Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:35 AM - Re: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL (Jimmie Blackwell)
2. 03:36 AM - Re: Rotax 582 ers!! (Jimmie Blackwell)
3. 03:45 AM - Re: Hello to all my friends (Fox5flyer)
4. 03:51 AM - Re: VG's and the testing process (Fox5flyer)
5. 03:58 AM - Re: Barrel Rolls (Fox5flyer)
6. 04:00 AM - Re: Hello to all my friends (Larry Huntley)
7. 04:01 AM - tall gear (Fox5flyer)
8. 05:47 AM - Wing Tank Fuel Fitting (Steve Magdic)
9. 07:15 AM - Static Rpm specs for a 912ul with a IVO inflight prop ()
10. 07:44 AM - Re: Barrel Rolls (Lowell Fitt)
11. 08:37 AM - Re: Barrel Rolls (customtrans@qwest.net)
12. 09:00 AM - Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls (Bruce Harrington)
13. 09:24 AM - Dust Devil Story (Harris, Robert)
14. 10:10 AM - Re: Dust Devil Story (Lowell Fitt)
15. 10:10 AM - Re: Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls (Lowell Fitt)
16. 10:14 AM - Re: Barrel Rolls (Lowell Fitt)
17. 11:14 AM - Re: Barrel Rolls (customtrans@qwest.net)
18. 11:20 AM - Good Info to know. Re: Dust Devil Story (Harris, Robert)
19. 12:48 PM - Just a Newbie to the Kolb-list (Tom O'Hara)
20. 01:34 PM - New coolant specified by Rotax. (Torgeir Mortensen)
21. 02:07 PM - Re: Skyfox? (Michel Verheughe)
22. 02:31 PM - Re: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting (Allan Aaron)
23. 03:07 PM - Re: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting (Torgeir Mortensen)
24. 05:21 PM - Re: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL (John King)
25. 05:40 PM - Re: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL (Jimmie Blackwell)
26. 09:44 PM - Re: Dust Devil Story (AV8OR27RL@cs.com)
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: | Re: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
John
Thanks for the information. I put a mechanical gauge on and the oil
pressure is steady between 70 and 80 psi. That leads me to think the
problem is either the sender or gauge. I sure hate to spend over $200 for a
sender for an 8 year old instrument. For the time being I plan on using a
separate oil pressure gauge and later on installing an EIS.
Since my plane is 8 years old I bet all the hoses are that old as well.
Just to be safe I will be replacing all the hoses. I am not familiar with
the AN fittings for the hoses. Would appreciate knowing where you got the
Aero Flex hose and AN fittings.
Thank you.
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "John King" <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>
> Jimmy,
>
> I had the same problem with my Model IV a few years ago and last week
> with my Series 6. Both had a Westach quad gauge. In both cases I
> proved that the problem was the oil sensor by installing a mechanical
> oil pressure gauge. Today for some strange unexplained reason the price
> of a replacement Westach oil pressure sensor is well over $200.00. I
> haven't decided on a permanent fix yet, but might just stick with the
> mechanical oil pressure gauge. Oil pressure gauges, 1/8" aluminum
> tubing and some AN fittings are not expensive.
>
> If your problem turns out to not be an instrumentation problem, then the
> most probable cause is a restriction in the oil supply or return system,
> like a oil line hose or connector. In both my Model IV and Series 6, I
> installed the AeroFlex type of hoses with AN fittings. Much easier to
> remove and more reliable in my opinion (AN fittings versus hose cable
> clamps) I suggest you locate where the problem is first before you go
> changing out all of the oil hoses. Also check your oil cooler and
> filter for restrictions. My money's on the instrumentation.
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
> Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
<jablackwell@ev1.net>
> >
> >Recently I experienced an oil pressure problem indication. I am
concerned about the oil pressure indication showing on my Westach quad
gauge. At low rpm, 2000-2500 my oil pressure gauge fluctuates wildly from
60 to 100 psi. Bringing the rpm up to over 3000 rpm settles the gauge down
to between 60 and 80 psi. I am trying to determine whether I have an oil
sensor problem. electrical problem or an actual oil pressure problem.
> >
> >Talking to Lockwood they seem to think that I have an oil pressures
sensor problem. A new sensor for the Westach is expensive. Talking to
another Rotax repair facility' they suggest also that it is probably an oil
pressure sensor problem, but it may be a rubber oil line that is collapsing.
> >
> >Wonder if any of you had these problems.
> >
> >Before I get airborne again I plan to replace all the oil lines just be
safe. Hopefully someone can tell me what size and type hoses to buy to
replace the oil lines.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Jimmie
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Rotax 582 ers!! |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
I will buy the second sender if you have one.
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "John King" <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 ers!!
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>
> Don,
>
> I have talked about it before, but you missed it. I will send you a
> picture direct to your retirement home. BTW, if you happen to have any
> spare oil pressure sensors for the Westac Quad Gauge, please send one
> my way. I'll pay up to $30.00.
>
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
>
> AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 10/13/04 4:54:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >planecrazy@erols.com writes:
> >
> ><< about3 inches long with about 1/2 diameter . He has mounted this "
catch
> > just where the sacred over flow lines hang down on each carb so they are
> > inside this sirenge about an inch and then he has another fuel line that
>>
> >
> >Chuck,
> > Hard to picture, need a picture. I don't recall John ever talking
about
> >this.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Don Smythe
> >N-998DS Classic IV W/ 582
> >Do Not Archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Hello to all my friends |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Welcome back Elbie. Glad to have your expertise with us!
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: <EMAproducts@aol.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Hello to all my friends
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
>
> Hello listers,
> I'm back on the list after a long absence. I hope my friends are now
flying
> that were 99% completed when I left the list :-) as we know it doesn't
> happen easily. As always I'm open to assisting those who have questions on
flying
> in general, my KitFox experience is very minimal~assisted one customer
setting
> up his system in his Honda powered Fox and loved the plane, hope to get
more
> time in the Fox in future. Please, if question is not one that majority
of
> listers will benefit from, send it to me off list.
> Sincerely and Keep the Foxes flying!
> Elbie Mendenhall
> EM Aviation www.riteangle.com
>
>
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: | Re: VG's and the testing process |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
One problem I've always had is that my turtle deck has a slight vibration to
it during cruise. I wonder if the VGs placed forward on the windshield (LP)
would help or exacerbate this vibration?
Darrel
> > No I could not measure any difference in cruise or
> > top speed. But my top
> > sea level cruise speed is almost structural redline.
> >
> > Oh, I did in fact, use 17 degrees on the VG's also.
> >
> > Jim Shumaker
>
> OK, Jim,
>
> I will definately have to try the more forward
> position and the 17 degree angle next year. It could
> turn out that either or both are required for the
> speed reduction on my plane.
>
> I wondered about the 15 degrees anyway. Things tend
> to stall and create vortex's better past 16 degrees,
> if I remember correctly. But Renolds # are in play
> too. I just stayed with the book angle on my tests.
