Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:01 AM - Re: series 7 performance (Jim Carriere)
2. 04:57 AM - Re: series 7 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
3. 07:00 AM - Re: series 7 performance (Lowell Fitt)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: series 7 performance (customtrans@qwest.net)
5. 12:45 PM - Re: series 7 performance (William J. Applegate)
6. 01:25 PM - [Off-topic] Sir. WAS: series 7 performance (Michel Verheughe)
7. 01:53 PM - Re: series 7 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
8. 04:01 PM - Re: series 7 performance (customtrans@qwest.net)
9. 05:39 PM - TAIL WHEEL SPRING? (KITFOXPILOT@att.net)
10. 05:39 PM - TAIL WHEEL SPRING? (KITFOXPILOT@att.net)
11. 07:49 PM - Re: TAIL WHEEL SPRING? (david yeamans)
12. 08:41 PM - Re: series 7 performance (kurt schrader)
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 |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=i4QYC+SnsOyFbOszHseA3b0x/ilVO0Hmp/GJg2wyCPnWlTIxEwh6yLv85R7fH8VKHjanyvtnwqtEgnkr9uMbEwwkWqvV+/Orc9mjFrnsSROOfRvjv7tp6TlrcLUD48RNfu9car6Q48Bc/LDQEX9qsayys++gv82LzB3yDCOxs3E=
;
| Subject: | Re: series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
> Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US
> From: Ackerman Laurens <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens
> <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
>
> What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you
> able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar?
> Maximum cruise?
> At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine?
> Other thoughts?
> Thanks in advance.
I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no
one has answered it yet.
I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I
asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed
performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical
altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings,
and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo.
I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average
914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a
similar 912 powered model.
I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and
strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant
speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect
tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most.
A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo
engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop
and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces
100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea
level.
For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell
you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and
induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to
determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag.
In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for
the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that
altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much
less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that
thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag.
What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is
7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment?
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
__________________________________
www.yahoo.com
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: series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Jim,
Good comments on this. Your point about achieving the high airspeeds with
the 914 up at 16000 feet point out the impracticality of this engine. When
you consider the high initial cost, potential heating problems, extra
maintenance, higher overhaul costs, higher fuel burn etc. it just doesn't
seem to be a good choice.
At flight levels above 8000' you can easily cruise at 130 mph TAS and top
out at 140 in Kitfox powered with the Lycoming 0-235 or Continental IO-240.
In our model 5 with the Lycoming, we easily achieve this and burn only 5.2
gph at 130 mph (above 8000'). The kitfox seems to hit an aerodynamic brick
wall around these speeds. Our plane only sees about a 2 mph increase in
speed when we fly with the wheel pants, so they stay off most of the time.
Another Kitfoxer that I know recently switched from a cruise prop to a climb
prop on his Conti powered model 5. His take off and climb performance
improved dramatically, but his cruise speed stayed the same, even though the
new prop had a lower pitch.
Jim, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about the clipped wings. At
higher altitudes, the long wing should be faster, especially if you are
carrying a heavy load.
Cliff
Erie, CO
Kitfox 5, Lycoming 0-235
>> What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you
>> able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar?
>> Maximum cruise?
>> At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine?
>> Other thoughts?
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no
> one has answered it yet.
>
> I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I
> asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed
> performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical
> altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings,
> and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo.
>
> I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average
> 914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a
> similar 912 powered model.
>
> I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and
> strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant
> speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect
> tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most.
>
> A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo
> engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop
> and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces
> 100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea
> level.
>
> For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell
> you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and
> induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to
> determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag.
>
> In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for
> the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that
> altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much
> less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that
> thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag.
>
> What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is
> 7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment?
>
>
> Jim in NW FL
> Series 7 in progress
>
>
> __________________________________
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
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: series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
I just checked the SS website and the 150 mph cruise is indeed the 914 claim
and probably came from the year Ed Downs tried to set some sort of record
flying to Sun N Fun. The other numbers seem pretty reasonable given the
reports of some of the list members.
I also checked the Classic IV numbers and they are virtually what I can get
from my airplane, so in my mind at least the "claims" are justified.
For higher performance, keep in mind "clean", and I think this means more
than fairings.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Carriere" <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
>
> > Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US
> > From: Ackerman Laurens <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
> >
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens
> > <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
> >
> > What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you
> > able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar?
> > Maximum cruise?
> > At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine?
> > Other thoughts?
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no
> one has answered it yet.
>
> I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I
> asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed
> performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical
> altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings,
> and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo.
>
> I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average
> 914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a
> similar 912 powered model.
