Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:11 AM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (Michel Verheughe)
2. 04:11 AM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (Fox5flyer)
3. 04:24 AM - Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? (Lynn Matteson)
4. 04:27 AM - Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? (Lynn Matteson)
5. 05:17 AM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (Jim Gilliatt)
6. 05:23 AM - A few questions (upnaway.1@netzero.com)
7. 06:21 AM - Re: A few questions (Dee Young)
8. 06:44 AM - Re: A few questions (Steve Zakreski)
9. 08:14 AM - Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? (Lowell)
10. 08:50 AM - Re: A few questions (Lowell)
11. 09:42 AM - Re: A few questions (Donna and Roger McConnell)
12. 10:26 AM - Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? (Lynn Matteson)
13. 11:20 AM - Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? (Fox5flyer)
14. 11:22 AM - Test (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
15. 11:32 AM - Poly tack (Dee Young)
16. 02:31 PM - Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? (kurt schrader)
17. 03:04 PM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (kurt schrader)
18. 03:27 PM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (kurt schrader)
19. 03:27 PM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (Michel Verheughe)
20. 03:30 PM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (kurt schrader)
21. 03:51 PM - Re: A few questions (Randy Daughenbaugh)
22. 03:57 PM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (kurt schrader)
23. 04:36 PM - Over the Rockies (Victor W. Jacko)
24. 04:38 PM - Re: A few questions (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
25. 05:06 PM - Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 (Jose M. Toro)
26. 08:13 PM - Re: Over the Rockies (Aerobatics@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Thank you for your answers, Steve, Don, Jim and Tom.
Swinging the wings one degree forward could be an answer, Don, but - as you say
- my plane was built in '93 and it is a bit late for that now. An ELT in the
tail would help but, while it is compulsory on Experimental Kitfoxes, here, it
isn't in the Microlight class and I don't have one.
Tom, the new CoG was done empty, without a pilot. Maybe it should be done with
one. But in my case, it is more an act of comparison: I use the same scale, the
same configuration as last year, with the 582. The CoG was then 14.16", close
to the aft limit. Now, I am at 9.5", which is ahead of the fore limit. That's
quite a difference!
I have a few ideas, like the second tailwheel spring that I got but didn't
installed because I was already tail-heavy then. And a new homebuilder soft
tailwheel is also something I plan to have. Moving the battery is something I
might have to do, Jim. I'll keep your email, thanks.
But there are two things I am wondering about:
1) The model 3 is made for both the 582 and 912. The Jab is lighter than the
912. How comes a 912 can fit a model 3, then?
2) Fuel. Those last two years, I did the W&B "empty," that is: with no visible
fuel in the wing tanks. But I know that there is still some in them and in the
header tank, that is mounted aft of the seats. This time, the W&B was done
entirely dry for fuel since I needed to purge every drop of 2 stroke fuel/oil
mixture. I guess I should do a new W&B with some fuel in, then. It would move,
at least, a bit weight in the header tank, aft of the CoG, but ... is the fuel
in the wing tanks supposed to be exactly on the CoG or slightly aft of it?
Cheers,
Michel
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: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Maybe you don't have a problem after all. See below...
> Swinging the wings one degree forward could be an answer, Don, but - as
you say
> - my plane was built in '93 and it is a bit late for that now. An ELT in
the
> tail would help but, while it is compulsory on Experimental Kitfoxes,
here, it
> isn't in the Microlight class and I don't have one.
Since they're already built, swinging the wings would be difficult. As for
the ELT, even though not required, it's a useful option and may fix the
problem.
> Tom, the new CoG was done empty, without a pilot. Maybe it should be done
with
> one. But in my case, it is more an act of comparison: I use the same
scale, the
> same configuration as last year, with the 582. The CoG was then 14.16",
close
> to the aft limit. Now, I am at 9.5", which is ahead of the fore limit.
That's
> quite a difference!
This is a very good point and one that many folks don't consider. You can't
fly the airplane with nobody in it and if your butt in that seat puts you
within limits, you should be good to go. As for the large difference in CG,
have you double checked your figures? Did you actually weigh the two
engines or did you use advertised figures? Manufacturers sometimes tend to
skew numbers in their favor and I've found that the only way to know for
sure is to put 'em on a scale.
>
> I have a few ideas, like the second tailwheel spring that I got but didn't
> installed because I was already tail-heavy then. And a new homebuilder
soft
> tailwheel is also something I plan to have. Moving the battery is
something I
> might have to do, Jim. I'll keep your email, thanks.
That's a very long arm to the tailwheel and the extra spring will make a
considerable difference. Have you used the W/B software that Don Pearsall's
Sportflight.com site offers? Easy to move items around and see where the
balance point ends up.
>
> But there are two things I am wondering about:
> 1) The model 3 is made for both the 582 and 912. The Jab is lighter than
the
> 912. How comes a 912 can fit a model 3, then?