>
> I am still a long way from VNE at cruise. Still need
> to reduce the drag on my plane. Currently my cruise
> is under 100 mph, unless I want to burn a lot of gas.
> Since my fairing mod, I haven't tested max level
> speed, or max climb rates, or takeoff and landing
> distances, or... more fun stuff to test.
>
> Right now I am using adequate power and not awsome
> power to takeoff and climb. I use max throttle at
> 4400 rpm for my upper limit. 4800 is the real max
> continuous and 5600 rpm is tops. There is a big jump
> in power from 5200 rpm to 5600. I am saving that for
> later. It is becoming a good plane.
>
> Got to look into the SS valves soon too, before I do
> the high power stuff too much.
>
> Kurt S.
>
>
> _______________________________
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
>
>
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: Barrel Rolls |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Thank you Kurt. I'm really surprised that others haven't jumped in here on
this. I met a guy at the Acey Ducey at Oshkosh a few years ago who said
that the long wing Fox5 rolls nicely and that he rolls his nearly every time
he flies it. I guess I assumed that others were doing it too.
Darrel
> > > I tried standard rolls starting at 100 knots.
> > That was more than the Fox needed. I used 10
> degrees
> > > nose up for the entry, but didn't get close enough
> > > to zero G's on entry and went a bit nose low
> > > inverted.
> >..........
> > When you say standard rolls, it sounds like you're
> > speaking of barrel rolls.
> > Semantics? If so, wouldn't about 25 to 30 degrees
> > up be a better entry before rolling inverted?
>
> Ok, my definitions:
>
> 1. A standard roll is where you keep the nose pointed
> in the same direction on the horizon, though it may
> move vertically a bit. I found that 10 degrees nose
> up to 10 degrees nose down works for aircraft that
> roll ok, if I do the maneuver right. You need about
> zero "G's" at the roll start. For a slow roller, more
> nose up is required.
>
> 2. A barrel roll is when the nose is pulled up
> vertically while rolling 45 degrees to one side, then
> continuing the roll until you are higher than the
> start altitude, inverted, and 90 degrees off heading.
>
> Then you continue the same pull as in a split "s", but
> continue the roll too until you are 90 degrees turned,
> back on the origional heading, and on your origional
> start altitude too. It is like a rolling loop, but
> takes less G's than a loop. The nose never exceeds 45
> degrees up or down due to the roll. The aircraft
> stress is still high due to the roll twist on the wing
> though.
>
> I haven't done barrel rolls in a long long time.
>
> In navy jet training we did a lot of the same stuff
> the Blue Angles do, but further apart and not anywhere
> near the ground. You learn that sensitivity goes up
> with G load. A formation loop trying to maintain 20'
> spread is a workload. Stick corrections that work
> fine in 1 G formation, are 3 times too much in the
> loop. And a plane that rolls 420 degrees/second is
> mighty touchy on the stick to begin with. Now I can't
> even roll my Fox nicely. Getting old is a pain...
>
> Jim Franklin's video makes it look easy in his IV. I
> keep it on my 'puter. He doesn't seem to ever exceed
> 110 mph, by my guess. Of course that is a IV. You'll
> need a little more speed in a "heavy" Fox. But if it
> won't do a loop or any other maneuver with 120 mph, it
> is too close to VNE to try, IMHO. You need room for
> error.
>
> Kurt S.
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: Hello to all my friends |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" <asq1@adelphia.net>
Hi Elbie,
Good to have you here. I too have returned after a long absence. Still
waiting to see your Rite Angle AOA on your Funk. ;o)
Larry Huntley,Kitfox 4-1200,EA81,Dundee,NY,USA
From: <EMAproducts@aol.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Hello to all my friends
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
>
> Hello listers,
> I'm back on the list after a long absence. I hope my friends are now
flying
> that were 99% completed when I left the list :-) as we know it doesn't
> happen easily. As always I'm open to assisting those who have questions on
flying
> in general, my KitFox experience is very minimal~assisted one customer
setting
> up his system in his Honda powered Fox and loved the plane, hope to get
more
> time in the Fox in future. Please, if question is not one that majority
of
> listers will benefit from, send it to me off list.
> Sincerely and Keep the Foxes flying!
> Elbie Mendenhall
> EM Aviation www.riteangle.com
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
If I can jump in here, I believe this is partly right. The Melniks gear
was bent from a bad ground loop, and unless I'm mistaken it was at Oshkosh.
I don't think it was the fault of the gear, but Danny might want to jump in
here to ensure the facts are accurate. It was a new airplane and they
unfortunately got caught by a crosswind, and on pavement with a taildragger
it's a well known theme. Nobody's fault. Just one of those "gotchas".
Also, the gear wasn't made by Grove (if I'm wrong here, somebody straighten
me up). I can't remember the manufacturer, but I was told by Skystar that
the reason they went to the different (Grove) gear was that the airplane sat
up too high with the tall one. I have the tall type we're talking about and
I love it. Makes 3pt landings a breeze because the landing angle is perfect
and I don't have to slam down on the tailwheel first. The gear is very
strong with lots of spring so it can really soften up what would otherwise
be a hard landing. Probably 90 percent of my landings are on grass or
unimproved strips and I don't think I'd want any other gear to do the job.
Regards,
Darrel
> The origional tall gear got to the Melniks too. They
> bent it in the sand at Sun & Fun when the plane was
> brand new. I agree, it didn't look as secure to me
> either.
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: | Wing Tank Fuel Fitting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
N490PA just underwent a thorough inspection (@$45/hr.) yesterday. The A&P found
one of my push type fuel drain fittings
to be leaking. After I futzed with it a bit it started leaking even more. Can anyone
tell me the thread size for replacement?
It's either a #H7249 (1/8) or a H7263 (1/4). I have full tanks and don't want to
pull it until I have a replacement in hand.
Thanks!
Steve Magdic
KitFox in WIS.
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: | Static Rpm specs for a 912ul with a IVO inflight prop |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <av8rps@tznet.com>
I have a friend that just re-powered his Avid with a 80hp 912, and installed
the patriot blade IVO electric inflight adjustable prop. His first flight
at low pitch would only allow him to get to 5300 rpm at 100 mph. He
obviously needs to adjust it so he can get better performance and rpm. So
he asked me if I would check with all of you to find out what static rpm you
would recommend he should have while testing it on the ground? Any input
would help him out.
(Incidentally, his aircraft gained about 20 pounds of weight after removing
a 618 two stroke and installing the 912ul.)
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Barrel Rolls |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Hi Bill (Apples)
I have often thought about all the tongue clicking that would follow an
accident while flying low. And I agree with Rick in explaining what we
do,
"If I get a wind shear or sudden engine failure then IM most likely done. So
I am not judging anyone for doing what they enjoy."
I also think of the proximity speed thing at times while clipping along at
70 or more mph in my car. We do this all the time and haven't a clue as to
the competence of the next lane driver or the one facing us down the road.
I guess it is what we get used to. But when on a long cross country and the
eyelids are getting a little heavy, going down to check out the sunflowers
is a certain pick me up.
