---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 01/30/05: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:11:37 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:11:53 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:24:42 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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" > > > ...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" > > 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 > > 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" >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:27:40 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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" > > Enjoy. Fabric is when the thing really starts looking like a plane! > > Ted > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:31 AM PST US From: Jim Gilliatt Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Gilliatt 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 > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:07 AM PST US From: "upnaway.1@netzero.com" Subject: Kitfox-List: A few questions --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:21:38 AM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: A few questions Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:20:27 -0700 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:47 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: A few questions --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:43 AM PST US From: "Lowell" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell" 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" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" > > 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 > > 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" >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:44 AM PST US From: "Lowell" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: A few questions --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell" 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: Subject: Kitfox-List: A few questions > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:19 AM PST US From: "Donna and Roger McConnell" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: A few questions --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:23 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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" > > 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" > To: > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" >> >> 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 >> >> 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" >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:58 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:18 AM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: Test --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com Switching AOL. ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:33 AM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Kitfox-List: Poly tack Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:31:34 -0700 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:31:47 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Wing covering...scallop or no scallop? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:04:33 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:56 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:56 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:30:43 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:02 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: A few questions --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:56 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:36:54 PM PST US From: "Victor W. Jacko" Subject: Kitfox-List: Over the Rockies --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Victor W. Jacko" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:51 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:06:43 PM PST US From: "Jose M. Toro" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Weight and balance - Jabiru/KF3 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:13:37 PM PST US From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 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