Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:07 AM - Flight simulator WAS: Kitfox 2 (Michel Verheughe)
2. 03:22 AM - SV: SV: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (Michel Verheughe)
3. 03:34 AM - SV: SV: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (Michel Verheughe)
4. 04:56 AM - Missing LiteSqaured found in OK (Nate Free)
5. 05:37 AM - missing (Jay & Beverly Carter)
6. 07:15 AM - Re: SV: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (Guy Buchanan)
7. 08:28 AM - Pictures of cowling (Harris, Robert)
8. 10:37 AM - Re: Sport pilot category (Richard Hutson)
9. 12:10 PM - Re: Sport pilot category (Gary Henderson)
10. 01:05 PM - Re: Pictures of cowling (Chenoweth)
11. 01:41 PM - Re: SV: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (Michel Verheughe)
12. 01:48 PM - Re: Pictures of cowling (Michel Verheughe)
13. 01:53 PM - Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling (Michel Verheughe)
14. 02:12 PM - Re: SV: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm (Guy Buchanan)
15. 02:19 PM - Re: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling (Fox5flyer)
16. 02:34 PM - Re: Pictures of cowling (Jose M. Toro)
17. 04:08 PM - Re: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling (Chenoweth)
18. 04:25 PM - Stall speed (Rex & Jan Shaw)
19. 08:20 PM - Re: Kitfox 2 (Michael Gibbs)
20. 08:20 PM - Re: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes (Michael Gibbs)
21. 08:30 PM - Re: Kitfox 2 (Michael Gibbs)
22. 08:45 PM - Re: Re: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes (Steve Cooper)
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: | Flight simulator WAS: Kitfox 2 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> Michel, you've got a simulator that runs on OS 9 or OS X? I didn't
> think there was a simulator for a Mac...I quit looking years ago. Tell
> me what, where, when, who....please!
My pleasure, Lynn.
Like you, I have been very dissapointed when Microsoft dropped the Macintosh after
the last version 4.5 of its simulator. For years, I have been "in need." Aviation
was for me that very expensive thing my father did for free because he
was a military. :-) So, I kept to sailing, another hobby.
In 1998, I discovered X-Plane, a new flight simulator for the Macintosh, PC and
Linux. It is not comparable to Microsoft Flight Simulator, it is, in my opinion,
much better. Here is why:
While I know very little about aviation, I have worked for ten years for Norcontrol,
probably the world's largest manufacturer of maritime simulators. I think
I know about real-time simulation.
Microsoft approach is simple: You enter data such as Vso, in a program, and it
builds a look-up table that reproduces the flight model as accurate as possible.
I.e., when flying, the plane (with flaps on) will stall at Vso.
When you design an aircraft in X-Plane, you have to specify everything, up to the
lift, drag and moment coefficients for each airfoil.
Then you test fly your creation and if it stalls at Vso, you are very lucky. Chances
are that you'll have to brush up your model until it behaves like the real
craft.
As it's name refects, X-Plane is "X-perimental" oriented. It gives you the possibility
to combine any airfoil, any powerplant and any weight configuration. It
even let you see how your model would behave in the atmosphere and gravity of
the planet Mars. It can get very interesting!
On the down side, X-Plane is developped by Austin Meyer, a crazy man from South
Caroline, whom I met at two occasions (once in Italy and once in Germany). He
is working alone but he works around the clock (I told you he was crazy! :-)
During these past 6 years, Austin and I have been talking a lot together and, like
many others, I try to help him in perfecting his simulator. My modest contribution
has been: the model of the waves (for seaplanes) the model of the seasons
(sun's position) and the model of the moon phases. I also got him to do a
better tailwheel model where the actual pressure of the springs can be user adjusted.
Last, I try to get him to do an automatic calculation of the fetch over
open water to avoid e.g. high waves in strong wind, over a small lake.
But, because we are a very little community, compared to Microsoft, we don't have
the tools and man power to do a worldwide scenery as Microsoft does. Still,
it looks quite cool in many places. But it is more generic.
It is flying that simulator and sharing the internet with other aviation enthousiasts,
that made me decide to buy my own microlight plane, a Kitfox. Now, real
aviation has taken over most of my time and I am not half as active in the simulator
field but, in my humble opinion, l learnt a lot from the simulator. Needless
to say, if you want to do a proper use of simulation, you'll need a good
joystick and pedals. Without that, it is only a game. With that, I knew how
to e.g. sideslip even before I went up in a plane.
There is much more to say about X-Plane but this is really off-topic on this list.
Read about it at:
http://www.x-plane.com
and let me know if you have any question. The reason I can't follow anymore with
OS X is that I can't have my joystick and pedals to run on it. I have ADB peripherals
and I should have USB on my Mac G4. I will, one day, but my money goes
first to Tango, my lovely Kitfox, waiting for me in the hangar, for a test
flight! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Tom Jones [tomfromlapine@peoplepc.com]
> We need to get Togier to explain propeller pitch/angle.
I look forward to that, Tom.