Actually, though, I suspect that comparing military aircraft with their
speeds and Kitfoxes with their speeds regarding low flying to be a little
like the apples and oranges thing. I doubt that the fatality rate would be
remotely close to 100% nor the debris field miles long.
We did have one incident two years ago that we still talk about (and always
will), when one of the guys flew through a dust devil at about 100 ft. His
mortality was presented to him big time in that moment. I was about 50 yds
behind him at the time and saw the whole thing. He was never in real danger
of crashing, but he didn't know it at the time. He had a ton of hours in
his Fox though, and was a very skilled Kitfox pilot which likely helped him
a lot.
Anyway, I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the possible dangers
etc. Maybe this is why I feel more confident low with the group - lots of
eyes looking for obstacles and usually more than one pair at higher
elevations looking also. But, I enjoy it and for me it is worth it.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "William J. Applegate" <bigapple@gct21.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
<bigapple@gct21.net>
>
> Hi Troops,
>
> I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
> but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
> officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety briefings
> to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
> record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
> for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
> are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know it
> like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing, you
> can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
> included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't mean
> you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have and
> it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
>
> I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and eyes
> firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
>
> Apples
>
> Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> >This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group that
flew
> >to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I remember
> >one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking - his
> >wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
wingspan
> >of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and sunflower
> >fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota. We've
> >chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho
and
> >passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming at
> >near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh trip
> >that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a
little
> >less enticing.
> >
> >I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when alone. I
> >would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I just
> >didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
> >opportunity someday.
> >
> >Lowell
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> >>
> >>
> ><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >>Rick,
> >>
> >>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
> >>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
> >>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
> >>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
> >>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
> >>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
> >>
> >>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
> >>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
> >>mornings of course.
> >>
> >>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
> >>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
> >>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
> >>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
> >>name. I need to practice.....
> >>
> >>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
> >>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
> >>land worse than when I started.
> >>
> >>Kurt S.
> >>
> >>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
> >>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
> >>>consequences for error to great. .......
> >>>
> >>>
> >>__________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
People,
I just signed up on the group. I have a 1200 IV with the 912ul 80 engine.
I love this plane and put about 200 hrs. this year on it, until an accident
a couple months ago. Now to start with, I've never done the aerobatics in
the plane, but I love the response of the controls. First off, the cruise
with the powerfin three blade, ends cut down I think 2" was at 5800 rpm
about 112mph. I too like to fly low, sometimes at about 105mph, but when
things get hairy, I slow down to about 90. I don't like going down to 20ft.
off the deck, over water I've done it(make sure you fly next to shore) but
generally I would stay above 50ft. I usually will only fly this low when in
formation with someone else, generally 500ft behind, I don't like to take
the lead, and I've made this comment quit often, "I like to follow, that way
if YOU hit something I can move out of the way" When I lead, I will go up to
100ft. above the ground. I like landing and taking off as a flight, very
fun, I found even with the fox that being directly behind another fox WILL
give you turbulence, so I like to have the first plane to the left of the
runway and I'll follow on the right, another trick is to lift off before the
other, or at least be on a climb that is more than the other. On landings I
perfected the wheel landing, so much, that it did cause me a problem on my
accident, on an unimproved field, on touch down I hit a good size hole and
took out the left landing gear(bungee type) and I got thrown into the trees
on the side of the runway, at the same time I powered up for control and
thought I was going to make it out of the immediate ground loop and didn't
see a smaller tree(15ft.) off to the right. I went 45degrees off runway,
this tree hit my horizontal stab and straightened me out and then I hit
another tree dead on 100 ft. away and took out the right wing. I know this
all sounds horrid and it was. Another factor in all this was the fact that
the outside temp was around 105 with high density. So what happens when you
have high density, a higher ground speed than indicated. I touched down on
the wheels, indicated was normal, about 50, but that ground speed had to be
way up there. I hit with a loud noise and immediately felt a shimmy shake
and I do have fast responses and leveled the wings and hit the throttle, but
it still shot to the left. I did not get hurt one bit, the way I hit the
last tree saved my bacon. I do have a fox that's damaged and to repair will
take some time.
What an intro to the group, an accident report, but that's what happened. I
will say, accidents are bad for the plane, bad for the pilot, and bad for
the pocket book. Not to mention how much you have to shack that foot to get
the FAA off. I can't begine to respond to what I have learned. If I ever
get the plane flying again, I will still fly low, it's just those landings
into an unimproved fleild that I might think twice on. I've since learned
there is problems with the bungee landing gear, so the spring gear does
interest me very much. One more note, the left gear completely broke off the
support tube from the bungee to the wheel and twisted the other tubes to the
wheel, the bungee, still intact.
The prop, as reported from powerfin, can take a ground strike, even at full
power, they claim that they are designed to save the engine. Ivo is also
suppose to save the engine. My fingers are crossed on that one.
have a nice day and happy flying to all.
steve a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of William J.
Applegate
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
<bigapple@gct21.net>
Hi Troops,
I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety briefings
to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know it
like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing, you
can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't mean
you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have and
it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and eyes
firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
Apples
Lowell Fitt wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
>This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group that flew
>to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I remember
>one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking - his
>wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
wingspan
>of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and sunflower
>fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota. We've
>chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho and
>passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming at
>near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh trip
>that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a little
>less enticing.
>
>I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when alone. I
>would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I just
>didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
>opportunity someday.
>
>Lowell
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
>>
>>
><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>
>>Rick,
>>
>>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
>>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
>>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
>>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
>>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
>>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
>>
>>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
>>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
>>mornings of course.
>>
>>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
>>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
>>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
>>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
>>name. I need to practice.....
>>
>>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
>>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
>>land worse than when I started.
>>
>>Kurt S.
>>
>>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
>>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
>>>consequences for error to great. .......
>>>
>>>
>>__________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Lowell,
Going to and from the old Annual SkyStar Kitfox Fly-Ins with Dave King
(recently deceased) as wing-man, I used to terrain follow in Eastern Oregon.
Time went faster in those desolute areas, as did the old 582ed Fox, when
down in ground effect. We always deviated from cattle and homesteads. Cars
on the roads were targets for both of us. If the engine failed, I could set
her down almost anywhere and walk away.
On the Oregon Air Tours, I and other members of the "Tractor Squadron",
would also terrain follow in the remote areas of Oregon, Idaho, Calif., and
Washington. Tractors, boats, trains, and rafters always waved back at us.
I miss this aspect of flying old N194KF, as I won't take the 140-150 mph
Sonex that low (except past a friends place for a short distance).
Keep up the fun aspect of flying the Kitfoxes!
bh
> Hi Bill (Apples)
>
> I have often thought about all the tongue clicking that would follow an
> accident while flying low. And I agree with Rick in explaining what we
> do,
>
> "If I get a wind shear or sudden engine failure then IM most likely done.
> So
> I am not judging anyone for doing what they enjoy."
>
> I also think of the proximity speed thing at times while clipping along
> at
> 70 or more mph in my car. We do this all the time and haven't a clue as
> to
> the competence of the next lane driver or the one facing us down the road.