> 2) Fuel. Those last two years, I did the W&B "empty," that is: with no
visible
> fuel in the wing tanks. But I know that there is still some in them and in
the
> header tank, that is mounted aft of the seats. This time, the W&B was done
> entirely dry for fuel since I needed to purge every drop of 2 stroke
fuel/oil
> mixture. I guess I should do a new W&B with some fuel in, then. It would
move,
> at least, a bit weight in the header tank, aft of the CoG, but ... is the
fuel
> in the wing tanks supposed to be exactly on the CoG or slightly aft of it?
> Cheers,
> Michel
This is one that I've never understood. Why woud a person do a W/B
calculation on an airplane with no fuel in the header or oil in the tank?
It'll never leave the ground that way. I did all of mine with the airplane
just the way I'd fly it, full header and with 2 gallons of fuel in each wing
tank. I also initially had a slightly out of the box forward CG, but
filling the header and some fuel in the wing tanks put me right at the
forward edge. Place me (175lb) on the seat and I was well inside. I didn't
consider it an issue after that and the airplane has always flown perfectly.
In fact the more I load it up the faster it flies.
Good luck Michael
Deke
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: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Norm Dowthit? My manual, 'How to cover an aircraft using the Poly-fiber
system' was written by Jon Goldenbaum. At least he's the one who's name
appears on the cover, and it's considered the Bible by all the folks
I've talked to. Jim Miller, of the Poly-fiber outlet near Columbus, OH,
(and who was teaching a PF workshop in Oshkosh this weekend), was the
one who suggested that the lacing could end at the trailing end of the
false ribs. In fact he gave me a real good suggestion....start the
first lace just in front of the rear spar, and the next one goes 2 1/2"
rearward of that, which is exactly what the diameter of the spar is.
That way, spacing doesn't have to be altered when confronting the spar,
as it would have to be if starting at the front of the wing, and going
back.
Lynn
On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 08:31 PM, Steve Cooper wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper"
> <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
>
> ...ya, but it was the "new" rep that said it! ;) Check with Norm
> Dowthit...I'm certain you'll get a different answer...and Norm and Ray
> wrote
> the book.
>
> Steve Cooper
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Flier
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop?
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Hey Lynn, if the Polyfiber guy said so then I sure ain't in a position
> to
> argue! :
> )
>
> I evenly spaced mine all the way if I remember from about 3 or 4
> inches aft
> of the front spar. Has worked fine for me. I used regular round
> lacing but
> ended up using the flat on the Nieuport and I think I'd have used it
> on the
> Kitfox if I'd had it. I thought it might be a pain to work with but
> it's
> not at all.
>
> Enjoy. Fabric is when the thing really starts looking like a plane!
>
> Ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> One more thing, Ted...the Poly-fiber rep in my area told me that when
> rib lacing the Kitfox, I only needed to lace from the trailing edge
> forward to where the false ribs end, Further forward than that, the
> surfaces of the top and bottom of the wing are under pressure, and
> lacing there is not required, and in fact, undesirable because the
> slope of the surfaces would cause the lacing to want to "slide the
> fabric down the curve of the rib." This sounds like it makes
> sense...more for the pressure theory than the sliding fabric
> theory...to me. Thoughts?
>
> Lynn
> On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 07:49 PM, Flier wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> No prob Lynn. Don't sweat it. Polyfiber is pretty forgiving -- but I
>> know
>> how you feel. I've been covering my Nieuport recently which is why I
>> have
>> it in mind. It's been 8 yrs since I covered my IV and it's stood up
>> extremely well. I really like the PF process!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ted
>>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Right you are, Ted...I've got my vert fin and rudder airfoiled and
covered, and I just love walking by that area and drumming my fingers
on it...love that sound!...love that look!
Lynn
On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 09:49 PM, Flier wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Enjoy. Fabric is when the thing really starts looking like a plane!
>
> Ted
>
>
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: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Gilliatt <jim.gilliatt@att.net>
Hi Mike,
Just a couple of things: I forgot to give you the name of the fellow
that had the Jab in the Kitfox III. His name is Oscar Calderon, and he
had said that the Jab people had recommended the battery placement. So
you might want to contact them, but you probably have already thought of
that. Good luck.
Cheers,
Jim
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>Thank you for your answers, Steve, Don, Jim and Tom.
>
>Swinging the wings one degree forward could be an answer, Don, but - as you say
>- my plane was built in '93 and it is a bit late for that now. An ELT in the
>tail would help but, while it is compulsory on Experimental Kitfoxes, here, it
>isn't in the Microlight class and I don't have one.
>Tom, the new CoG was done empty, without a pilot. Maybe it should be done with
>one. But in my case, it is more an act of comparison: I use the same scale, the
>same configuration as last year, with the 582. The CoG was then 14.16", close
>to the aft limit. Now, I am at 9.5", which is ahead of the fore limit. That's
>quite a difference!
