Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:53 AM - Re: More on the Jabiru (Jose M. Toro)
2. 05:18 AM - Re: Airdale - John Larsen (Jose M. Toro)
3. 09:22 AM - Re: Pitot tube routing (Howard Firm)
4. 10:19 AM - SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Don Gantt)
5. 10:59 AM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Jose M. Toro)
6. 11:23 AM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Clem Nichols)
7. 11:49 AM - Gas template for #1 rib (icaza francisco)
8. 12:15 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Dee Young)
9. 12:33 PM - Re: Flaps - No Flaps ()
10. 12:33 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Don Gantt)
11. 12:51 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Jose M. Toro)
12. 12:57 PM - Kitfox III (Jimmie Blackwell)
13. 01:07 PM - Re: Joe Oakley are you out there? (John Oakley)
14. 01:50 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Don Gantt)
15. 02:03 PM - Re: Gas template for #1 rib (Grant Fluent)
16. 02:44 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Randy Daughenbaugh)
17. 03:09 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Clem Nichols)
18. 06:32 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Lowell Fitt)
19. 07:01 PM - Re: Airdale - John Larsen (Jerry Liles)
20. 07:23 PM - Re: Flaps - No Flaps (Jerry Liles)
21. 07:29 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Steve Cooper)
22. 08:31 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Bob Unternaehrer)
23. 08:31 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Bob Unternaehrer)
24. 08:31 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Bob Unternaehrer)
25. 08:31 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (Bob Unternaehrer)
26. 09:14 PM - Re: Oil Tank Vent (John King)
27. 10:07 PM - Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue (jdmcbean)
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 |
|
| Subject: | More on the Jabiru |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Mike:
What is the difference in the plane's empty weight and the CG?
Jose
Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@swoca.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney
Jose
I have a model IV with the long wings. I had a 582 in my plane first and I
was a bit tail heavy. I had to add 5.5 pounds of lead shot up front to make
my weight and balance better. With the Jabiru my W&B is much better. I
really like the engine. I don't have anything bad to say about the 582. I
just became tired of the 582 running hotter than I liked(especially after
about 200 hours)and with the water cooled engine I often had the rotary
valve oil and the coolant mixing through the rotary valve seal.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jose M. Toro
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: More on the Jabiru
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
Mike:
What model is you Kitfox? What kind of wings it has? What is your opinion
after switching engines?
Jose
Mike Chaney wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney
My cruse increased from the mid 80's mph to the low 90's when I switched
from a 582 to the Jabiru 2200.
Mike Chaney
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerry Liles
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: More on the Jabiru
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
Jose,
I think you'll get plenty of speed without major modifications to your
airplane. Just a few simple fairings at the wing and fuselage attach
points for the landing gear and lift struts will help, as will wheel
pants but even that is probably not a necessity. Raking the windshield
is a lot of work and I don't believe at all needed. There are too many
Mod IIs flying perfectly satisfactoraly without major surgery for me to
believe it is necessary. Also remember all modifications tend to add
weight and Weight is the enemy!
My 2 cents.
Jerry Liles
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
>
>Jerry:
>
>It looks like, if I want to try the Jabiru, I will need to "byte the
bullet". If I don't get an appropriate speed with the Jabiru and the
current configuration, I will need to do some modifications to reduce drag.
The major of the modification could be to use short, speedster wings.
Another suggestion I received was to increase the slant of the windshield,
like in the Kitfox IV. I could also use wheelpants.
>
>Jose
>
>Jerry Liles wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>
>Jose, then I suspect you should do just fine with a Jabiru 2200.
>
>Jerry Liles
>
>Jose M. Toro wrote:
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
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: Airdale - John Larsen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
John:
What kind of Airdale do you have? Is it a modified fuselage, or a new fuselage
built by Steve? What engine are you using?
Jose
John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen
Hi Jerry
They deploy 30 degrees.
Jerry Liles wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>
>John,
>What is the deployment limit for the Airdale?
>
>John Larsen wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen
>>
>>After a many year and many Avid-Kfox flights I now use full flaperons on
>>final which gives a much slower touchdown speed and then shove the
>>handle forward when the mains touch. This plants the tail and keeps the
>>plane from vacillating between float and touchdown. I use it on my
>>Airdale, and found it works well with the Series 4-7 Foxes I have flown.
>>Works very well with nose heavy conditions. Full flaperons will give you
>>some adverse yaw problems with the Avids and Series 1-3 Foxes.