> I guess it is what we get used to. But when on a long cross country and
> the
> eyelids are getting a little heavy, going down to check out the
> sunflowers
> is a certain pick me up.
>
>
> Actually, though, I suspect that comparing military aircraft with their
> speeds and Kitfoxes with their speeds regarding low flying to be a little
> like the apples and oranges thing. I doubt that the fatality rate would
> be
> remotely close to 100% nor the debris field miles long.
> We did have one incident two years ago that we still talk about (and
> always
> will), when one of the guys flew through a dust devil at about 100 ft.
> His
> mortality was presented to him big time in that moment. I was about 50
> yds
> behind him at the time and saw the whole thing. He was never in real
> danger
> of crashing, but he didn't know it at the time. He had a ton of hours in
> his Fox though, and was a very skilled Kitfox pilot which likely helped
> him
> a lot.
>
> Anyway, I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the possible
> dangers
> etc. Maybe this is why I feel more confident low with the group - lots of
> eyes looking for obstacles and usually more than one pair at higher
> elevations looking also. But, I enjoy it and for me it is worth it.
>
> Lowell
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: | Dust Devil Story |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hey Lowell,
Please tell me more about the dust devil story and how the KitFox handles
when they fly into one. What should one do if they end up in a dust devil?
Robert
-----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: Barrel Rolls
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Hi Bill (Apples)
I have often thought about all the tongue clicking that would follow an
accident while flying low. And I agree with Rick in explaining what we
do,
"If I get a wind shear or sudden engine failure then IM most likely done. So
I am not judging anyone for doing what they enjoy."
I also think of the proximity speed thing at times while clipping along at
70 or more mph in my car. We do this all the time and haven't a clue as to
the competence of the next lane driver or the one facing us down the road.
I guess it is what we get used to. But when on a long cross country and the
eyelids are getting a little heavy, going down to check out the sunflowers
is a certain pick me up.
Actually, though, I suspect that comparing military aircraft with their
speeds and Kitfoxes with their speeds regarding low flying to be a little
like the apples and oranges thing. I doubt that the fatality rate would be
remotely close to 100% nor the debris field miles long.
We did have one incident two years ago that we still talk about (and always
will), when one of the guys flew through a dust devil at about 100 ft. His
mortality was presented to him big time in that moment. I was about 50 yds
behind him at the time and saw the whole thing. He was never in real danger
of crashing, but he didn't know it at the time. He had a ton of hours in
his Fox though, and was a very skilled Kitfox pilot which likely helped him
a lot.
Anyway, I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the possible dangers
etc. Maybe this is why I feel more confident low with the group - lots of
eyes looking for obstacles and usually more than one pair at higher
elevations looking also. But, I enjoy it and for me it is worth it.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "William J. Applegate" <bigapple@gct21.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
<bigapple@gct21.net>
>
> Hi Troops,
>
> I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
> but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
> officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety briefings
> to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
> record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
> for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
> are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know it
> like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing, you
> can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
> included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't mean
> you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have and
> it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
>
> I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and eyes
> firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
>
> Apples
>
> Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> >This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group that
flew
> >to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I remember
> >one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking - his
> >wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
wingspan
> >of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and sunflower
> >fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota. We've
> >chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho
and
> >passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming at
> >near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh trip
> >that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a
little
> >less enticing.
> >
> >I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when alone. I
> >would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I just
> >didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
> >opportunity someday.
> >
> >Lowell
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> >>
> >>
> ><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >>Rick,
> >>
> >>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
> >>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
> >>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
> >>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
> >>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
> >>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
> >>
> >>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
> >>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
> >>mornings of course.
> >>
> >>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
> >>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
> >>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
> >>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
> >>name. I need to practice.....
> >>
> >>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
> >>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
> >>land worse than when I started.
> >>
> >>Kurt S.
> >>
> >>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
> >>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
> >>>consequences for error to great. .......
> >>>
> >>>
> >>__________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Dust Devil Story |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Robert, The pilot thought he had lost the windshield - skylight as the
bounce caused him to hit the cabin top which dislodged his headset - lots of
noise.
From my perspective he made an abrupt turn to the left - almost 90 and
the left wing dropped. I don't recall him losing significant altitude. He
recovered nicely - probably reflexively, but it took a day or two for him to
get back to normal - even mild turbulence unnerved him.
One thought in all this - the dust devil was not loaded with dust, neither
of us actually saw it. but we sure looked, and we still do after that
experience.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Hey Lowell,
>
> Please tell me more about the dust devil story and how the KitFox handles
> when they fly into one. What should one do if they end up in a dust devil?
>
> Robert
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Hi Bill (Apples)
>
> I have often thought about all the tongue clicking that would follow an
> accident while flying low. And I agree with Rick in explaining what we
> do,
>
> "If I get a wind shear or sudden engine failure then IM most likely done.
So
> I am not judging anyone for doing what they enjoy."
>
> I also think of the proximity speed thing at times while clipping along
at
> 70 or more mph in my car. We do this all the time and haven't a clue as
to
> the competence of the next lane driver or the one facing us down the road.
> I guess it is what we get used to. But when on a long cross country and
the
> eyelids are getting a little heavy, going down to check out the
sunflowers
> is a certain pick me up.
>
>
> Actually, though, I suspect that comparing military aircraft with their
> speeds and Kitfoxes with their speeds regarding low flying to be a little
> like the apples and oranges thing. I doubt that the fatality rate would
be
> remotely close to 100% nor the debris field miles long.
> We did have one incident two years ago that we still talk about (and
always
> will), when one of the guys flew through a dust devil at about 100 ft.
His
> mortality was presented to him big time in that moment. I was about 50
yds
> behind him at the time and saw the whole thing. He was never in real
danger
> of crashing, but he didn't know it at the time. He had a ton of hours in
> his Fox though, and was a very skilled Kitfox pilot which likely helped
him
> a lot.
>
> Anyway, I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the possible
dangers
> etc. Maybe this is why I feel more confident low with the group - lots of
> eyes looking for obstacles and usually more than one pair at higher
> elevations looking also. But, I enjoy it and for me it is worth it.
>
> Lowell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William J. Applegate" <bigapple@gct21.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
> <bigapple@gct21.net>
> >
> > Hi Troops,
> >
> > I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
> > but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
> > officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety briefings
> > to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
> > record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
> > for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
> > are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know it
> > like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing, you
> > can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
> > included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't mean
> > you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have and
> > it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
> >
> > I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and eyes
> > firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
> >
> > Apples
> >
> > Lowell Fitt wrote:
> >
> > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> > >
> > >This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group that
> flew
> > >to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I
remember
> > >one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking - his
> > >wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
> wingspan
> > >of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and
sunflower
> > >fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota. We've
> > >chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho
> and
> > >passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming
at
> > >near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh
trip
> > >that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a
> little
> > >less enticing.
> > >
> > >I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when alone.
I
> > >would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I
just
> > >didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
> > >opportunity someday.