>
> I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and
> strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant
> speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect
> tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most.
>
> A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo
> engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop
> and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces
> 100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea
> level.
>
> For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell
> you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and
> induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to
> determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag.
>
> In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for
> the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that
> altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much
> less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that
> thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag.
>
> What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is
> 7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment?
>
>
> Jim in NW FL
> Series 7 in progress
>
>
> __________________________________
> www.yahoo.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: | series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
So Jim,
Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays
low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly above
8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I
guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said, when
flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about
clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to death
and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings.
Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised
up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises
the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I do
to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or
is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at 135,
I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like a
better buffer than 125.
steve a
kitfox4 1200 912ul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Carriere
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
> Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US
> From: Ackerman Laurens <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens
> <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
>
> What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you
> able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar?
> Maximum cruise?
> At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine?
> Other thoughts?
> Thanks in advance.
I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no
one has answered it yet.
I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I
asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed
performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical
altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings,
and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo.
I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average
914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a
similar 912 powered model.
I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and
strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant
speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect
tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most.
A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo
engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop
and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces
100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea
level.
For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell
you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and
induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to
determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag.
In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for
the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that
altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much
less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that
thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag.
What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is
7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment?
Jim in NW FL
Series 7 in progress
__________________________________
www.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: series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" <bigapple@gct21.net>
Hi Troops,
At 5000' you will only get 75% of the rated horsepower out of an engine
due to the air density at that altitude, (standard atmosphere). The
turbo gives a boost at 16,000' that increases air density to regain lost
horsepower that would not be available otherwise. Consequently, I don't
believe that you will get 160/170 horsepower out of the engine that is
only rated a 115. This is my understanding of the effect of turbo
charging an engine. If you overboost at lower altitudes you increase
horsepower and HEAT which really can cause serious problems. Have I got
this right or am I missing something here?
Apples (Mr. Apples to you Michel V.)
customtrans@qwest.net wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
>
>So Jim,
>Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays
>low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly above
>8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I
>guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said, when
>flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about
>clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to death
>and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings.
>Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised
>up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises
>the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I do
>to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or
>is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at 135,
>I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like a
>better buffer than 125.
>
>steve a
>kitfox4 1200 912ul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Carriere
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
>
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>>Time: 10:46:25 AM PST US
>>From: Ackerman Laurens <laurensackerman@mflva.net>
>>Subject: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Ackerman Laurens
>><laurensackerman@mflva.net>
>>
>>What is the experience of series 7 owners. Are you
>>able to cruise at 150 mph as claimed by Skystar?
>>Maximum cruise?
>>At what conditions, altitude and what type of engine?
>>Other thoughts?
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>
>I remember reading this message a few days ago, and realize that no
>one has answered it yet.
>
>I can't speak from experience, as I am still building my kit, but I
>asked the same question to Skystar early this year. The claimed
>performance is with the 914 engine, at approximately its critical
>altitude (16,000 feet IIRC). I also asked about speedster wings,
>and was told these weren't a good match to a turbo.
>
>I suspect at more normal altitudes (below 10,000 feet) the average
>914 powered aircraft would see between 0 and 10mph advantage over a
>similar 912 powered model.
>
>I think all of the aerodynamic improvements are implied (wheel and
>strut fairings, false wing ribs, tail feather ribs), and a constant
>speed prop (or VERY coarse cruise prop). I don't know how effect
>tri gear vs taildragger has, probably 1-2 mph at the most.
>
>A few notes- the 914 will put out 100hp up there, while a non-turbo
>engine will give approximately 60% of its sea level power. Now stop
>and consider the reverse- if a naturally aspirated engine produces
>100hp at 16,000 feet, it will produce between 160-170hp at sea
>level.
>
>For the aerodynamicists out there, you do some napkin math to tell
>you that at this altitude and airspeed regime, the profile drag and
>induced drag are in the same ballpark. You can do some more math to
>determine the effects of changing the wingtips on induced drag.
>
>In layman's terms, changing the fiberglass wingtip extensions for
>the clipped speedster wingtips will likely reduce top speed at that
>altitude. This is because the shorter span makes the wings much
>less efficient (and more induced drag- drag due to lift) in that
>thin air, outweighing the small savings in weight and profile drag.
>
>What is the fuel flow? The engine is at full throttle- my bet is
>7-8gph. Can any Rotax owners out there comment?
>
>
>Jim in NW FL
>Series 7 in progress
>
>
>__________________________________
>www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
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: | [Off-topic] Sir. WAS: series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"William J. Applegate" wrote:
> Apples (Mr. Apples to you Michel V.)
