can you breath that stuff? ;-) >Cliff >Erie, CO >5100' > >do not archive > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:09:56 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and Balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Patricia, For a Model II, it appears to be about 100 pounds overweight! My IV-1200 with 582 came in at 575 pounds. Remove the microwave, autopilot, ski racks, etc.! Cheers, bh > I was wondering what the W&B details are of other KitFox (model > II's). We did our KitFox recently and here are the details: > > Empty weight = 585 lb (265kg) > CoG arm (empty) = 11.9 in (from leading edge of wing, near root) > CoG arm (fuel) = 23.6 in > CoG arm (pilot / PAX) = 17.2 in > CoG arm (baggage) = 50.3 in > > CoG range for KitFox II = 10.2 - 14.3 in > > The CAA limits for microlight in SA is 450kg (990lb) but the > design' MTOW is 430kg (950lbs) for the KitFox. That does not leave us > with a lot of weight to be added (pilot, passenger and fuel). > > > Regards > > Patricia > > (By the way, our 618 has been transplanted with a new 582 - she's > singing > like a Singer. After a test flight by a test pilot, I flew ZU-PAT the > first time on Saturday ...) ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:49 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Gary Algate wrote: > How short do you want to land and take off ? As short as possible..... I guess you are right, there, Gary. I was a bit hasty in my statement. But, as a novice, I know that I'll fly only in places where there is plenty of room, even if I know my Kitfox can land and take off from places that are forbidden for other planes. But, as a safety measure, yes, one should learn to be able to take off and land on the shortest possible field. That's why I enjoy flying touch and goes, practising precision landings. Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:21 AM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Kitfox-List: Cowling Cover --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock "Is it too much a poor man's thinking to suggest a twin size wool electric blanket doubled over?" Kurt, That's a good suggestion providing that I carry a generator along with my surveying gear. I don't have that kind of capacity so a quilted cover is what I really need. Don't any of you Wisconsin, Minnesota or Dakota guys have one of these? I suppose I could make one out of an old sleeping bag but my sewing skills are pretty limited. I'll just keep on looking, I guess. Scott in Nome ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:29 AM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple John, Chapter 582 in Toledo OH does a scholarship every year. We'd appreciate any credits you have available. Fred Shiple do not archive I have Young Eagle credits is someones EAA Chapter is putting together a ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:38 AM PST US Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits From: "Steve Magdic" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" John, our EAA Ultralight Chapter has a Young Eagles program and we sponsor a youth through a contest we run each year. We are using the credits we have collected from our Young Eagles pilots to help offset the cost of the sponsorship. We would be honored to accept the credits you have offered. Thank you, Steve Magdic President EAA Ultralight Chapter #1 Menomonee Falls WI -----Original Message----- From: kerrjohna@comcast.net [mailto:kerrjohna@comcast.net] Subject: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net I have Young Eagle credits is someones EAA Chapter is putting together a scholarship. Let me know. John Kerr ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:34 AM PST US From: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Conti-I0-240 on Auto Fuel --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jeff.hays@aselia.com" I spoke to TCM Tech Support about this in the last couple weeks, there are quite a few reasons to not do it with the stock engine. He mentioned that it could probably be done with a FADEC equipped engine http://www.fadec.com/ I've never had problems with plug fouling so far, and use only 100LL But I am pretty religious about leaning both inflight, and on the ground. Jeff Original Message: ----------------- From: Clifford Begnaud shoeless@barefootpilot.