> > >
> > >Lowell
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> > >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> > >>
> > >>
> > ><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >>Rick,
> > >>
> > >>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
> > >>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
> > >>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
> > >>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
> > >>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
> > >>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
> > >>
> > >>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
> > >>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
> > >>mornings of course.
> > >>
> > >>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
> > >>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
> > >>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
> > >>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
> > >>name. I need to practice.....
> > >>
> > >>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
> > >>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
> > >>land worse than when I started.
> > >>
> > >>Kurt S.
> > >>
> > >>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
> > >>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
> > >>>consequences for error to great. .......
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>__________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Bruce, Can't stop now. Sorry to hear about Dave, didn't know.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
>
> Hi Lowell,
>
> Going to and from the old Annual SkyStar Kitfox Fly-Ins with Dave King
> (recently deceased) as wing-man, I used to terrain follow in Eastern
Oregon.
> Time went faster in those desolute areas, as did the old 582ed Fox, when
> down in ground effect. We always deviated from cattle and homesteads.
Cars
> on the roads were targets for both of us. If the engine failed, I could
set
> her down almost anywhere and walk away.
>
> On the Oregon Air Tours, I and other members of the "Tractor Squadron",
> would also terrain follow in the remote areas of Oregon, Idaho, Calif.,
and
> Washington. Tractors, boats, trains, and rafters always waved back at us.
>
> I miss this aspect of flying old N194KF, as I won't take the 140-150 mph
> Sonex that low (except past a friends place for a short distance).
>
> Keep up the fun aspect of flying the Kitfoxes!
> bh
>
> > Hi Bill (Apples)
> >
> > I have often thought about all the tongue clicking that would follow an
> > accident while flying low. And I agree with Rick in explaining what
we
> > do,
> >
> > "If I get a wind shear or sudden engine failure then IM most likely
done.
> > So
> > I am not judging anyone for doing what they enjoy."
> >
> > I also think of the proximity speed thing at times while clipping along
> > at
> > 70 or more mph in my car. We do this all the time and haven't a clue as
> > to
> > the competence of the next lane driver or the one facing us down the
road.
> > I guess it is what we get used to. But when on a long cross country and
> > the
> > eyelids are getting a little heavy, going down to check out the
> > sunflowers
> > is a certain pick me up.
> >
> >
> > Actually, though, I suspect that comparing military aircraft with their
> > speeds and Kitfoxes with their speeds regarding low flying to be a
little
> > like the apples and oranges thing. I doubt that the fatality rate would
> > be
> > remotely close to 100% nor the debris field miles long.
> > We did have one incident two years ago that we still talk about (and
> > always
> > will), when one of the guys flew through a dust devil at about 100 ft.
> > His
> > mortality was presented to him big time in that moment. I was about 50
> > yds
> > behind him at the time and saw the whole thing. He was never in real
> > danger
> > of crashing, but he didn't know it at the time. He had a ton of hours
in
> > his Fox though, and was a very skilled Kitfox pilot which likely helped
> > him
> > a lot.
> >
> > Anyway, I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the possible
> > dangers
> > etc. Maybe this is why I feel more confident low with the group - lots
of
> > eyes looking for obstacles and usually more than one pair at higher
> > elevations looking also. But, I enjoy it and for me it is worth it.
> >
> > Lowell
>
>
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: | Re: Barrel Rolls |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Steve, From your post and the description of your airplane, my guess is
that it is the same one that flew through the dust devil. Am I right?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <customtrans@qwest.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
>
> People,
> I just signed up on the group. I have a 1200 IV with the 912ul 80 engine.
> I love this plane and put about 200 hrs. this year on it, until an
accident
> a couple months ago. Now to start with, I've never done the aerobatics in
> the plane, but I love the response of the controls. First off, the cruise
> with the powerfin three blade, ends cut down I think 2" was at 5800 rpm
> about 112mph. I too like to fly low, sometimes at about 105mph, but when
> things get hairy, I slow down to about 90. I don't like going down to
20ft.
> off the deck, over water I've done it(make sure you fly next to shore)
but
> generally I would stay above 50ft. I usually will only fly this low when
in
> formation with someone else, generally 500ft behind, I don't like to take
> the lead, and I've made this comment quit often, "I like to follow, that
way
> if YOU hit something I can move out of the way" When I lead, I will go up
to
> 100ft. above the ground. I like landing and taking off as a flight, very
> fun, I found even with the fox that being directly behind another fox WILL
> give you turbulence, so I like to have the first plane to the left of the
> runway and I'll follow on the right, another trick is to lift off before
the
> other, or at least be on a climb that is more than the other. On landings
I
> perfected the wheel landing, so much, that it did cause me a problem on my
> accident, on an unimproved field, on touch down I hit a good size hole and
> took out the left landing gear(bungee type) and I got thrown into the
trees
> on the side of the runway, at the same time I powered up for control and
> thought I was going to make it out of the immediate ground loop and didn't
> see a smaller tree(15ft.) off to the right. I went 45degrees off runway,
> this tree hit my horizontal stab and straightened me out and then I hit
> another tree dead on 100 ft. away and took out the right wing. I know
this
> all sounds horrid and it was. Another factor in all this was the fact
that
> the outside temp was around 105 with high density. So what happens when
you
> have high density, a higher ground speed than indicated. I touched down
on
> the wheels, indicated was normal, about 50, but that ground speed had to
be
> way up there. I hit with a loud noise and immediately felt a shimmy shake
> and I do have fast responses and leveled the wings and hit the throttle,
but
> it still shot to the left. I did not get hurt one bit, the way I hit the
> last tree saved my bacon. I do have a fox that's damaged and to repair
will
> take some time.
>
> What an intro to the group, an accident report, but that's what happened.
I
> will say, accidents are bad for the plane, bad for the pilot, and bad for
> the pocket book. Not to mention how much you have to shack that foot to
get
> the FAA off. I can't begine to respond to what I have learned. If I ever
> get the plane flying again, I will still fly low, it's just those landings
> into an unimproved fleild that I might think twice on. I've since learned
> there is problems with the bungee landing gear, so the spring gear does
> interest me very much. One more note, the left gear completely broke off
the
> support tube from the bungee to the wheel and twisted the other tubes to
the
> wheel, the bungee, still intact.
>
> The prop, as reported from powerfin, can take a ground strike, even at
full
> power, they claim that they are designed to save the engine. Ivo is also
> suppose to save the engine. My fingers are crossed on that one.
>
> have a nice day and happy flying to all.
>
> steve a
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of William J.
> Applegate
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
> <bigapple@gct21.net>
>
> Hi Troops,
>
> I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
> but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
> officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety briefings
> to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
> record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
> for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
> are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know it
> like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing, you
> can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
> included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't mean
> you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have and
> it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
>
> I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and eyes
> firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
>
> Apples
>
> Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> >This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group that
flew
> >to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I remember
> >one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking - his
> >wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
> wingspan
> >of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and sunflower
> >fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota. We've
> >chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho
and
> >passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming at
> >near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh trip
> >that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a
little
> >less enticing.