>>
>>Jerry Liles wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>>>
>>>I've limited Tootie Mae to 10 deg flaps and routinely use it to shorten
>>>takeoff and landing roll. That gives a useful increase in lift and
>>>decreases stall speed a bit without getting into the poor control
>>>response area. It doesn't, however, add a whole lot of additional
>>>drag. Foxes and Avids tend to begin to lose aileron effectiveness at
>>>low speeds with more deployment and there can be a problem with control
>>>with excess deployment, especially beyond 15deg . 10 degrees works for
>>>me and I use it all the time. If I need to get down in a hurry a side
>>>slip can't be beat, and it's a lot more fun than just jerking on a
>>>handle. Many pilots don't or won't use flaps because of the control
>>>issue, but I bet they would if they just limited deployment.
>>>Jerry Liles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube routing |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Howard Firm" <pianome2@mchsi.com>
I have a 4" piece of flexible tubing at the hinge point where it comes out
of the spar. You could just cut the kink out and clamp in a piece of tubing
that has a inside diameter that matches your outside diameter of the pitot
tubing.
Howard Firm
508 12th St. South
Virginia MN 55792
----- Original Message -----
From: "RICHARD RABBERS" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Pitot tube routing
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: RICHARD RABBERS <rira1950@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm new here and also with my Kitfox Model 1 just purchased. I found the
pitot tube kinked at the wing hinge. I wonder how kinking can be avoided or
what the best set up might be.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their associated
potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it will
always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
right?
Don Gantt
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Don:
That is correct! However, if you are still building it, you can certify it with
a gross weight of 1320 pounds, and then the same kind of plane is eligible for
sport pilot. The law does not provide for re-certifications.
Jose
Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their associated
potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it will
always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
right?
Don Gantt
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Don:
That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia lawyer,
however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV meets all
the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as one because
it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental category.
Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating which
would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as I didn't
build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane category the
owner can take a course which would allow him to do the annual even if he
didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in. Complete rules, if
you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
Clem Nichols
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
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: | Gas template for #1 rib |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: icaza francisco <franicaza@yahoo.com.mx>
Hello list.
I have not found at Sportflight.com the template for
the gas measure at the first rib. Does someone know
where I can download it?
Thanks in advance,
Francisco Icaza (Classic IV)
La mejor conexin a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por $100 al mes. http://net.yahoo.com.mx
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: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
Just to speculate, could a person retire the old N number and ID plate to
the wall of the hanger. Apply for a new airworthiness certificate under the
sport rule at the desired gross? It would require another inspection but
then I wonder????
Dee Young
N345DY
Do not archive
>From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:23:06 -0500
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
>Don:
>
>That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia lawyer,
>however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV meets all
>the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as one because
>it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental category.
>Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating which
>would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as I didn't
>build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane category
>the
>owner can take a course which would allow him to do the annual even if he
>didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in. Complete rules, if
>you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
>
>Clem Nichols
>Do not archive
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> > <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> >
> > So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> > regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their associated
> > potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> > originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> > then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> > classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it will
> > always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> > right?
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flaps - No Flaps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
Jerry:
Tell us about yourAirdale. I have a friend that has been building one for a
while now, and I was only aware of Ron Webers as being the first
"production" version flying (as Larsens' Pursang was technically the Airdale
Prototype), so there's not a lot of pilot experience or opinion out there.
What engine did you use? How would you compare its flight characteristics
to Avids and Kitfoxes (besides the flap use issue) overall and individually?
How did the empty weight come out? Climb rates? Cruise speeds, etc, etc...
I'm just curious. I've always thought it was an interesting and well
thought out design. But not enough flying to have verified it. The really
cool thing I thought about the design of the Airdale is that any of us could
upgrade our older airplanes to one by purchasing their Airdale upgrade kit,
reusing our wings and tail. Not many airplanes can you say that about....
Paul Seehafer
Wisconsin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles@bayou.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flaps - No Flaps
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
>
> John,
> What is the deployment limit for the Airdale?
>
> John Larsen wrote:
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
>>
>>After a many year and many Avid-Kfox flights I now use full flaperons on
>>final which gives a much slower touchdown speed and then shove the
>>handle forward when the mains touch. This plants the tail and keeps the
>>plane from vacillating between float and touchdown. I use it on my
>>Airdale, and found it works well with the Series 4-7 Foxes I have flown.