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Conti-I0-240 on Auto Fuel --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" Forwarded for Vic Jacko, Hi List, Got a question about the use of auto fuel in the Conti 10-240 that many Kitfoxers have installed. Do you use auto fuel? If you don't, how often do you have to clean your sparkplugs using just 100 LL? Do you notice any difference in using auto fuel vs 100 LL? Thanks in advance, Vic ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:59 AM PST US From: Jack Rabon Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jack Rabon Testing with a C-150 confirmed that the glide was a bit better with the prop stopped. To do this you have to get the speed really low, and you are going down at a huge rate while trying to stop the prop. Unless you are really far above the ground, you will lose more altitude stopping the prop than you can recover with the slightly better glide. What was interesting was the improvement in glide by opening the throttle. Engine drag is reduced with the throttle open, and that is the best place for the throttle right after the sudden silence. Tried the same thing using a manual transmission car going down a hill. You could feel the difference between open & closed throttle (ignition off). Jack -----Original Message----- Time: 07:04:38 PM PST US From: "JMCBEAN" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "JMCBEAN" Your absolutely correct Cliff..... Try and get a prop to stop on a Cessna 150 or 172 sometime... not as easy as one might think. Blue Skies!! John & Debra McBean "The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground" -----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: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" I can tell you from first hand experience, it's MUCH better with the prop stopped. Cliff ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:24 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Altitude attitude --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" You got me Rex. I doubt anyone will top you. ;-) Cliff > > Gee Cliff, How can you breath that stuff down there? > (of course someone will top ME next!) > > Rex > South Park, Colorado > 9200' > (yeah, I moved from COS) > do not archive > > > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:44 AM PST US From: Flybradair@cs.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rigging --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Flybradair@cs.com 1. Okay bruce---I will try to do better. 2. Yes I stated it backwards--controls are hooked up properly. Thanks for all the help. Brad "Bruce Harrington" wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" > >Hi Brad, >1. it helps if you note up front that you have a model 5. >2. looks like your stick goes the wrong way! Full up it should hit the seat. >bh > >> Rigging the controls this weekend, the flaperon angles turned out >> good---both deflect the same up, neutral, and down with or without the flaps >added, but >> the deflection angle did not turn out properly. >...... >> The elevator deflection came out okay---if you don't mind the stick >> impacting the instrument panel at the full 39 degrees up! >> >> Anyone else encounter this? >... >> Thanks for any info! >> >> Brad Martin >> Wichita >> 5 o-235 l2c >> rigging > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:18 AM PST US From: RiteAngle3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings / short commercial --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com Just remember all, the airspeed will vary with loading, the AOA will automatically correct for many things, ask any Navy carrier pilot, or a pilot that has flown AOA's a lot. Elbie RiteAngle ~The "Stand Alone AOA System" for Your Safety Outstanding Customer Service is our Motto If you like it let others know If not let me know! Elbie Mendenhall Phone & Fax 360-260-0772 www.RiteAngle.com ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:50 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cowling Cover --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader OK Scott, I thought you were going to places tht allowed you to use an oil heater and just wanted this too. But you mean for "out there". My sister sent me a double mylar faced light weight quilt for use in my RV. It is meant to go under you on your matress, but if it were faced with some cloth that protects the mylar, it would be a light weight, reflective cover. But yes, I know. You don't sew. Me either. Just a thought if you find something like that. IR reflective holds a lot of heat for little weight. Kurt S. --- Scott McClintock wrote: > > "Is it too much a poor man's thinking to suggest a > twin > size wool electric blanket doubled over?" > > Kurt, > That's a good suggestion providing that I carry a > generator along with > my surveying gear. > I don't have that kind of capacity so a quilted > cover is what I really > need. > Don't any of you Wisconsin, Minnesota or Dakota guys > have one of these? > I suppose I could make one out of an old sleeping > bag but my sewing > skills are > pretty limited. > I'll just keep on looking, I guess. > Scott in Nome __________________________________ http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 10:58:30 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: All those readings! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Don't forget, you are just lucky too Michel. :-) Most of us have some pressure change in the cockpit that we have to deal with. Have you checked your airpseed for accuracy? It is not really as important as the altitude accuracy, but good to know. You fly indicated airspeed, whatever it is, and only need the speed accuracy for navigation over some distance. Kurt S. --- michel wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel > > > >===== Original Message From Jeff Smathers > > >Hi Michael, > >Where is your static system hole located? > > Er, ... nowhere, Jeff. The speed indicator, the VVI > and the altitude converter > to the mode Charlie transponder are simply open, in > the instrument panel. When > I ask a radar check at 1,500 ft, the tower answers: > 1,500 ft. It is then my > beginner's belief that the instruments are well > calibrated, that my cockpit > doesn't have an under- or over-pressure ... and that > I sat correctly the QNH! > :-) > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive __________________________________ http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 11:00:20 AM PST US From: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave & Wendy Grosvenor" Kurt, I do have fairings on everything, including jury struts, stab struts and all gear tubing. Fuselage is certainly narrower than a KF5. I do however have 8" wheels on it with no wheel pants. She certainly has bags of power with the 912S, and I've done a number of airspeed tests using the gps and calculating the TAS. At 5000rpm I get 115mph TAS at 4000ft, and at 4800rpm 106mph TAS. Climb from sea level for 5 minutes at 80mph IAS (faster than my max ROC speed) averaged out to 1200fpm. Cheers Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: L/D of Kitfox Model 4 1050 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hi Dave and Wendy, Your testing sounds excellent. I would have thought the KF glide ratio was a bit worse than that. Over 10:1 is good! A minimum sink of 500'/min is great too. I think that works out at just 5.7 mph verticle descent rate - a slow jog. Of course the IV is a bit cleaner than the S-5 and on, due to the narrower fuselage. Your Bushbaby/IV will be faster on the same hp I am sure. I'll be happy if I get 10:1 on my fat S-5. 56 indicated? That seems a respectable and fun speed to gently fly about at, disturbing the air and people the least. That leaves you with a lot of excess power avilable. Kurt S. ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:55 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: All those readings! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe kurt schrader wrote: > Don't forget, you are just lucky too Michel. :-) I know, Kurt. Or rather: there are so many things in my plane that are so right (after learning from this list) that the builder must have been a great airman. I finally found his phone number (I am the 4th owner) and called him to tell him how pleased I was and he was pleased to hear that his plane is doing well with this new owner who loved her tenderly. :-) > Have you checked your airpseed for accuracy? Yes, I did. Several times, with the GPS. That was also within reasonable accuracy. My problem is that the needle is always moving. Maybe because of turbulence or maybe because I can't fly her very steady. My pitot tube is such as it is horizontal only at high AoA. I suppose it is correct, isn't it? Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:21 AM PST US From: Scott McClintock Subject: Kitfox-List: STOL & Cowling Cover --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock Kurt, If I can't find a "store-bought" cover, I think I'll just make one using a sleeping bag for the material. I hate to sew, but I am capable of doing so. (sew?) I could add a layer of the reflectorized bubble insulation available at Home Depot as an extra. Gonna hold out for a store bought for a while. I'll let you know if I have to resort to "hand crafting". STOL: I am getting close to the performance displayed on the Avid video. (Have you guys seen this video, It's absolutely amazing how this pilot "drops it in".) This takes a lot of practice, but I got it coming pretty consistently, now. As Jeff mentioned, using flaps does little to slow the plane, but the added lift (one notch) is helpful if you gotta do a go round. I find that setting the plane up at Vy speed and using aggressive slips to get her down seems to work the best. I start my flare about 6 or so feet above the deck and reduce power to get down. I don't hardly ever use brakes (except to steer) When I do this correctly, I get about 200 to 300 feet; touchdown to end of roll. My Series V is usually "heavy". I don't see much point in practicing this "light". My new gravel strip is 1200 feet long, I've NEVER needed all of that but some of my Citabria and Cessna buddies get a little "puckered" getting down on it. One of these guys just uses the nearby paved road and taxi up to the strip. I have used the road, but only on the rare crosswind occasion. The