> >
> >I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when alone. I
> >would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I just
> >didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
> >opportunity someday.
> >
> >Lowell
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> >
> >
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> >>
> >>
> ><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >>Rick,
> >>
> >>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
> >>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
> >>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
> >>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
> >>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
> >>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
> >>
> >>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
> >>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
> >>mornings of course.
> >>
> >>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
> >>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
> >>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
> >>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
> >>name. I need to practice.....
> >>
> >>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
> >>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
> >>land worse than when I started.
> >>
> >>Kurt S.
> >>
> >>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
> >>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
> >>>consequences for error to great. .......
> >>>
> >>>
> >>__________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
I don't think so, I just got the plane in March of this year. I would say
no. If anybody has parts or advice on repair, I also have a couple bent
tubes in the fuse(back twards the tail section), so I will be removing the
skin for repairs.
steve a
-----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: Barrel Rolls
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Steve, From your post and the description of your airplane, my guess is
that it is the same one that flew through the dust devil. Am I right?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <customtrans@qwest.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
>
> People,
> I just signed up on the group. I have a 1200 IV with the 912ul 80 engine.
> I love this plane and put about 200 hrs. this year on it, until an
accident
> a couple months ago. Now to start with, I've never done the aerobatics in
> the plane, but I love the response of the controls. First off, the cruise
> with the powerfin three blade, ends cut down I think 2" was at 5800 rpm
> about 112mph. I too like to fly low, sometimes at about 105mph, but when
> things get hairy, I slow down to about 90. I don't like going down to
20ft.
> off the deck, over water I've done it(make sure you fly next to shore)
but
> generally I would stay above 50ft. I usually will only fly this low when
in
> formation with someone else, generally 500ft behind, I don't like to take
> the lead, and I've made this comment quit often, "I like to follow, that
way
> if YOU hit something I can move out of the way" When I lead, I will go up
to
> 100ft. above the ground. I like landing and taking off as a flight, very
> fun, I found even with the fox that being directly behind another fox WILL
> give you turbulence, so I like to have the first plane to the left of the
> runway and I'll follow on the right, another trick is to lift off before
the
> other, or at least be on a climb that is more than the other. On landings
I
> perfected the wheel landing, so much, that it did cause me a problem on my
> accident, on an unimproved field, on touch down I hit a good size hole and
> took out the left landing gear(bungee type) and I got thrown into the
trees
> on the side of the runway, at the same time I powered up for control and
> thought I was going to make it out of the immediate ground loop and didn't
> see a smaller tree(15ft.) off to the right. I went 45degrees off runway,
> this tree hit my horizontal stab and straightened me out and then I hit
> another tree dead on 100 ft. away and took out the right wing. I know
this
> all sounds horrid and it was. Another factor in all this was the fact
that
> the outside temp was around 105 with high density. So what happens when
you
> have high density, a higher ground speed than indicated. I touched down
on
> the wheels, indicated was normal, about 50, but that ground speed had to
be
> way up there. I hit with a loud noise and immediately felt a shimmy shake
> and I do have fast responses and leveled the wings and hit the throttle,
but
> it still shot to the left. I did not get hurt one bit, the way I hit the
> last tree saved my bacon. I do have a fox that's damaged and to repair
will
> take some time.
>
> What an intro to the group, an accident report, but that's what happened.
I
> will say, accidents are bad for the plane, bad for the pilot, and bad for
> the pocket book. Not to mention how much you have to shack that foot to
get
> the FAA off. I can't begine to respond to what I have learned. If I ever
> get the plane flying again, I will still fly low, it's just those landings
> into an unimproved fleild that I might think twice on. I've since learned
> there is problems with the bungee landing gear, so the spring gear does
> interest me very much. One more note, the left gear completely broke off
the
> support tube from the bungee to the wheel and twisted the other tubes to
the
> wheel, the bungee, still intact.
>
> The prop, as reported from powerfin, can take a ground strike, even at
full
> power, they claim that they are designed to save the engine. Ivo is also
> suppose to save the engine. My fingers are crossed on that one.
>
> have a nice day and happy flying to all.
>
> steve a
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of William J.
> Applegate
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
> <bigapple@gct21.net>
>
> Hi Troops,
>
> I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
> but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
> officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety briefings
> to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
> record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
> for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
> are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know it
> like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing, you
> can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
> included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't mean
> you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have and
> it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
>
> I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and eyes
> firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
>
> Apples
>
> Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> >This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group that
flew
> >to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I remember
> >one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking - his
> >wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
> wingspan
> >of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and sunflower
> >fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota. We've
> >chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho
and
> >passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming at
> >near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh trip
> >that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a
little
> >less enticing.
> >
> >I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when alone. I
> >would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I just
> >didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
> >opportunity someday.
> >
> >Lowell
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> >
> >
> >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> >>
> >>
> ><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >>Rick,
> >>
> >>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
> >>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
> >>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
> >>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
> >>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
> >>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
> >>
> >>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
> >>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
> >>mornings of course.
> >>
> >>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
> >>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
> >>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
> >>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
> >>name. I need to practice.....
> >>
> >>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
> >>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
> >>land worse than when I started.
> >>
> >>Kurt S.
> >>
> >>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
> >>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
> >>>consequences for error to great. .......
> >>>
> >>>
> >>__________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Dust Devil Story |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Thanks Lowell,
I'm glad dust devils don't cause you to crash. I'll assume the risk and keep
flying low and slow --(Besides you have to fly low and slow every time you
land.)
Robert
-----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: Dust Devil Story
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Robert, The pilot thought he had lost the windshield - skylight as the
bounce caused him to hit the cabin top which dislodged his headset - lots of
noise.
From my perspective he made an abrupt turn to the left - almost 90 and
the left wing dropped. I don't recall him losing significant altitude. He
recovered nicely - probably reflexively, but it took a day or two for him to
get back to normal - even mild turbulence unnerved him.
One thought in all this - the dust devil was not loaded with dust, neither
of us actually saw it. but we sure looked, and we still do after that
experience.
Lowell
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: | Just a Newbie to the Kolb-list |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom O'Hara" <tohara@alphagraphics.com>
Just signed up yesterday and am getting deluged with emails regarding
low/slow and safety. I am Comm. Lighter than Air for the last 22
years(private single prior)-- lighter than air but heavy as hell!! My back
turns 58 next week and am looking for something easier to get my feet of the
ground.
The Balloon Federation haas been trying for years to convince the FAA that
low and slow is safer than high and fast. Note that with a burner failure
that I need at least 1500 feet to reach terminal velociy--- about 1250fpm,
depending upon load. So low in a balloon is safer(just watch for the
wires)-- and also gets one to exhibit flying skills-- any of you could fly a
balloon at 5000 feet-- but try flying a foot off the corn tassels/sun
flowers for 1/2 mile or more!! Anyway, the FAA finally agreed to do a
study. So this year balloon pilots can voluntarily take a FISDO person with
them and legally fly LOW-- balloon must have GPS. Haven't heard whether
many FISDO cops have gotten a free ride-- I don't think I'll volunteer as
there is no promise that you won't be written up.