>>Works very well with nose heavy conditions. Full flaperons will give you
>>some adverse yaw problems with the Avids and Series 1-3 Foxes.
>>
>>Jerry Liles wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
>>>
>>>I've limited Tootie Mae to 10 deg flaps and routinely use it to shorten
>>>takeoff and landing roll. That gives a useful increase in lift and
>>>decreases stall speed a bit without getting into the poor control
>>>response area. It doesn't, however, add a whole lot of additional
>>>drag. Foxes and Avids tend to begin to lose aileron effectiveness at
>>>low speeds with more deployment and there can be a problem with control
>>>with excess deployment, especially beyond 15deg . 10 degrees works for
>>>me and I use it all the time. If I need to get down in a hurry a side
>>>slip can't be beat, and it's a lot more fun than just jerking on a
>>>handle. Many pilots don't or won't use flaps because of the control
>>>issue, but I bet they would if they just limited deployment.
>>>Jerry Liles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
(at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Don Gantt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
Nichols
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Don:
That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model
IV meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify
as one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
category.
Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime
in. Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
Clem Nichols
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
==
==
==
==
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: | SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Don:
A Kitfox IV certified under the 51% Experimental Rule, or a Piper Cub, will never
be Sport Planes. However, Sport Pilots can fly both.
Jose
Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
(at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Don Gantt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
Nichols
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
Don:
That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model
IV meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify
as one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
category.
Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime
in. Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
Clem Nichols
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt"
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
==
==
==
==
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
I am considering buying a Model III that has one 6 gallon wing tank and a 10 gallon
in front of the panel gas tank.
Considering that I want to mount a radio and transponder on the panel is it feasible
to make the in front of the panel gas tank disappear and install another
wing tank? Second question is, are wing tanks still available for the Model
III?
Appreciate your ideas.
Jimmie
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 |
|
| Subject: | Joe Oakley are you out there? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <joakley@ida.net>
Hi Lowell,
No the plane I went in with is a white model 4 1050, (tinkerbell) Somehow **
the right brake was locked up during a high speed wheel landing. Mud in
the borrow was deep enough to stop forword progress. cockpit was untouched
we both walked away.
John , any body wanting to reach me may find me easier at
jdhobbies@jdhobbies.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Joe Oakley are you out there?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
John, Is the rolled airplane a yellow Model IV with blue top cowl N90TY.
I understand one was rolled somewhere in the Northwest a month or so ago.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Oakley" <joakley@ida.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Joe Oakley are you out there?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <joakley@ida.net>
>
> you must be looking for me. I am here, after trips to Seattle phoenix and
> other places. also got rolled up in a kitfox last month, cartwheeled. not
> mine or me at the stick but wow. surly not like Mike last week. but still
an
> E ticket ride.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> av8rps@tznet.com
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Joe Oakley are you out there?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> I've tried to contact Joe Oakley at joakley@ida.net, but get a error and
> returned mail.
>
> Are you out there Joe?
>
> Paul Seehafer
> Wisconsin
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Jose: OK..now I'm really going to sound ignorant, so please forgive the
high density altitude in my cranium: If a plane like a "IV" or a "Cub"
can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but isn't a "Sport Plane" per-se, what is
the actual operational or practical difference between those planes, and
true "Sport Planes?(Besides the fact that I guess a true "Sport Plane"
is manufactured after and under the newly passed LSA rules.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M.
Toro
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
--> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Don:
A Kitfox IV certified under the 51% Experimental Rule, or a Piper Cub,
will never be Sport Planes. However, Sport Pilots can fly both.
Jose
Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
(at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Don Gantt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
Nichols
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
Don:
That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV
meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as
one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
category.
Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in.
Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
Clem Nichols
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt"
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
==
==
==
==
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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: Gas template for #1 rib |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Grant Fluent <gjfpilot@yahoo.com>
Francisco,
Try this link for the gas gauge decals:
http://www.sportflight.com/kfb/gasgauge.htm
Grant Fluent
Newcastle,NE
Classic IV 912S
--- icaza francisco <franicaza@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: icaza francisco
> <franicaza@yahoo.com.mx>
>
> Hello list.