power poles make me a little nervous. Scott in Nome ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 11:25:12 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Thanks, I wanted to say more about yesterdays flying, but keep running out of time. Got to go fly the 767 to PHX in a few minutes again. Will it be as much fun as a KF anywhere? No! I did take the time to do slow flight at altitude yesterday, since the weather was so good and the plane ran well. Spent some time at 65 KIAS and slower down to 45 KIAS, or 5 above the stall. It was really quiet at 65 and below. My draggy plane burns 4 gph at 65 KIAS, or 75 mph, not leaned. I really like slow flight. Learned to like it in an A-4 when we were required to fly at full power, in buffet, cross controlled, and not stall, in air combat maneuvering training. I didn't go that far with my Fox, but I probably will. And I want to explore that low end as much as possible for performance. One thing I noticed after landing was that my trim was full nose up. I trimmed for 52 KIAS this time and that shows me that I am right there at the fwd CG. I'll have to see if I can even use full flaps, or any at all, for landing without running out of elevator. I landed with 69# of fuel at 1200 lbs total. I couldn't catch it, but the stall in ground effect was below 40 KIAS somewhere clean. Now I wonder if I am actually stalling the wing or running out of elevator at altitude. I'll have to explore the stall deeper, then start moving the CG aft with more weight. I am working thru Michel, with a Frenchman who is computer diagnosing wing strut fairings for me. He is getting as much as 40% less drag than the standard fairing shape with more lift at slower speeds. Maybe 40 lbs of extra lift from the fairings. Will report when I have real data. Lots of fun testing to do yet. Gotta' go. Now I'm late. Kurt S. --- kerrjohna@comcast.net wrote: > > kurt, you are exploring that part of the flight > envelope for the Kitfox that many find the most > intriguing (enjoyable). Keep up the good work. If > you haven't you may want to spend some time at > altitude exploring controlability at that Vs+5. It > is amazing what it will do. Idle speed, semi-flare, > see what your vsi tells you. > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > > > Clifford, > > > > That is almost exactly what I am anticipating > working > > up to - 500' strips at above 5,000' elevation. > Trying > > to get everything working in my favor. __________________________________ http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:49 AM PST US From: "Bob Unternaehrer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cowling Cover --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" I've got one made out of a Twin size comforter that was a Christmas special at WalMart, but you can't have it or the seamstress that made it,,,, but it along with a couple of battery heaters in the cowl outlet (tail dragger) work fine on a Lyc O-320. Use the electricity if you've got it or Just wrap her up if you don't. Bob U. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott McClintock" Subject: Kitfox-List: Cowling Cover > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Scott McClintock > > "Is it too much a poor man's thinking to suggest a twin > size wool electric blanket doubled over?" > > Kurt, > That's a good suggestion providing that I carry a generator along with > my surveying gear. > I don't have that kind of capacity so a quilted cover is what I really > need. > Don't any of you Wisconsin, Minnesota or Dakota guys have one of these? > I suppose I could make one out of an old sleeping bag but my sewing > skills are > pretty limited. > I'll just keep on looking, I guess. > Scott in Nome > > > --- > > --- ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:09 AM PST US From: RiteAngle3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com In a message dated 2/23/04 11:26:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com writes: Got to go fly the 767 to PHX in a few minutes again. Will it be as much fun as a KF anywhere? No! True Kurt, but you will sure miss it a few years after you retire!! The moonlight skies at FL 350 or 370 and so on are memories not to be forgotten, the Sunrise in the eyes I try to forget :-) Elbie DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:31 AM PST US From: "Ted Palamarek" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Performance charts --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" Kurt Are you saying that he is able to get 40% less drag than the standard SS plastic snap together strut fairings that quiet a few of us have??? If so that is interesting!!! Hope you have a good trip to PHI Ted P. Edmonton, Ab <<<<>>>> He is getting as much as 40% less drag than the standard fairing shape with more lift at slower speeds. Maybe 40 lbs of extra lift from the fairings. Will report when I have real data. Lots of fun testing to do yet. Gotta' go. Now I'm late. Kurt S. ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 12:00:39 PM PST US From: RiteAngle3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: drag --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RiteAngle3@aol.com I haven't been on the entire string on the farings, however that percentage of drag reduction is possible. With the mount we are using on the AOA for low wing aircraft (actually same extrusion on the "Fox" just shorter) our aero engineer figured we were about 50% of the drag compared to a standard streamlined tube same size. I assume he is using turbulator strips. Those that have our system can look at the extrusion and see the little ridge on them. Amazing what a little bump can do if in the right place, or damage if in the wrong place! Elbie ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 02:18:30 PM PST US From: Torgeir Mortensen Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: All those readings! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Michel, Just a little note here, using the static from cabin is no good. The similar reading from your altimeter and encoder is also good, but this might be an "offset" altitude due to a slightly under, or over pressure in your cockpit. Both of this instruments is in the same pressure area, so- the question is; "is this altitude true"? The pitot tube should be as horizontal as the "wing corde". Torgeir. Michel Verheughe wrote: > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > kurt schrader wrote: > > Don't forget, you are just lucky too Michel. :-) > > I know, Kurt. Or rather: there are so many things in my plane that are so right > (after learning from this list) that the builder must have been a great airman. > I finally found his phone number (I am the 4th owner) and called him to tell > him how pleased I was and he was pleased to hear that his plane is doing well > with this new owner who loved her tenderly. :-) > > > Have you checked your airpseed for accuracy? > > Yes, I did. Several times, with the GPS. That was also within reasonable > accuracy. My problem is that the needle is always moving. Maybe because of > turbulence or maybe because I can't fly her very steady. My pitot tube is such > as it is horizontal only at high AoA. I suppose it is correct, isn't it? > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:35 PM PST US From: kerrjohna@comcast.net Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net send me an address > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" > > John, our EAA Ultralight Chapter has a Young Eagles program and we sponsor a > youth through a contest > we run each year. We are using the credits we have collected from our Young > Eagles pilots to help offset > the cost of the sponsorship. We would be honored to accept the credits you have > offered. > > Thank you, > Steve Magdic > President > EAA Ultralight Chapter #1 > Menomonee Falls WI > > -----Original Message----- > From: kerrjohna@comcast.net [mailto:kerrjohna@comcast.net] > To: Kitfox > Subject: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net > > I have Young Eagle credits is someones EAA Chapter is putting together a > scholarship. Let me know. > > John Kerr > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:09 PM PST US From: DPREMGOOD@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Altitude attitude --> Kitfox-List message posted by: DPREMGOOD@aol.com Lhasa, Tibet. 11678' But I had a couple of turbojet engines... and yes, the take off distance was longer than the landing :-0 Doug Remoundos ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 03:58:20 PM PST US Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits From: "Steve Magdic" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" Steve Magdic N71 W27015 Meadow Wood Ln. Sussex WI 53089 Thank you John. Your donation is very much appreciated and will be used this summer. We already have a winner in our contest and your contribution will certainly help. Are you a current member of an EAA Chapter? we would like to recognize your contribution on our web site and in our monthly newsletter. Again, thank you. Steve Magdic -----Original Message----- From: kerrjohna@comcast.net [mailto:kerrjohna@comcast.net] Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net send me an address > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" > > John, our EAA Ultralight Chapter has a Young Eagles program and we sponsor a > youth through a contest > we run each year. We are using the credits we have collected from our Young > Eagles pilots to help offset > the cost of the sponsorship. We would be honored to accept the credits you have > offered. > > Thank you, > Steve Magdic > President > EAA Ultralight Chapter #1 > Menomonee Falls WI > > -----Original Message----- > From: kerrjohna@comcast.net [mailto:kerrjohna@comcast.net] > To: Kitfox > Subject: Kitfox-List: Young Eagle Credits > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net > > I have Young Eagle credits is someones EAA Chapter is putting together a > scholarship. Let me know. > > John Kerr > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:40 PM PST US From: Jeff Smathers Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: All those readings! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jeff Smathers Michael, Most cabins have a negative pressure created ( read higher altitude ) when in flight. If your encoder or flight instruments are using an internal static system it may cause pressure errors. Jeff Smathers michel wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: michel > > >===== Original Message From Jeff Smathers > >Hi Michael, > >Where is your static system hole located? > > Er, ... nowhere, Jeff. The speed indicator, the VVI and the altitude converter > to the mode Charlie transponder are simply open, in the instrument panel. When > I ask a radar check at 1,500 ft, the tower answers: 1,500 ft. It is then my > beginner's belief that the instruments are well calibrated, that my cockpit > doesn't have an under- or over-pressure ... and that I sat correctly the QNH! > :-) > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 05:48:58 PM PST US From: "Glenn Horne" Subject: Kitfox-List: Picture --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" Hi Patricia, Got a picture? I'm about finish with my KitFox II and would like to see a picture of yours. Send to glennflys@rcn.com Thanks. Glenn Horne Suffolk, Va. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Patricia Truter Subject: Kitfox-List: Weight and Balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" I was wondering what the W&B details are of other KitFox (model II's). We did our KitFox recently and here are the details: Empty weight = 585 lb (265kg) CoG arm (empty) = 11.9 in (from leading edge of wing, near root) CoG arm (fuel) = 23.6 in CoG arm (pilot / PAX) = 17.2 in CoG arm (baggage) = 50.3 in CoG range for KitFox II = 10.2 - 14.3 in The CAA limits for microlight in SA is 450kg (990lb) but the design' MTOW is 430kg (950lbs) for the KitFox. That does not leave us with a lot of weight to be added (pilot, passenger and fuel). Regards Patricia (By the way, our 618 has been transplanted with a new 582 - she's singing like a Singer. After a test flight by a test pilot, I flew ZU-PAT the first time on Saturday ...) -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 06:35:32 PM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Picture Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:31:34 -0800 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" Me too ----- Original Message ----- From: Glenn Horne To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:46 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Picture --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" > Hi Patricia, Got a picture? I'm about finish with my KitFox II and would like to see a picture of yours. Send to glennflys@rcn.com Thanks. Glenn Horne Suffolk, Va. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Patricia Truter To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Weight and Balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" > I was wondering what the W&B details are of other KitFox (model II's). We did our KitFox recently and here are the details: Empty weight 585 lb (265kg) CoG arm (empty) 11.9 in (from leading edge of wing, near root) CoG arm (fuel) 23.6 in CoG arm (pilot / PAX) 17.2 in CoG arm (baggage) 50.3 in CoG range for KitFox II 10.2 - 14.3 in The CAA limits for microlight in SA is 450kg (990lb) but the design' MTOW is 430kg (950lbs) for the KitFox. That does not leave us with a lot of weight to be added (pilot, passenger and fuel). Regards Patricia (By the way, our 618 has been transplanted with a new 582 - she's singing like a Singer. After a test flight by a test pilot, I flew ZU-PAT the first time on Saturday ...) -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:28 PM PST US From: "Clem Nichols" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" Cliff: The STOL techniques your referred to on the Super Cub website are very helpful. Also I just ordered a copy of Stick and Rudder from Barnes & Noble. To be honest, I'd not even heard of the book before, but from what I've recently read, it makes for great reading. Clem Nichols Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Short Field Landings > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" > > Jeff, > Thanks for posting this!! I like to use this technique to get in short over > an obstacle, really works wonders. I also think this is a good way to deal > with those tailwinds that I was talking about. I need to go practice that > some more, hey, an excuse to go flying .... ;-) > > For those that are interested in such things you really should read this > thread