>
>I have a few ideas, like the second tailwheel spring that I got but didn't
>installed because I was already tail-heavy then. And a new homebuilder soft
>tailwheel is also something I plan to have. Moving the battery is something I
>might have to do, Jim. I'll keep your email, thanks.
>
>But there are two things I am wondering about:
>1) The model 3 is made for both the 582 and 912. The Jab is lighter than the
>912. How comes a 912 can fit a model 3, then?
>2) Fuel. Those last two years, I did the W&B "empty," that is: with no visible
>fuel in the wing tanks. But I know that there is still some in them and in the
>header tank, that is mounted aft of the seats. This time, the W&B was done
>entirely dry for fuel since I needed to purge every drop of 2 stroke fuel/oil
>mixture. I guess I should do a new W&B with some fuel in, then. It would move,
>at least, a bit weight in the header tank, aft of the CoG, but ... is the fuel
>in the wing tanks supposed to be exactly on the CoG or slightly aft of it?
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "upnaway.1@netzero.com" <upnaway.1@netzero.com>
I have a few questions about Kitfox. I am considering a Model 7 but I have never
built a plane and have certainly never worked with Poly-Fiber. I just cannot
see buying Cessna for twice the price that's twice as old and performs half
as good. There are other planes that I am considering but I always come back
to the model 7. My questions are mainly about the company. Will I be able to
get all of my kit? What about support? I've been to their website many, many
times over a period of years and I have to be honest, it's not one of the better
websites. I called to see if I could purchase an info pack and was sent
one page with pictures of a red taildragger that I am pretty sure is a Series
6. They made sure to send an order form, though. I also saw`on a website pictures
of a S-7 with an empty weight of 825lbs with a 912S. I will probably want
to fly under LSA so 825 isn't that great with a 1320 gross. I know they quote
an empty weight 450lbs for a Model-IV and I don't
think I have even heard of a 450lb Model-IV. More like 700lbs from what I have
seen. I really like the Kitfox, but I am not so sure about the company. Any
input you guys could give me would be appreciated. Am I expecting too much?
Should I find a 50+ year old Champ for close to the same money and always wonder
what 1000 fpm feels like?
Thanks
N. F.
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: A few questions |
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:20:27 -0700
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
N.F.
I will reply to this post but there are some who will take exception to my comments
and disagree with what I am about to saying. I can speak only for myself
and the experience I have had with SS.
I obtained a Model II back on 99 and began the building process. The kit was handed
down through several owners and was pretty much a mess. Took some time to
sort everything out and educate myself and what to do next. Started the build
process in 2000 and took me about 18 months to get through it. I used this web
site to answer questions as I encountered them. I also worked with SS on a number
of different areas where parts had been lost or what ever. SS had no responsibility
to me as I was the third owner but was very responsive to me needs
and was always happy to help out where ever it was needed. An examples was the
turtle deck design I didn't like so with a visit to SS found that the Lite 2
Squared has the same size turtle deck as the old model II so was able to purchase
what I needed. The counter weights on the wings were lost and they also found
a set for me. I never found a time SS was unwilling to help me out. As far
as the Poly-Fiber, it's a great system and I found it very easy to work with.
I purchased a video and watched it several times and asked the guys on this
list questions and am pleased with the finished product. As for SS can say they
treated me dang good. I know they are having some problems but I am sure they
will get through this. I drive by the plant about once a month and stop in
periodically and they appear to be in business to stay. I would not be afraid
to put my money on them. I am flying my Model II today and have been very pleased
with the finished product. Builder support by SS was excellent and by this
list was excellent is what helped me get it built.
Dee Young
Model II
N345DY
Do Not Archive.
I have a few questions about Kitfox. I am considering a Model 7 but I have never
built a plane and have certainly never worked with Poly-Fiber. I just cannot
see buying Cessna for twice the price that's twice as old and performs half
as good. There are other planes that I am considering but I always come back
to the model 7. My questions are mainly about the company. Will I be able to
get all of my kit? What about support? I've been to their website many, many
times over a period of years and I have to be honest, it's not one of the better
websites. I called to see if I could purchase an info pack and was sent
one page with pictures of a red taildragger that I am pretty sure is a Series
6. They made sure to send an order form, though. I also saw`on a website pictures
of a S-7 with an empty weight of 825lbs with a 912S. I will probably want
to fly under LSA so 825 isn't that great with a 1320 gross. I know they quote
an empty weight 450lbs for a Model-IV and I don't
think I have even heard of a 450lb Model-IV. More like 700lbs from what I have
seen. I really like the Kitfox, but I am not so sure about the company. Any
input you guys could give me would be appreciated. Am I expecting too much?
Should I find a 50+ year old Champ for close to the same money and always wonder
what 1000 fpm feels like?