>
> I have not found at Sportflight.com the template for
> the gas measure at the first rib. Does someone know
> where I can download it?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Francisco Icaza (Classic IV)
>
> La mejor conexin a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo
> por $100 al mes. http://net.yahoo.com.mx
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Don,
I believe what Clem was addressing was the inspection/maintenance privileges
associated with Sport Pilot. These are separate from the issues of whether
the plane qualifies as a LSA or not. The IV does qualify and can be flown
by sport pilots.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Gantt
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Jose: OK..now I'm really going to sound ignorant, so please forgive the
high density altitude in my cranium: If a plane like a "IV" or a "Cub"
can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but isn't a "Sport Plane" per-se, what is
the actual operational or practical difference between those planes, and
true "Sport Planes?(Besides the fact that I guess a true "Sport Plane"
is manufactured after and under the newly passed LSA rules.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M.
Toro
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
--> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Don:
A Kitfox IV certified under the 51% Experimental Rule, or a Piper Cub,
will never be Sport Planes. However, Sport Pilots can fly both.
Jose
Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
(at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Don Gantt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
Nichols
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
Don:
That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV
meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as
one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
category.
Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in.
Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
Clem Nichols
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt"
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
>
==
==
==
==
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Don:
Even though my Model IV will never classify as a sport plane with regards to
annual inspections, etc., it can still be flown legally by someone with a
sport pilot license in the same manner that a J3 Cub or an Aeronca Champ can
be. In other words, it doesn't have to be registered as a sport plane to be
flown by a sport pilot. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
> with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
> more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
> a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
> holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
> pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
> limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
> original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
> (at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
> This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
> of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
> from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Don Gantt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
> Nichols
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
> Don:
>
> That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
> lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model
> IV meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify
> as one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
> category.
> Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
> which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
> I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
> category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
> annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime
> in. Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
>
> Clem Nichols
> Do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>>
>> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
>> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
> associated
>> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
>> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
>> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
>> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
> will
>> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
>> right?
>>
>> Don Gantt
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
I'll make a try on this one. I understand that one feature of the Light
Sport Aircraft rule is that companies such as Skystar can produce an
aircraft up to 99% complete that will comply with the rule. In other words
the person not wishing to build can now buy a virtually complete airplane
from a factory certified to build this class of airplane. This is the
"Light Sport Aircraft" or LSA. There is another category of aircraft under
the rule. This the Experimental Light Sport Aircraft or ELSA. This allows
the builder to build his own airplane under the new rule with the privileges
mentioned as to the maintenance, etc. However, this airplane must be built
from a kit approved under the rule with no deviations from the factory
design. Otherwise it must be licensed as a conventional "Experimental"
airplane - the kind we fly now. That is why we are all out of luck as to
the Light Sport Aircraft recertification, but not necessarily out of the
game if we can qualify for the weight limits.
In case anyone might arrive at the conclusion that I have been studying the
FAA web site to come up with all this info - not so. Check out the November
2004 issue of Kitplanes. It has a great discussion of the new rule with
charts and stuff.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
<DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> Jose: OK..now I'm really going to sound ignorant, so please forgive the
> high density altitude in my cranium: If a plane like a "IV" or a "Cub"
> can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but isn't a "Sport Plane" per-se, what is
> the actual operational or practical difference between those planes, and
> true "Sport Planes?(Besides the fact that I guess a true "Sport Plane"
> is manufactured after and under the newly passed LSA rules.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M.
> Toro
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> --> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Don:
>
> A Kitfox IV certified under the 51% Experimental Rule, or a Piper Cub,
> will never be Sport Planes. However, Sport Pilots can fly both.
>
> Jose
> Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
> Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
> with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
> more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
> a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
> holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
> pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
> limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
> original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
> (at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
> This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
> of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
> from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Don Gantt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
> Nichols
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
>
> Don:
>
> That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
> lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV
> meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as
> one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
> category.
> Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
> which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
> I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
> category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
> annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in.
> Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
>
> Clem Nichols
> Do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gantt"
> To:
> Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> >
> >
> > So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> > regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
> associated
> > potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> > originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> > then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> > classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
> will
> > always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> > right?
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
> Jose M. Toro, P.E.
> Kitfox II/582
> "A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ==
> direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
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: Airdale - John Larsen |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Jose,
John has the original Airdale, or Pursang. He's the designer builder.
Jerry Liles
Jose M. Toro wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
>John:
>
>What kind of Airdale do you have? Is it a modified fuselage, or a new fuselage
built by Steve? What engine are you using?
>
>Jose
>
>John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com> wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen
>
>Hi Jerry
>They deploy 30 degrees.