about STOL ops on supercub.org, > http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1139&postdays=0&postorder=asc &start=0&sid=8120d38d7a9aa51f0b74eb6e47ad319f > > Jeff, there must be something wrong with your flaps, mine add a fair amount > of drag. Maybe it's all the bullet holes in yours ;-O > Using flaps when doing the "stall down" technique just makes it even better. > Doesn't adding flaps lower your stall speed? > Cliff > do not archive > > > > > > I agree with Michel about not using the Flaperons for landing, they just > > pitch the nose down, and don't help much in the way of producing drag. > > I like using the "Stall Down" landing technique mentioned in "Stick and > > Rudder" and have been practicing it. Basically just fly a fairly moderate > > speed approach not worrying too much about slowing down, then on high > > final flaring and slipping to scrub off all the excess speed in such a > > way that on short final I end up at minimum airspeed and just plunk it > > onto the runway. I found mention of it on the www.supercub.org website, > > and got interested, so went back to re-reading Stick and Rudder. It > > works well. > > > > ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:47 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cowling Cover --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" I just received a copy of GA news, A company called Kenon Aircraft Covers - (307) 674-6498 - makes a "Winter Cover" it is Dacron insulation between two layers of Polyester. The inner side is Intl. Orange for signaling - a good idea, and the outer layer is black for heat absorption.- also a good idea. Could you make a pattern yourself by using inexpensive fabric and the fabric glue available in fabric stores and then have someone make up one for you per your pattern. Just a thought ----- Original Message ----- From: "kurt schrader" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Cowling Cover > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > OK Scott, > > I thought you were going to places tht allowed you to > use an oil heater and just wanted this too. But you > mean for "out there". > > My sister sent me a double mylar faced light weight > quilt for use in my RV. It is meant to go under you > on your matress, but if it were faced with some cloth > that protects the mylar, it would be a light weight, > reflective cover. But yes, I know. You don't sew. > Me either. Just a thought if you find something like > that. IR reflective holds a lot of heat for little > weight. > > Kurt S. > > --- Scott McClintock > wrote: > > > > "Is it too much a poor man's thinking to suggest a > > twin > > size wool electric blanket doubled over?" > > > > Kurt, > > That's a good suggestion providing that I carry a > > generator along with > > my surveying gear. > > I don't have that kind of capacity so a quilted > > cover is what I really > > need. > > Don't any of you Wisconsin, Minnesota or Dakota guys > > have one of these? > > I suppose I could make one out of an old sleeping > > bag but my sewing > > skills are > > pretty limited. > > I'll just keep on looking, I guess. > > Scott in Nome > > __________________________________ > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools > > ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:54 PM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Kitfox-List: New Prop --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Just in from EAA Hot-Line Hot Props From Oregon Aircraft Design Oregon Aircraft Design LLC recently added Hot Props, an efficient ground adjustable propeller from Kiev, to their array of products. The propeller, which works on all Rotax and Hirth engines, offers an average 10 to 20 percent increase in performance, an increased climb rate, and faster cruise at a lower RPM. Additionally, it theres less fuel burn and you enjoy a smoother, quieter flight. Available in a three- or five-blade configuration and ranging in diameter from 63.4 inches to 74.8 inches, the Hot Prop runs between $695 and $1,120. Contact the company at 503/267-1486 or visit www.oregonaircraftdesign.com. bh ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:42 PM PST US From: "Bob Robertson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 532 cy. sound --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" Hi Dave, Just got back from a long weekend road trip...Traveled down to southernAlberta to give Rotax Seminar and just got back today (hence the delayed response)., The key here is the click in both clinders?..I have not heard this before but that does not mean i'ts not normal. What I would look for is determining that the click IS coming from both cylinders..If it is, I would think that it would be a normal situation. What you could do is to check each cylinder individually. Sound travels quite well through the crankcase. You want to make sure that the sound is not one cylinder making noise at the top