Sir, yes Sir!
Michel V, esquire
:-)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Steve,
There are a lot of things that go into the setting of VNE. Not the least of
which is flutter testing. Even if your plane was strong enough for higher
speeds, there may be some flutter or other issues that would prevent you
from safely going faster. Don't do it!!
As a practical matter, descents from altitude can be done at a higher TAS
(True Air Speed). For example if your plane normally cruises at 120 mph TAS,
at 9500' msl your IAS (Indicated Air Speed) would be 102 mph. So, for your
high speed descent you can point the nose way, way down and increase IAS up
to 125 and look at what that will yield: If you are descending from 11000'
an IAS of 125 would give you a TAS of 152. When you get down to 9000', 125
IAS gives you 147 TAS, at 5000' you get 137 TAS. So you can see that for
descents you really don't need a higher VNE because the thin air will keep
the IAS down where it needs to be and let you go much faster. Once you get
below about 3000' agl the descent will be over so soon that any extra speed
is inconsequential.
Does this make sense?
Best Regards,
Cliff
Erie, CO
>
> So Jim,
> Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays
> low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly
> above
> 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I
> guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said,
> when
> flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about
> clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to
> death
> and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings.
> Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised
> up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises
> the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I
> do
> to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or
> is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at
> 135,
> I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like
> a
> better buffer than 125.
>
> steve a
> kitfox4 1200 912ul
>
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: | series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: customtrans@qwest.net
yep
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: series 7 performance
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Steve,
There are a lot of things that go into the setting of VNE. Not the least of
which is flutter testing. Even if your plane was strong enough for higher
speeds, there may be some flutter or other issues that would prevent you
from safely going faster. Don't do it!!
As a practical matter, descents from altitude can be done at a higher TAS
(True Air Speed). For example if your plane normally cruises at 120 mph TAS,
at 9500' msl your IAS (Indicated Air Speed) would be 102 mph. So, for your
high speed descent you can point the nose way, way down and increase IAS up
to 125 and look at what that will yield: If you are descending from 11000'
an IAS of 125 would give you a TAS of 152. When you get down to 9000', 125
IAS gives you 147 TAS, at 5000' you get 137 TAS. So you can see that for
descents you really don't need a higher VNE because the thin air will keep
the IAS down where it needs to be and let you go much faster. Once you get
below about 3000' agl the descent will be over so soon that any extra speed
is inconsequential.
Does this make sense?
Best Regards,
Cliff
Erie, CO
>
> So Jim,
> Would it be a good assumption that if a person "clips his wings" and stays
> low, he will achieve a faster top speed. I for one don't like to fly
> above
> 8000ft. except to get over a mountain. More like 100agl is my height(I
> guess I still do that when clearing a mountain). Now that being said,
> when
> flying in high density, the question will probably arise again about
> clipping and not clipping the wings. I suppose we could beat this to
> death
> and then again maybe not, my choice is going to be with the shorter wings.
> Now that being said, how about the vne with shorter wings? is that raised
> up? what is the difference in the larger aircraft skystar has that raises
> the vne? my 4 is suppose to be 125, I would like that higher, what can I
> do
> to achieve this? all I really want is an extra 10. am I just dreaming or
> is it impossible? Your probably saying, the model 4 will not cruise at
> 135,
> I'm interested in decents at this speed and a cruise close to 120, I like
> a
> better buffer than 125.
>
> steve a
> kitfox4 1200 912ul
>
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: | TAIL WHEEL SPRING? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose
to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side to
side!
Ray
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose
to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side to
side!
Ray
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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: | TAIL WHEEL SPRING? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose
to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side to
side!
Ray
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose
to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side to
side!
Ray
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TAIL WHEEL SPRING? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
Dear Ray,
In your building manuel there is a section that has the tourque value
for bolt and nut sizes. However, the support bracket that holds the tail spring
, should have a spacer to hold the spring in place. Nut loose or not.
Kitfox 317 DY, 582 David
----- Original Message -----
From: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
To: LIST
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: TAIL WHEEL SPRING?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXPILOT@att.net
Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose
to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side
to side!
Ray
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Can ayone advise on how tight the support bracket bolt and lock nuts are suppose
to be on the tail wheel spring? Mine has some play still in it from side to
side!
Ray
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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: | series 7 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Doesn't the series 7 still have a gross weight limit
reduction to 1200 lbs with the clipped wings?
Just another consideration.
Kurt S.
--- customtrans@qwest.net wrote:
> So Jim,
> Would it be a good assumption that if a person
> "clips his wings" and stays
> low, he will achieve a faster top speed........
>
> steve a
> kitfox4 1200 912ul
__________________________________
www.yahoo.com
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! --
|