>
>Jerry Liles wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>>
>>John,
>>What is the deployment limit for the Airdale?
>>
>>John Larsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen
>>>
>>>After a many year and many Avid-Kfox flights I now use full flaperons on
>>>final which gives a much slower touchdown speed and then shove the
>>>handle forward when the mains touch. This plants the tail and keeps the
>>>plane from vacillating between float and touchdown. I use it on my
>>>Airdale, and found it works well with the Series 4-7 Foxes I have flown.
>>>Works very well with nose heavy conditions. Full flaperons will give you
>>>some adverse yaw problems with the Avids and Series 1-3 Foxes.
>>>
>>>Jerry Liles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>>I've limited Tootie Mae to 10 deg flaps and routinely use it to shorten
>>>>takeoff and landing roll. That gives a useful increase in lift and
>>>>decreases stall speed a bit without getting into the poor control
>>>>response area. It doesn't, however, add a whole lot of additional
>>>>drag. Foxes and Avids tend to begin to lose aileron effectiveness at
>>>>low speeds with more deployment and there can be a problem with control
>>>>with excess deployment, especially beyond 15deg . 10 degrees works for
>>>>me and I use it all the time. If I need to get down in a hurry a side
>>>>slip can't be beat, and it's a lot more fun than just jerking on a
>>>>handle. Many pilots don't or won't use flaps because of the control
>>>>issue, but I bet they would if they just limited deployment.
>>>>Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flaps - No Flaps |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Paul,
I have an Avid MK IV, not an Airdale. John Larsen is the person with
the Airdale. In fact he has the prototype, Pursang, as he is the
designer and builder. It is a very nice airplane, very well thought
out, and it is handsome, especially the one on floats.
Jerry Liles
av8rps@tznet.com wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
>Jerry:
>
>Tell us about yourAirdale. I have a friend that has been building one for a
>while now, and I was only aware of Ron Webers as being the first
>"production" version flying (as Larsens' Pursang was technically the Airdale
>Prototype), so there's not a lot of pilot experience or opinion out there.
>
>What engine did you use? How would you compare its flight characteristics
>to Avids and Kitfoxes (besides the flap use issue) overall and individually?
>How did the empty weight come out? Climb rates? Cruise speeds, etc, etc...
>
>I'm just curious. I've always thought it was an interesting and well
>thought out design. But not enough flying to have verified it. The really
>cool thing I thought about the design of the Airdale is that any of us could
>upgrade our older airplanes to one by purchasing their Airdale upgrade kit,
>reusing our wings and tail. Not many airplanes can you say that about....
>
>Paul Seehafer
>Wisconsin
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jerry Liles" <wliles@bayou.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Flaps - No Flaps
>
>
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
>>
>>John,
>>What is the deployment limit for the Airdale?
>>
>>John Larsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John Larsen <jopatco@mindspring.com>
>>>
>>>After a many year and many Avid-Kfox flights I now use full flaperons on
>>>final which gives a much slower touchdown speed and then shove the
>>>handle forward when the mains touch. This plants the tail and keeps the
>>>plane from vacillating between float and touchdown. I use it on my
>>>Airdale, and found it works well with the Series 4-7 Foxes I have flown.
>>>Works very well with nose heavy conditions. Full flaperons will give you
>>>some adverse yaw problems with the Avids and Series 1-3 Foxes.
>>>
>>>Jerry Liles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
>>>>
>>>>I've limited Tootie Mae to 10 deg flaps and routinely use it to shorten
>>>>takeoff and landing roll. That gives a useful increase in lift and
>>>>decreases stall speed a bit without getting into the poor control
>>>>response area. It doesn't, however, add a whole lot of additional
>>>>drag. Foxes and Avids tend to begin to lose aileron effectiveness at
>>>>low speeds with more deployment and there can be a problem with control
>>>>with excess deployment, especially beyond 15deg . 10 degrees works for
>>>>me and I use it all the time. If I need to get down in a hurry a side
>>>>slip can't be beat, and it's a lot more fun than just jerking on a
>>>>handle. Many pilots don't or won't use flaps because of the control
>>>>issue, but I bet they would if they just limited deployment.
>>>>Jerry Liles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>Scanned by Bayou Internet for all known viruses.
>http://www.bayou.com
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
I loved the charts Lowell!