Am considering switching to ultralights/sport planes as the back is getting
old. Am trying to find good comparative info regarding choices (the Mark
III extra looks pretty nice), building experience, manufacturer support,
maintenance, and all the other stuff.
Could be convinced to swap some LTA time for some Kolb time!!
I am located in Allentown, PA -- about and hour North of Philly.
Oh, I have been high and fast ONCE- 20,000 feet and trucking along at
100knots in a wicker basket!!!
Thanks for any feedback as to whether I should give Kolb some $$
Tom O'Hara
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> Robert, The pilot thought he had lost the windshield - skylight as the
> bounce caused him to hit the cabin top which dislodged his headset - lots
of
> noise.
>
> >From my perspective he made an abrupt turn to the left - almost 90
and
> the left wing dropped. I don't recall him losing significant altitude.
He
> recovered nicely - probably reflexively, but it took a day or two for him
to
> get back to normal - even mild turbulence unnerved him.
>
> One thought in all this - the dust devil was not loaded with dust, neither
> of us actually saw it. but we sure looked, and we still do after that
> experience.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
> <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
> >
> > Hey Lowell,
> >
> > Please tell me more about the dust devil story and how the KitFox
handles
> > when they fly into one. What should one do if they end up in a dust
devil?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> >
> > Hi Bill (Apples)
> >
> > I have often thought about all the tongue clicking that would follow an
> > accident while flying low. And I agree with Rick in explaining what
we
> > do,
> >
> > "If I get a wind shear or sudden engine failure then IM most likely
done.
> So
> > I am not judging anyone for doing what they enjoy."
> >
> > I also think of the proximity speed thing at times while clipping
along
> at
> > 70 or more mph in my car. We do this all the time and haven't a clue as
> to
> > the competence of the next lane driver or the one facing us down the
road.
> > I guess it is what we get used to. But when on a long cross country and
> the
> > eyelids are getting a little heavy, going down to check out the
> sunflowers
> > is a certain pick me up.
> >
> >
> > Actually, though, I suspect that comparing military aircraft with their
> > speeds and Kitfoxes with their speeds regarding low flying to be a
little
> > like the apples and oranges thing. I doubt that the fatality rate would
> be
> > remotely close to 100% nor the debris field miles long.
> > We did have one incident two years ago that we still talk about (and
> always
> > will), when one of the guys flew through a dust devil at about 100 ft.
> His
> > mortality was presented to him big time in that moment. I was about 50
> yds
> > behind him at the time and saw the whole thing. He was never in real
> danger
> > of crashing, but he didn't know it at the time. He had a ton of hours
in
> > his Fox though, and was a very skilled Kitfox pilot which likely helped
> him
> > a lot.
> >
> > Anyway, I agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the possible
> dangers
> > etc. Maybe this is why I feel more confident low with the group - lots
of
> > eyes looking for obstacles and usually more than one pair at higher
> > elevations looking also. But, I enjoy it and for me it is worth it.
> >
> > Lowell
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William J. Applegate" <bigapple@gct21.net>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate"
> > <bigapple@gct21.net>
> > >
> > > Hi Troops,
> > >
> > > I don't usually comment on subjects like barrel rolls and flying low,
> > > but today I feel compelled to do so. I was an Air Force flying safety
> > > officer and accident investigator and conducted lots of safety
briefings
> > > to squadron and wing personnel. Let me say that one can only tie the
> > > record for flying the lowest. Additionally, the PK (percentage kill)
> > > for hitting the ground is almost 100%. When you are trained to do it,
> > > are competent and proficient at it, have studied the terrain and know
it
> > > like your back yard and am completely focused on what you are doing,
you
> > > can go low and "fast" successfully. But, think of all the caveats I
> > > included here. Also, just because you are successful once doesn't
mean
> > > you always will be. Complacency is the biggest problem you can have
and
> > > it has a tendency to creep up on all of us.
> > >
> > > I hope I haven't come off as preachy, please keep your head up and
eyes
> > > firmly on the target and Fly Safe.
> > >
> > > Apples
> > >
> > > Lowell Fitt wrote:
> > >
> > > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
> > > >
> > > >This is an interesting thread. I too like to fly low. Our group
that
> > flew
> > > >to Oshkosh always flew legally regarding structures etc., but I
> remember
> > > >one stretch when I was flying behind another Kitfox and thinking -
his
> > > >wingspan is 32 ft. what is his altitude AGL. He was well within a
> > wingspan
> > > >of the ground and this for mile after mile across the corn and
> sunflower
> > > >fields of Minnesota and the unplanted prairies of South Dakota.
We've
> > > >chased antelope and mustangs in the deserts of Nevada, Oregon and
Idaho
> > and
> > > >passed over mountain ridges in California, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming
> at
> > > >near tree top level. I have about 11 hours of video of the Oshkosh
> trip
> > > >that I hope to start on once the weather makes outside activities a
> > little
> > > >less enticing.
> > > >
> > > >I must say, though that I fly lower when with a group than when
alone.
> I
> > > >would sure like to hook up with you other low fliers someday. If I
> just
> > > >didn't have to go to work. It looks like retirement might provide the
> > > >opportunity someday.
> > > >
> > > >Lowell
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> > > >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > ><smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Rick,
> > > >>
> > > >>That is my intention too. My plane is for fun other
> > > >>than real acro. I just wanted it in my logbook during
> > > >>testing to cover me for any aggressive maneuvers I
> > > >>might get into. And also to know how well the plane
> > > >>gets me out of my mistakes. I don't see a need to
> > > >>test its limits or hurt it, let alone myself.
> > > >>
> > > >>To me, looking 50' sideways from a mountain peak that
> > > >>no man has ever climbed is a better thrill. Calm
> > > >>mornings of course.
> > > >>
> > > >>My most dangerous activities will certainly be
> > > >>landings, given my current mastery of the task. Since
> > > >>I have been testing the plane and mods so much, I
> > > >>probably haven't got over 60 tailwheel landings to my
> > > >>name. I need to practice.....
> > > >>
> > > >>I found out that practicing in the Camp didn't help so
> > > >>much. Now I flare my Fox high for some reason and
> > > >>land worse than when I started.
> > > >>
> > > >>Kurt S.
> > > >>
> > > >>--- Rick <turboflyer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>OK well two, way back when, with a very seasoned
> > > >>>pilot CFI. The margin for error is too slim and the
> > > >>>consequences for error to great. .......
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>__________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | New coolant specified by Rotax. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Folks,
Back on the list again.
Got this one today, good news!
See below.
You can read more about the new coolant here:
http://www.evanscooling.com/main11.htm
If you like to advertise SB, SI etc..
(BTW. Rotax has issued some more bulletines lately, as -new master
revision status.)
Just sign up here:
(However, you'll be able to download doc's as a guest as well.)
http://www.rotax-owner.com/curdocs.htm
Torgeir.
-------
New Service Bulletin from Rotax.
SUMMARY OF SERVICE BULLETINS SB-912-043 / SB-914-029:
THIS SUMMARY IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SERVICE
BULLETIN.
