---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 10/14/04: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:35:31 AM PST US From: "Jimmie Blackwell" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King > > 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" > > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:36:07 AM PST US From: "Jimmie Blackwell" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 ers!! --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" I will buy the second sender if you have one. Jimmie ----- Original Message ----- From: "John King" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Rotax 582 ers!! > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:45:52 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Hello to all my friends --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" Welcome back Elbie. Glad to have your expertise with us! Darrel ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:51:08 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: VG's and the testing process --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:58:18 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:00:27 AM PST US From: "Larry Huntley" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Hello to all my friends --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" 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: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:01:12 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Kitfox-List: tall gear --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:02 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting From: "Steve Magdic" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:36 AM PST US From: Subject: Kitfox-List: Static Rpm specs for a 912ul with a IVO inflight prop --> Kitfox-List message posted by: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:50 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" > > 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" > > > >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" > >To: > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:28 AM PST US 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 Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" 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" > >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" >To: >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader >> >> > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:00:03 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:55 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" > > 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" > > > >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" > >To: > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:01 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" > > 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" > > 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" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" > > > > > 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" > > > > > >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" > > >To: > > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:25 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Bruce, Can't stop now. Sorry to hear about Dave, didn't know. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Kitfox-List: Low Flying - was Barrel Rolls > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:07 AM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 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: 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" > > > 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" > > > >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" > >To: > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:34 AM PST US From: customtrans@qwest.net Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls --> 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" 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: 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" > > > 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" > > > >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" > >To: > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:53 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: Good Info to know. RE: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:48:42 PM PST US From: "Tom O'Hara" Subject: Kitfox-List: Just a Newbie to the Kolb-list --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom O'Hara" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > 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" > To: > Subject: Kitfox-List: Dust Devil Story > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" > > > > > 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" > > > > 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" > > To: > > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > > > > >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" > > > >To: > > > >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Barrel Rolls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:24 PM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: New coolant specified by Rotax. From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:07:43 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Skyfox? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe "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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:31:32 PM PST US Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting From: "Allan Aaron" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:07:30 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing Tank Fuel Fitting From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" > > 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:21:49 PM PST US From: John King Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King 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" > >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" >To: >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL > > > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:51 PM PST US From: "Jimmie Blackwell" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" 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" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King > > 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" > > > >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" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Oil Pressure Mistery on 912 UL > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:19 PM PST US From: AV8OR27RL@cs.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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