Thanks
N. F.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Remember, you are buying a kit, which simply saves you fabricating the parts
from scratch. You have little need of the factory once you have the
components. If it were me, regardless of which aircraft kit I was
purchasing, I would investigate the possibility of putting the funds in
trust to be released when the kit ships. Regarding getting factory support
during construction, I only called the factory a couple of times during
construction. This list provides outstanding support. There are a lot of
very smart and capable people on this list. Parts availability after
construction is not a big issue in my mind since I can buy most things from
generic sources or else I can fabricate just about anything I need either
myself or locally. Another way of looking at it is, the Kitfox is a
wonderfully unique aircraft, so if worst comes to worst, get your aircraft
while you can. If Skystar stays around for another 100 years, then what a
bonus!
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
upnaway.1@netzero.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: A few questions
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "upnaway.1@netzero.com"
<upnaway.1@netzero.com>
I have a few questions about Kitfox. I am considering a Model 7 but I have
never built a plane and have certainly never worked with Poly-Fiber. I just
cannot see buying Cessna for twice the price that's twice as old and
performs half as good. There are other planes that I am considering but I
always come back to the model 7. My questions are mainly about the company.
Will I be able to get all of my kit? What about support? I've been to
their website many, many times over a period of years and I have to be
honest, it's not one of the better websites. I called to see if I could
purchase an info pack and was sent one page with pictures of a red
taildragger that I am pretty sure is a Series 6. They made sure to send an
order form, though. I also saw`on a website pictures of a S-7 with an empty
weight of 825lbs with a 912S. I will probably want to fly under LSA so 825
isn't that great with a 1320 gross. I know they quote an empty weight
450lbs for a Model-IV and I don't
think I have even heard of a 450lb Model-IV. More like 700lbs from what I
have seen. I really like the Kitfox, but I am not so sure about the
company. Any input you guys could give me would be appreciated. Am I
expecting too much? Should I find a 50+ year old Champ for close to the
same money and always wonder what 1000 fpm feels like?
Thanks
N. F.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
This has been an interresting discussion. It has been a while since I
covered. I did glue the fabric to the capstrips and rib laced also - wings
only.
the tapering at the leading edge and slipage of the lacing makes sense from
a theoretical poin of view - if the fabric is not glued to the capstrip.
Then it brings up the question of why not Polytacking the fabric to the top
of the wing to prevent this.
I hear a lot of "do this" and "don't do that". I guess I'm a bit of an
independent thinker, but I like to hear reasons. I guess it comes fro my
profession. I am a dentist and in the 35 years I have practiced technology
has changed in light years. And and procedural change should have a readily
understood reason. I have been racking my brain for the past few days and
can't come up with a reason for not polytacking to the rib caps if
riblacing. Can someone help me here? Maybe seven years and 700 hours is
just not enough time to see the problems arise from doing both.
I think Polyfiber's advice is great and their products can't be beat, but
their primary market is the certified market and in my opinion, they can
sometimes overlook the special needs of our niche airplane. That said, I
think SS's recommendations should be considered carefully as well. It would
seem that they have had encounters with sevaral thousand builders and pilots
of their airplanes and are fully aware of the issues that have arisen with
their design.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Hey Lynn, if the Polyfiber guy said so then I sure ain't in a position to
> argue! :
> )
>
> I evenly spaced mine all the way if I remember from about 3 or 4 inches
> aft
> of the front spar. Has worked fine for me. I used regular round lacing
> but
> ended up using the flat on the Nieuport and I think I'd have used it on
> the
> Kitfox if I'd had it. I thought it might be a pain to work with but it's
> not at all.
>
> Enjoy. Fabric is when the thing really starts looking like a plane!
>
> Ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn
> Matteson
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
> One more thing, Ted...the Poly-fiber rep in my area told me that when
> rib lacing the Kitfox, I only needed to lace from the trailing edge
> forward to where the false ribs end, Further forward than that, the
> surfaces of the top and bottom of the wing are under pressure, and
> lacing there is not required, and in fact, undesirable because the
> slope of the surfaces would cause the lacing to want to "slide the
> fabric down the curve of the rib." This sounds like it makes
> sense...more for the pressure theory than the sliding fabric
> theory...to me. Thoughts?
>
> Lynn
> On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 07:49 PM, Flier wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> No prob Lynn. Don't sweat it. Polyfiber is pretty forgiving -- but I
>> know
>> how you feel. I've been covering my Nieuport recently which is why I
>> have
>> it in mind. It's been 8 yrs since I covered my IV and it's stood up
>> extremely well. I really like the PF process!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ted
>>
>
>
> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 92221033) is spam:
> Spam:
> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=s&i=92221033&m=881dfd72263e
> Not spam:
> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=n&i=92221033&m=881dfd72263e
> Forget vote:
> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=f&i=92221033&m=881dfd72263e
> ------------------------------------------------------
> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A few questions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
N.F.
Thanks for the post. As one respondent mentioned, My post might not meet
with total agreement.
My experience is ancient by today's standards. I purchased a Model IV-1200
from Denney Aerocraft, just before the sale that made the company Skystar.