ALL OWNERS, OPERATORS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL SHOULD OBTAIN AND
CAREFULLY REVIEW THE FULL TEXT OF THE
SERVICE BULLETIN.
It has been found that in some instances, a conventional coolant (mixture
of 50% water & 50% anti-freeze)
can vaporize or boil before the
maximum allowable cylinder head temperature is reached.
As a result, the coolant specification for all 912 and 914 engines has
been changed. The new coolant
specified by Rotax is a non-aqueous
(water-less) coolant manufactured by Evans Cooling Systems
( www.evanscooling.com). Please refer to the
text of the Service Bulletin for
complete details.
SB-912-043 /SB-914-029 also require the revision of several operator's and
installation manuals. As
service to Rotax Owners Association
News users, these manual updates have been post to the Rotax Owners
Association News web site ( www.rotax-
owner.com/manualrev/10_11_2004/
mrSB9_043_029.htm )
This e-mail update is provided as a free service to registered users.
Register with Rotax Owners Association News today!
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Jose M. Toro" wrote:
> Since the windshield has a greater angle in the model IV,
> he had to modify the cowling.
Yes, I have seen the photos on usjabiru, Jose. thanks. Ok, so it is the model
IV that has to be modified to fit the Skyfox and the model 3 is a perfect
match. I'll let my Jabiru dealer know about that, thanks.
> So, there is a Jabiru list?
Yes, it is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jabiruengines/
Entonces, hasta pronto en la otra lista, Jose! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Wing Tank Fuel Fitting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
Can't tell you the thread size but suggest you remove the fitting and just check
that there is no foreign material that is preventing the valve from closing
first. That happened on mine just last week.
Allan
________________________________
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Steve Magdic
Subject: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
N490PA just underwent a thorough inspection (@$45/hr.) yesterday. The A&P found
one of my push type fuel drain fittings
to be leaking. After I futzed with it a bit it started leaking even more. Can anyone
tell me the thread size for replacement?
It's either a #H7249 (1/8) or a H7263 (1/4). I have full tanks and don't want to
pull it until I have a replacement in hand.
Thanks!
Steve Magdic
KitFox in WIS.
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: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Steve,
It's very easy to fix this one. Empty your tank and remove the drain,
there is just a replacement of an o-ring of proper quality and size,
-that's all.
When the valve is removed, press the drain and peel out the old o-ring.
Use a kind of plastic or even a needle (into the old o-ring) and lift out
the old one. Make sure that you dont scratch the seating or the groove in
the valve.
Find an o-ring size that fit good into the groove and matching the
original size.
Make a fuel resistant test, if you can't get positive spec.s.
Thats all. Been there, done that.
Torgeir.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:30:06 +1000, Allan Aaron <aaaron@tvp.com.au> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
>
> Can't tell you the thread size but suggest you remove the fitting and
> just check that there is no foreign material that is preventing the
> valve from closing first. That happened on mine just last week.
>
> Allan
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Steve Magdic
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
>
> N490PA just underwent a thorough inspection (@$45/hr.) yesterday. The
> A&P found one of my push type fuel drain fittings
> to be leaking. After I futzed with it a bit it started leaking even
> more. Can anyone tell me the thread size for replacement?
> It's either a #H7249 (1/8) or a H7263 (1/4). I have full tanks and don't
> want to pull it until I have a replacement in hand.
>
> Thanks!
> Steve Magdic
> KitFox in WIS.
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Jimmie,
I said "AeroFlex", but I should have said "AeroQuip". All of the hose and AN fittings
(except two) can be purchased through Aircraft Spruce or Earl's. The
two fittings I had to purchased from Rotax (Lockwood) because they attach to the
engine (one at the oil pump and the other at the bottom of the engine) and
require metric threads. Maybe you can get them now at the other places.
The AeroQuip hoses are designed so that you can attach the AN fittings yourself,
so that you do not have to have custom hoses made to fit your engine configuration.
No special tools required. The procedure is in the Spruce and Earl's
catalog. I can send you pictures of my Series 6 showing the hose setup I designed
if you are interested.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
>
>John
>
>Thanks for the information. I put a mechanical gauge on and the oil
>pressure is steady between 70 and 80 psi. That leads me to think the
>problem is either the sender or gauge. I sure hate to spend over $200 for a
>sender for an 8 year old instrument. For the time being I plan on using a
>separate oil pressure gauge and later on installing an EIS.
>
>Since my plane is 8 years old I bet all the hoses are that old as well.
>Just to be safe I will be replacing all the hoses. I am not familiar with
>the AN fittings for the hoses. Would appreciate knowing where you got the
>Aero Flex hose and AN fittings.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Jimmie
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John King" <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL
>
>
>
>
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: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
John
Please do send me the pictures. I plan to change every hose on the engine
just to be safe. Really appreciate your help.
Jimmie
----- Original Message -----
From: "John King" <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>
> Jimmie,
>
> I said "AeroFlex", but I should have said "AeroQuip". All of the hose and
AN fittings (except two) can be purchased through Aircraft Spruce or Earl's.
The two fittings I had to purchased from Rotax (Lockwood) because they
attach to the engine (one at the oil pump and the other at the bottom of the
engine) and require metric threads. Maybe you can get them now at the other
places.
>
> The AeroQuip hoses are designed so that you can attach the AN fittings
yourself, so that you do not have to have custom hoses made to fit your
engine configuration. No special tools required. The procedure is in the
Spruce and Earl's catalog. I can send you pictures of my Series 6 showing
the hose setup I designed if you are interested.
>
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
>
> Jimmie Blackwell wrote:
>
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
<jablackwell@ev1.net>
> >
> >John
> >
> >Thanks for the information. I put a mechanical gauge on and the oil
> >pressure is steady between 70 and 80 psi. That leads me to think the
> >problem is either the sender or gauge. I sure hate to spend over $200
for a
> >sender for an 8 year old instrument. For the time being I plan on using
a
> >separate oil pressure gauge and later on installing an EIS.
> >
> >Since my plane is 8 years old I bet all the hoses are that old as well.
> >Just to be safe I will be replacing all the hoses. I am not familiar
with
> >the AN fittings for the hoses. Would appreciate knowing where you got
the
> >Aero Flex hose and AN fittings.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >Jimmie
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John King" <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
> >To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Dust Devil Story |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AV8OR27RL@cs.com
On the subject of dust devils late last spring I had an interesting
experience. On very short final I noticed a tumble weed twirling around on the
left
side of the runway at about my intended point of touchdown. There was no
column of dust as the ground was still crusted from the spring rains. After
thinking what the heck then realizing what it was I decided it a great time to
practice a go around. Powered up and established a clime at Vy. (Fast enough to
avoid a stall and slow enough to handle the turbulence.) Thought left or right
but you can't miss what you can't see so I took the middle. Hit some rather
severe turbulence (severe for a Kit Fox) at about 50" AGL but all went well.
We see Dust Devils often but just because we can't see them dose not mean
there not there.
Bob Locey
KitfoxII
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! --
|