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> I'll make a try on this one. I understand that one feature of the Light
> Sport Aircraft rule is that companies such as Skystar can produce an
> aircraft up to 99% complete that will comply with the rule. In other
words
> the person not wishing to build can now buy a virtually complete airplane
> from a factory certified to build this class of airplane. This is the
> "Light Sport Aircraft" or LSA. There is another category of aircraft
under
> the rule. This the Experimental Light Sport Aircraft or ELSA. This
allows
> the builder to build his own airplane under the new rule with the
privileges
> mentioned as to the maintenance, etc. However, this airplane must be
built
> from a kit approved under the rule with no deviations from the factory
> design. Otherwise it must be licensed as a conventional "Experimental"
> airplane - the kind we fly now. That is why we are all out of luck as to
> the Light Sport Aircraft recertification, but not necessarily out of the
> game if we can qualify for the weight limits.
>
> In case anyone might arrive at the conclusion that I have been studying
the
> FAA web site to come up with all this info - not so. Check out the
November
> 2004 issue of Kitplanes. It has a great discussion of the new rule with
> charts and stuff.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> >
> > Jose: OK..now I'm really going to sound ignorant, so please forgive the
> > high density altitude in my cranium: If a plane like a "IV" or a "Cub"
> > can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but isn't a "Sport Plane" per-se, what is
> > the actual operational or practical difference between those planes, and
> > true "Sport Planes?(Besides the fact that I guess a true "Sport Plane"
> > is manufactured after and under the newly passed LSA rules.)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jose M.
> > Toro
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> > --> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Don:
> >
> > A Kitfox IV certified under the 51% Experimental Rule, or a Piper Cub,
> > will never be Sport Planes. However, Sport Pilots can fly both.
> >
> > Jose
> > Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> >
> > Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
> > with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
> > more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
> > a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
> > holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
> > pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
> > limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
> > original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
> > (at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
> > This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
> > of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
> > from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
> > Nichols
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
> >
> > Don:
> >
> > That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
> > lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV
> > meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as
> > one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
> > category.
> > Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
> > which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
> > I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
> > category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
> > annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in.
> > Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
> >
> > Clem Nichols
> > Do not archive
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Don Gantt"
> > To:
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> > >
> > >
> > > So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> > > regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
> > associated
> > > potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> > > originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> > > then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> > > classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
> > will
> > > always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> > > right?
> > >
> > > Don Gantt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
> > Jose M. Toro, P.E.
> > Kitfox II/582
> > "A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ==
> > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
>
>
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: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
WON'T WORK,, Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
>
> Just to speculate, could a person retire the old N number and ID plate to
> the wall of the hanger. Apply for a new airworthiness certificate under
the
> sport rule at the desired gross? It would require another inspection but
> then I wonder????
>
> Dee Young
> N345DY
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> >From: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
> >Reply-To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> >Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:23:06 -0500
> >
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
> >
> >Don:
> >
> >That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
lawyer,
> >however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model IV meets
all
> >the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify as one because
> >it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental category.
> >Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating which
> >would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as I
didn't
> >build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane category
> >the
> >owner can take a course which would allow him to do the annual even if he
> >didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime in. Complete rules,
if
> >you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
> >
> >Clem Nichols
> >Do not archive
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> > > <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> > >
> > > So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> > > regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
associated
> > > potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> > > originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> > > then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> > > classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
will
> > > always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> > > right?
> > >
> > > Don Gantt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
I've said this before and others have agreed......You guys are missing the
issue with Sport Pilot.....A sport pilot license gives the qualified pilot
the "privilege" of flying any airplane that meets the "definition of Sport
pilot. Now the maintenace issue is basically being described correctly I
believe. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
<DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
> with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
> more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
> a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
> holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
> pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
> limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
> original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
> (at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
> This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
> of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
> from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Don Gantt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
> Nichols
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
>
> Don:
>
> That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
> lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model
> IV meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify
> as one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
> category.
> Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
> which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
> I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
> category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
> annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime
> in. Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
>
> Clem Nichols
> Do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> > <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
> >
> > So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> > regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
> associated
> > potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> > originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> > then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> > classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
> will
> > always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> > right?