My airplane has the Rotax 912 UL and I have flown numerous long cross
countries alongside other Model IVs and other manufacturers airplanes.
My airplane weighs at last WB calculation at 704 lbs. It is the heaviest of
the IVs in our group. The lightest is exactly 100 lbs lighter than mine -
604 lbs. What this says is that you have a some significant control of the
final empty weight. I have tons of fairings, the spring gear, carpets, kick
panels, and lots of other weighty junk. That said, because of the fairings,
I can keep up very well with the other guys in both cruise and climb and my
fuel burn is the lowest of the bunch.
It is my opinion that for a person of medium size ( medium shirt etc.), the
Model IV can't be beat, especially with one of the 912 engines. Of course
your mission will make a difference in the decision also. If you are
planning on visiting family 1000 miles away frequently with a companion in
the right seat with a lot of luggage, the bigger airplanes can be very
tempting. The problem there, as I see it, is that there is no clear
winner as a powerplant. Both weight and horsepower become issues.
Regarding Skystar, I think the funds in trust might be worth considering. I
have a VERY strong belief that Kitfox will survive for a very long time to
come. It is just too good a product to vanish from the scene. I also have
a strong belief that Skystar will survive as the owners of the Kitfox
design. They are working too hard to not do so.
Glad to hear you are considering this marvelous product. And welcome to the
list.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: <upnaway.1@netzero.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: A few questions
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "upnaway.1@netzero.com"
> <upnaway.1@netzero.com>
>
>
> I have a few questions about Kitfox. I am considering a Model 7 but I
> have never built a plane and have certainly never worked with Poly-Fiber.
> I just cannot see buying Cessna for twice the price that's twice as old
> and performs half as good. There are other planes that I am considering
> but I always come back to the model 7. My questions are mainly about the
> company. Will I be able to get all of my kit? What about support? I've
> been to their website many, many times over a period of years and I have
> to be honest, it's not one of the better websites. I called to see if I
> could purchase an info pack and was sent one page with pictures of a red
> taildragger that I am pretty sure is a Series 6. They made sure to send an
> order form, though. I also saw`on a website pictures of a S-7 with an
> empty weight of 825lbs with a 912S. I will probably want to fly under LSA
> so 825 isn't that great with a 1320 gross. I know they quote an empty
> weight 450lbs for a Model-IV and I don't
> think I have even heard of a 450lb Model-IV. More like 700lbs from what
> I have seen. I really like the Kitfox, but I am not so sure about the
> company. Any input you guys could give me would be appreciated. Am I
> expecting too much? Should I find a 50+ year old Champ for close to the
> same money and always wonder what 1000 fpm feels like?
>
> Thanks
> N. F.
>
>
> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 84880945) is spam:
> Spam:
> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=s&i=84880945&m=cbb243b60f64
> Not spam:
> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=n&i=84880945&m=cbb243b60f64
> Forget vote:
> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=f&i=84880945&m=cbb243b60f64
> ------------------------------------------------------
> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
Hi N. F.
I'm probable not a good one to answer this question but here is my
thoughts. You are correct the KitFox is an excellent two seat aircraft with
good performance and STOL capability. However, the company from my stand
point has been less than desirable to put it a nice way. Sense purchasing my
kit back in '02, there were many items on back order and the big issue is
now after almost 2 1/2 years, I am still waiting on the engine I bought and
paid for, big mistake. In fact my Model 7 is fully assembled and the engine
is all I'm waiting on to finish. I am also at the point that I'm considering
selling my plane just to end this nightmare relationship with SS.
You will here a lot of different opinions on customer service with
SS. I would agree that back in the late 1990's and early 2000 their service
was probable pretty darn good but you can't always judge a company's
customer service by its past history. There are others that will agree with
me on this and there are those that won't. Mine is just one opinion. All I
can say is when dealing with SS its buyer beware.
Roger Mac
S7/912S some day, but I doubt it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
upnaway.1@netzero.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: A few questions
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "upnaway.1@netzero.com"
<upnaway.1@netzero.com>
I have a few questions about Kitfox. I am considering a Model 7 but I have
never built a plane and have certainly never worked with Poly-Fiber. I just
cannot see buying Cessna for twice the price that's twice as old and
performs half as good. There are other planes that I am considering but I
always come back to the model 7. My questions are mainly about the company.
Will I be able to get all of my kit? What about support? I've been to
their website many, many times over a period of years and I have to be
honest, it's not one of the better websites. I called to see if I could
purchase an info pack and was sent one page with pictures of a red
taildragger that I am pretty sure is a Series 6. They made sure to send an
order form, though. I also saw`on a website pictures of a S-7 with an empty
weight of 825lbs with a 912S. I will probably want to fly under LSA so 825
isn't that great with a 1320 gross. I know they quote an empty weight
450lbs for a Model-IV and I don't
think I have even heard of a 450lb Model-IV. More like 700lbs from what I
have seen. I really like the Kitfox, but I am not so sure about the
company. Any input you guys could give me would be appreciated. Am I
expecting too much? Should I find a 50+ year old Champ for close to the
same money and always wonder what 1000 fpm feels like?