AND bottom of a rotational cycle. If you can find a mechanics stethescope listen to each cylinder individually. If the sound is eminating from one cylinder onlt I would consider taking a closer look. If the sound is common to both cylinders I would think it is normal. I hope this info helps Bob R ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dawe" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 532 cy. sound > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe" > > Good Morning Bob > > Another question. > Plugs out, rotate prop slowly, each cy. ,sound of click, each time they > change direction.Is this normal rings sound. > appreciate your help. > > regards > Dave > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Robertson" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 532 Starter > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Robertson" > > > > > Dave, > > > > I'm a certified Rotax Tech.... what's the problem with your starter? > > > > Bob Robertson > > Light Engine Services Ltd. > > Rotax Service Center > > St. Albert, Ab. CaN. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Dawe" > > To: > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Rotax 532 Starter > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "David Dawe" > > > > > > Anyone have experience working on the starter in a Rotax 532? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 08:48:41 PM PST US From: "John Bonewitz" Subject: Kitfox-List: Anyone need CHT Probes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Bonewitz" I've got a pair of CHT probes which are sized for the small Rotax spark plug. Since I'm using the Lycoming engine, I have no need for them. These are the plug gasket type, and seem to be in good shape. If anyone is interested, email me off the list. John Bonewitz jbonewitz@verizon.net ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 09:30:07 PM PST US From: "Ted Palamarek" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: 912S Starter Issue --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" Thanks Dave That all makes sense. Sorry for not replying sooner but was out skiing for a few days. If we get back to S. Africa we'll have to get in touch with you and have a look at your plane. DO NOT ARCHIVE Ted P Edmonton, Ab <<<<>>> Ted, I also use Clint's procedure - it works really well. Engine fires and runs at 2000 - 2500 rpm instantly, no shaking. Here it is... "Here is how I now start my engine, every time. I have seperated switches for Ign A & B. I fully close the throttle, pull the choke and crank the engine with Ign's off. As long as 10 sec. Wait 40 seconds or so, open the throttle about 1 1/2 turns on venier throttle. Crank the engine and it starts instanly and is running about 2500 to 3000 rpm's and very smooth. If the engine starts to shake at all and does not start, will repeat the process. Too many broken engine mounts (my observation) I do not have the shortened spacers, I think that it couples too much energy to the area that can be broken. Clint Bazzill 800 hrs 912ULS Model IV." Cheers Dave ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 10:23:26 PM PST US From: "Patricia Truter" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and Balance --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Patricia Truter" Ski in Africa!? (snow is a very scarce commodity down here! :-) maybe I should remove my make-up bag?? On a more serious note: everything is 'standard' KitFox stuff except mabe a Maul pneumatic tailwheel, a GPS (which most pilots have I assume?) (on the firewall), battery is on the cabin side of the fire wall, a gascolator (in front of firewall)?? Patricia Ps the pilot is also a little bit 'overweight' at this stage: (7,5 months pregnant).. but that will be self-correcting in a few weeks time >>> aerowood@mcsi.net 2004-02-23 >>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" < aerowood@mcsi.net > Hi Patricia, For a Model II, it appears to be about 100 pounds overweight! My IV-1200 with 582 came in at 575 pounds. Remove the microwave, autopilot, ski racks, etc.! Cheers, bh > I was wondering what the W&B details are of other KitFox (model > II's). We did our KitFox recently and here are the details: > > Empty weight = 585 lb (265kg) > CoG arm (empty) = 11.9 in (from leading edge of wing, near root) > CoG arm (fuel) = 23.6 in > CoG arm (pilot / PAX) = 17.2 in > CoG arm (baggage) = 50.3 in > > CoG range for KitFox II = 10.2 - 14.3 in > > The CAA limits for microlight in SA is 450kg (990lb) but the > design' MTOW is 430kg (950lbs) for the KitFox. That does not leave us > with a lot of weight to be added (pilot, passenger and fuel). > > > Regards > > Patricia > > (By the way, our 618 has been transplanted with a new 582 - she's > singing > like a Singer. After a test flight by a test pilot, I flew ZU-PAT the > first time on Saturday ...) -- dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.