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
Since the builder can set the Gross Weight of his airplane, why couldn't a
new airplane (series 5) be certified for 1320 lbs and qualify for sport
pilot operations. Once I was talking to Titan Owner at OSH about the T-51
mustang and ask him what the gross weight was. "We made it 12??, or what
ever the old figure was, to qualify for sport pilot, but it will handle much
more" Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
<DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilohcom@c-magic.com>
Right On.. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Don:
>
> A Kitfox IV certified under the 51% Experimental Rule, or a Piper Cub,
will never be Sport Planes. However, Sport Pilots can fly both.
>
> Jose
> Don Gantt <DGantt@millionairdallas.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
>
> Wow Clem...that's really interesting. The reason for my question was
> with regard to buying a pre-owned Kitfox, and whether a Series-IV made
> more sense than a Series-V, when examined solely from the standpoint of
> a future sale down-the-line, potentially to a "Sport-Pilot" license
> holder (assuming the concept "catches on.") I know that a "V" at 1550
> pounds can't ever be a "Sport" aircraft (due to exceeding the 1320 lb
> limitation), but if a pre-built "IV" can't be one either (due to its
> original registration as "Experimental") then the whole "resale" issue
> (at least from the "Sport-Pilot" standpoint) appears to be a moot point.
> This whole "Sport" thing reminds me of changes to the IRS Tax-Code: kind
> of complicated, with no easily accessible authority to derive answers
> from (but I'll certainly review the EAA website as closely as I can.)
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Don Gantt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem
> Nichols
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols"
>
> Don:
>
> That's certainly my understanding of the rule. I'm no Philadelphia
> lawyer, however. It's also my understanding that even though my Model
> IV meets all the specifications for a sport plane it can never qualify
> as one because it's already registered with the FAA in the experimental
> category.
> Therefore there's nothing I could do short of getting an A&P rating
> which would allow me to legally do my own annual condition inspection as
> I didn't build the plane. It's my understanding that in the Sport plane
> category the owner can take a course which would allow him to do the
> annual even if he didn't build the plane. I'm sure others will chime
> in. Complete rules, if you're interested, are on the EAA web-site.
>
> Clem Nichols
> Do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gantt"
> To:
> Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
> >
> >
> > So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> > regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their
> associated
> > potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> > originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> > then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> > classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it
> will
> > always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> > right?
> >
> > Don Gantt
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
> Jose M. Toro, P.E.
> Kitfox II/582
> "A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Tank Vent |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
George,
I attached a small medicine pill bottle low on the firewall and it works
very well.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
George Wells wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "George Wells" <georgewells@adelphia.net>
>
>The oil tank vent on my 912 in my Model 4 is routed from the tank down the
>firewall and thru the fuselage too the tail like a pitts. This way is great
>for clean undersides but with colder weather coming I can not route it thru
>the fuselage since any moisture in there could freeze. My question is does
>anyone see a problem routing the vent line to a small bottle attached to the
>firewall or some other similar place that would be emptied as required ?
>Thanks -- George
>
>
>
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: | SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Bob,
It can.... There is a Series 7 right now that has a 1320 gross weight and
is registered as Experimental Amateur Built and is being operated by a Sport
Pilot.. it got its AW cert a month ago.
There is a lot of confusion.. There is a difference between the Sport Pilot
Rule and the Light Sport Aircraft rule: One is certification of Sport
Pilots and the other is certification of Sport Aircraft. A pilot with a
Sport Pilot license or a Private Pilots license operating as a Sport pilot
can fly any aircraft that meets the Sport Aircraft definition.. The Feds
aren't even sure what's going to happen... amendments can be made at any
time and most likely will.
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 Bob Unternaehrer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
<shilohcom@c-magic.com>
Since the builder can set the Gross Weight of his airplane, why couldn't a
new airplane (series 5) be certified for 1320 lbs and qualify for sport
pilot operations. Once I was talking to Titan Owner at OSH about the T-51
mustang and ask him what the gross weight was. "We made it 12??, or what
ever the old figure was, to qualify for sport pilot, but it will handle much
more" Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gantt" <DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: SportPilot/Gross Weight Issue
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gantt"
<DGantt@millionairdallas.com>
>
> So....let's see if I'm correctly understanding the e-mail tree with
> regard to the gross weights of the various models, and their associated
> potential classification for Sport Pilot: If an existing Series-V was
> originally built to it's ultimate intended max gross of 1550 pounds,
> then conceivably it will never be eligible for Sport Pilot
> classification (as it exceeds the limit of 1320 pounds.) Thus, it will
> always have to be operated under standard Private Pilot rules. Sound
> right?
>
> Don Gantt
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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! --
|