Thanks
N. F.
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: | Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I just finished the lower fabric attachment to my wing, attached the
fabric to the lower capstrips with the thinned polytak, (after having
coated them with polytak and allowing to dry per the "concave-bottom"
appendix), did the initial shrinking, and I'm tickled to death. Like
you Lowell, I'm trying to think this thing through, and I can't see why
not polytak to the upper capstrips, either. At this point, I'm going to
wait to consult with Jim Miller when he gets back from Oshkosh, and get
yet another person's input on this matter before putting on the upper
fabric...Lord knows I've got something else I can do in the meantime. :)
Why not polytak the tops?....it certainly gets attached eventually with
the lacing and the polybrush, so why the italicized warnings in the
manual AGAINST polytak on top? Search me...unless the editors of the
book wasn't talking to the writer on that day. : ) I too, have been
watching the video for the umpteenth time, been looking at the manual
for PF, been looking at both manuals for the 'fox, (original and the
revised version), and trying to assimilate the best info from all four
sources.
Lynn
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Lowell wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
>
> This has been an interresting discussion. It has been a while since I
> covered. I did glue the fabric to the capstrips and rib laced also -
> wings
> only.
>
> the tapering at the leading edge and slipage of the lacing makes sense
> from
> a theoretical poin of view - if the fabric is not glued to the
> capstrip.
> Then it brings up the question of why not Polytacking the fabric to
> the top
> of the wing to prevent this.
>
> I hear a lot of "do this" and "don't do that". I guess I'm a bit of an
> independent thinker, but I like to hear reasons. I guess it comes fro
> my
> profession. I am a dentist and in the 35 years I have practiced
> technology
> has changed in light years. And and procedural change should have a
> readily
> understood reason. I have been racking my brain for the past few days
> and
> can't come up with a reason for not polytacking to the rib caps if
> riblacing. Can someone help me here? Maybe seven years and 700 hours
> is
> just not enough time to see the problems arise from doing both.
>
> I think Polyfiber's advice is great and their products can't be beat,
> but
> their primary market is the certified market and in my opinion, they
> can
> sometimes overlook the special needs of our niche airplane. That
> said, I
> think SS's recommendations should be considered carefully as well. It
> would
> seem that they have had encounters with sevaral thousand builders and
> pilots
> of their airplanes and are fully aware of the issues that have arisen
> with
> their design.
>
> Lowell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop?
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Hey Lynn, if the Polyfiber guy said so then I sure ain't in a
>> position to
>> argue! :
>> )
>>
>> I evenly spaced mine all the way if I remember from about 3 or 4
>> inches
>> aft
>> of the front spar. Has worked fine for me. I used regular round
>> lacing
>> but
>> ended up using the flat on the Nieuport and I think I'd have used it
>> on
>> the
>> Kitfox if I'd had it. I thought it might be a pain to work with but
>> it's
>> not at all.
>>
>> Enjoy. Fabric is when the thing really starts looking like a plane!
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn
>> Matteson
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop?
>>
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> One more thing, Ted...the Poly-fiber rep in my area told me that when
>> rib lacing the Kitfox, I only needed to lace from the trailing edge
>> forward to where the false ribs end, Further forward than that, the
>> surfaces of the top and bottom of the wing are under pressure, and
>> lacing there is not required, and in fact, undesirable because the
>> slope of the surfaces would cause the lacing to want to "slide the
>> fabric down the curve of the rib." This sounds like it makes
>> sense...more for the pressure theory than the sliding fabric
>> theory...to me. Thoughts?
>>
>> Lynn
>> On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 07:49 PM, Flier wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> No prob Lynn. Don't sweat it. Polyfiber is pretty forgiving -- but
>>> I
>>> know
>>> how you feel. I've been covering my Nieuport recently which is why I
>>> have
>>> it in mind. It's been 8 yrs since I covered my IV and it's stood up
>>> extremely well. I really like the PF process!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>
>>
>> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 92221033) is spam:
>> Spam:
>> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=s&i=92221033&m=881dfd72263e
>> Not spam:
>> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=n&i=92221033&m=881dfd72263e
>> Forget vote:
>> http://login.safereach.com/b.php?c=f&i=92221033&m=881dfd72263e
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>
>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I think the reason for not polytaking the wing tops at first is that each
bay is separate and if the fabric is not evenly distributed it "may" cause
uneven shrinking between bays, possibly pulling the wing ribs one way or
another. Since the top of the wing is critical for lift I can understand
the precaution. I don't really know why it's such an issue anyway. By
laying on a layer of polytak on each top rib cap and allowing it to dry
first, then shrinking the fabric as one complete piece it's ensured that
even tension is linear along the top of the wing. The Polybrush will
complete the adhesion process when it reacts with the polytak after fabric
is fully shrunk.
That's my take on it, but there may be other reasons.
Deke
> Why not polytak the tops?....it certainly gets attached eventually with
> the lacing and the polybrush, so why the italicized warnings in the
> manual AGAINST polytak on top? Search me...unless the editors of the
> book wasn't talking to the writer on that day. : ) I too, have been
> watching the video for the umpteenth time, been looking at the manual
> for PF, been looking at both manuals for the 'fox, (original and the
> revised version), and trying to assimilate the best info from all four
> sources.
> Lynn
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
Switching AOL.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:31:34 -0700
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
I saw a video of the fabric ballooning up on the wings of a Pitts while in flight.
Of all the things a person can worry about when flying, the fabric coming
off shouldn't be one of them. I poly tacked the ribs bottom and top and rib stitched
wings and tail feathers. Its stuck tight to the ribs everywhere and will
never fall off and it looks good and "that's my story and I'm sticken to it".
Dee Young
Model II
N345DY
Do Not Archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I agree with Deke,
It is much easier to remove the wrinkles from, and
shrink a large sheet of fabric than a small section,
so shrinking the wing fabric, then gluing down to the
ribs works much better. You get an even pull in all
directions.
I did one wing the PF way and one the SS way. (It is
experimental and I said I was doing it to learn...)
The scallops look much better. One less bump/line on
the leading edge.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> I think the reason for not polytaking the wing tops
> at first is that each bay is separate and if
> the fabric is not evenly distributed it "may" cause
> uneven shrinking between bays, possibly pulling the
> wing ribs one way or another. Since the top of
> the wing is critical for lift I can understand
> the precaution. I don't really know why it's such
> an issue anyway. By laying on a layer of polytak
> on each top rib cap and allowing it to dry
> first, then shrinking the fabric as one complete
> piece it's ensured that even tension is linear
> along the top of the wing. The Polybrush will
> complete the adhesion process when it reacts with
> the polytak after fabric is fully shrunk.
> That's my take on it, but there may be other
> reasons.
> Deke
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
For achieving the best weight and balance, I would
recommend the following:
1. Weigh the plane empty, except have all the fluids
on board that you would have right as you ran out of
fuel. That means all oil, radiator fluid and trapped
or unusable fuel is included. This will keep you
within the CG envelope if you do run low on fuel.
Running out of fuel is a bad enough emergency. Being
out of CG on top of it is worse.
2. Make sure you are within the most forward CG limit
when you have your lightest weight pilot, or a 170 lb
pilot minimum on board. If your skinny wife flies it
solo, or you only weigh 145 lbs yourself, you still
want to be within CG when solo and nearly out of fuel,
so plan on your real weight instead of 170 lbs. If you
are over 170 lbs, use 170 lbs as your minimum pilot.
3. If you have a tool kit or survival kit you will
always carry, use this weight to adjust your CG a
little. But then you must identify this equipment as
required for flight.
4. Then your goal is to have the empty weight with
the lightest pilot (or a 170 lb pilot) fall just aft
of the most forward CG limit. This gives you all the
aft CG range for adding fuel, heavy people and cargo.
5. If full fuel, people and cargo don't come near the
aft limit, you can move the empty CG further aft so
that you always operate nearest the middle of the
range.
6. Battery position, due to its weight density, is
the most effective means of moving the CG. Other
required equipment should be moved before you add dead
weight.
That is my best guess on how to have the most useful
CG range.
Kurt S.
__________________________________
http://my.yahoo.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel,
This sounds like too much of a CG change to come from
your engine change. You said it doesn't weigh that
much more than the old engine, so the weight shift
should be quite small. Some numbers must be off
someplace???
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
........
> The CoG was then 14.16", close to the aft limit.
Now,
> I am at 9.5", which is ahead of the fore limit.
> ........
> Cheers,
> Michel
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Thanks Deke, Jim and Kurt.
No Deke, I didn't weighted the two engines out of the plane. I was told that
the Jab had a weight between the 582 and 912 and since the model 3 was built
for both, it would be ok. Yes, I use Don's program and yes, it is very good
because it allows me to do some testing. This is the third time I will give my
inspector a print-out of Don's program for the yearly inspection. He loves it
too! :-)
Jim, thanks for the info. I know of a Kitfox IV that moved to a Jabiru here,
and he didn't move anything aft. I'll have a chat with him too.
Kurt, I weight 133 lb and my wife, 78 lb ... but she won't fly ... unless there
is a lot of wind! :-)
Seriously, I was under the false impression that, in a Kitfox, both the weight
of pilot/passenger and fuel in wing tanks were such as it didn't affect the
CoG. I stand now corrected and will do a better weight and balance. I also
understand, from you writing, that what matters is that I am within the right
numbers when I fly, whatever is my configuration.
Cheers,
Michel
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Ooppsss,
I forgot about those with a tank in front of the
panel. You would want to figure the most forward CG
with that full and most aft with that empty. Wing
tanks, which I was considering, usually go the other
way.
Kurt S.
--- kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> For achieving the best weight and balance, I would
> recommend the following:
>
> 1. Weigh the plane empty, except have all the
> fluids
> on board that you would have right as you ran out of
> fuel. That means all oil, radiator fluid and
> trapped
> or unusable fuel is included. This will keep you
> within the CG envelope if you do run low on fuel.
> Running out of fuel is a bad enough emergency.
> Being
> out of CG on top of it is worse.
>
> 2. Make sure you are within the most forward CG
> limit
> when you have your lightest weight pilot, or a 170
> lb
> pilot minimum on board. If your skinny wife flies
> it
> solo, or you only weigh 145 lbs yourself, you still
> want to be within CG when solo and nearly out of
> fuel,
> so plan on your real weight instead of 170 lbs. If
> you
> are over 170 lbs, use 170 lbs as your minimum pilot.
>
> 3. If you have a tool kit or survival kit you will
> always carry, use this weight to adjust your CG a
> little. But then you must identify this equipment
> as
> required for flight.
>
> 4. Then your goal is to have the empty weight with
> the lightest pilot (or a 170 lb pilot) fall just aft
> of the most forward CG limit. This gives you all
> the
> aft CG range for adding fuel, heavy people and
> cargo.
>
> 5. If full fuel, people and cargo don't come near
> the
> aft limit, you can move the empty CG further aft so
> that you always operate nearest the middle of the
> range.
>
> 6. Battery position, due to its weight density, is
> the most effective means of moving the CG. Other
> required equipment should be moved before you add
> dead
> weight.
>
> That is my best guess on how to have the most useful
> CG range.
>
> Kurt S.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kitfox-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
NF,
I am one who has gotten good service from Skystar even recently. My heart
goes to those caught up in the crunch, but I think that they (those caught
in the crunch) would be worse off if the folks at Skystar had decided to
file for bankruptcy rather than work their way out of this and get all the
backordered stuff to those waiting.
I want to comment on the engine. Don't commit to the engine until you have
to. A better choice may appear. And at the very least, you get the most
recent version of the engine rather than have one sit on the garage floor
for a few years.
Randy Series 5/7 912S - lovin' it!
.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Michel,
That is right. It doesn't matter where the empty CG
is when the plane is parked, unless it falls on its
nose. Only the CG you end up with in flight really
counts.
My empty CG is just over 8 inches. This is well
forward of the flying limit, but it is within limits
for every weight and configuration I would fly with,
even with zero fuel. If a light weight pilot, under
170 lbs, flew my plane solo, some ballast would be
required in the cargo compartment.
Who weighs less, you or your son? Horny helmit
doesn't count.
I think that in your plane, the fuel and people CG's
are a little closer to the plane's than on mine. You
shouldn't have as much a CG shift, except for cargo,
as I do.
But all in all, you may not have a problem now with
your plane, if the CG is OK for flying.
Kurt S.
--- Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
> I also understand, from you writing, that what
> matters is that I am within the right numbers
> when I fly, whatever is my configuration.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Over the Rockies |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Victor W. Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
What a great ride! My cross country took me from Seguin,
TX-----Roswell, NM-----Gallup, NM-----Page AZ-----Cedar City,
UT-----Ely, NV-----Gooding, ID and finally to Ontario, OR. Total
distance was about 1300 nm.
The purpose of the trip was to deliver a Glastar 160 to a friend who
lives Northwest of Boise. This is a great flying airplane with a cruise
of 150 MPH.
Sorry I could not schedule stops at the invites I received when
announcing the trip.
I can't wait till this summer during good weather to do it again, but
this time I will smell the roses. You-all in the far West and Northwest
really have it good!
Vic
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A few questions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 1/30/2005 6:51:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rjdaugh@rapidnet.com writes:
I want to comment on the engine. Don't commit to the engine until you have
to. A better choice may appear. And at the very least, you get the most
recent version of the engine rather than have one sit on the garage floor
for a few years.
Randy Series 5/7 912S - lovin' it!
I agree to not commit on the engine but, you need to commit (as soon as you
can) on the firewall fwd portion since these components might be Skystar
specific. I'm talking engine mount and other components. The engine itself can
be
purchased later and from possibly several other sources.
Don Smythe
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Michel:
Currently, my KF II has exclusively the tank in front of the panel. It sounds
like this will become a weight and balance problem with the Jabiru 2200. What
do you think?
I was told that the Jabiru 2200 weight is very close to the 582. Is it that what
you found once you completed the installation?
Did you fix the oil cooler/cowling issue?
Saludos!
Jose
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Over the Rockies |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
Hey I was in St George UT last week flying a 150 (160hp) to Page
etc.......
WOW what a site took lots of photos...
Dave
KF2 582
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! --
|