My question was purely in an attempt to understand better the math behind prop
technology. I agree with you that there are many factors that maybe make a simple
conversion nearly impossible. But it is my observation that sometimes pitch
is given in degrees and sometimes in inches. For the sake of comparison, it
could be nice to have a simple conversion formula.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Randy Daughenbaugh [rjdaugh@rapidnet.com]
> One thing that you can do with those number is convert the pitch and RPM's
> to Miles per hour, or nauts per hour or kilomteters per hour.
That's interesting, Randy. My pitch is 38" and when I convert that to speed at
3,00 RPM, the Jabiru's maximum, I get 103 knots, which is over my Vne.
Hum, interesting! Because, in X-Plane, the flight simulator I just talked about,
you can either:
1) Enter the pitch min and max for variable pitch props, or
2) Enter the speed at which the prop is designed for.
I think I will test the latter with 103 knots.
In the simulator, a prop is also a serie of sections, each with its own AoA and
airfoil. That way, you can "tune" your propeller but you can't vary the pitch
at different section of the diameter.
... hum! interesting!
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Missing LiteSqaured found in OK |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Nate Free" <cherokeetransport@tds.net>
Hello all,
This morning on my way home from work, local news reported that the missing Kitfox
belonging to Dr. Jack Nolan was found by a rancher yesterday in Hughes county,
Oklahoma. They say that the FAA and NTSB is en route to investigate. It
will be interesting to see what the cause of the crash was. If the national
media doesn't report on this, I will try to post local links on this list as I
am sure all of you will be interested. Crashes are always terrible, especially
when there is a fatality. At least all pilots can hopefullly learn from them.
Thoughts and prayers to the Nolan family.
Nate Free
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay & Beverly Carter" <valley361@centurytel.net>
Search for Missing Plane Ends in Oklahoma
Associated Press
HOLDENVILLE, Okla. - A small plane that had been missing for a month was found
by a rancher where it had crashed into a grove of trees.
Audi Sanford was spreading Bermuda grass for his cattle Monday afternoon when he
found the wreckage of Dr. Jack Nolen's missing plane. Remains found in it were
believed to be those of Nolen.
"It was in a grove of thick trees - looked like it had hit almost dead on," Sanford
said. "The motor and undercarriage just circled a tree."
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman John Clabes said the crashed plane's
tailfin number was that of Nolen's plane. The National Transportation Safety Board
planned an investigation into the crash, and state medical examiner's office
was to make a positive identification of the remains.
Nolen, 73, recently retired as Muskogee Regional Medical Center's medical director,
was last seen leaving the Paris, Texas, airport Jan. 14 on his way to Shawnee.
He was the only person on board the single-engine, two-seat homebuilt airplane.
The search by the Oklahoma Civil Air Patrol had been called off after nine days.
Dozens of volunteers also helped in the search.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 03:56 PM 2/14/2005 -0800, Tom Jones wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones <tomfromlapine@peoplepc.com>
>
>Michael,
>We need to get Togier to explain propeller pitch/angle. He seems to be
> good at that sort of number crunching. I am guessing the
I'll try. If:
P = Prop pitch in inches.
r = Radius, prop centerline to blade location of interest.
Theta = Prop blade angle at r.
P = 2 * pi * r * sin(theta) for no slippage.
>For what it is worth, the GSC propeller adjusting table lists a 57 to 60
>inch diameter 2 or 3 blade GSC propeller to be at 38 inches of pitch
>when the angle at 75% blade length is 15 degrees. Again I would caution
>that there is no way to compare your propeller to these numbers.
Using 57" and 60", the blade angle using the above equation works out to be
16.4 and 15.6 degrees respectively. They may be including some kind of
fudge factor, though I would have thought their angles would be greater to
account for slippage.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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: | Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Hi Michel,
My KF II stall might be higher too. Factory literature says the stall is
36MPH. When I touch down my indicated airspeed is about 30MPH but my Air
speed indicator may not be accurate.
I'll go to x-plane website today and see if the newest version is ready for
me to order. Don't worry about updating x-plane on my account. Is your
cowling done now? Have you posted any new pictures? I'd like to see it. I
looked at your drawings a several weeks ago and was impressed.
I recently bought a Model V Kitfox and am doing some minor cowling and
wingtip repair and have thought about you and your plane on several
occasions.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 2
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Harris, Robert" wrote:
> Michel what is your aprox stall speed?
Er, hum ... 40 mph! It's high, I know, and I have discussed it on this list
before. I think it may come from the fact that I don't have a static port
and
my cockpit might be a bit underpressurized at low speed. The important is
that
I know what is the "indicated" stall speed, isn't it?
BTW, Robert, I am not sure I'll ever get the X-Plane version of my Kitfox
finished. The simulator is no longer working on Macintosh OS 9, and I have
problems installing OS X. If I do, one day, I'll let you know. But right
now,
flying the real thing is more fun than the simulator! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot category |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson" <rhutson@midsouth.rr.com>
Sport planes can also be flown by private pilots. The sport planes can also
be maintained by the builder.
----- Original Message -----
From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot category
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> there are some benefits of registering the plane experimental, it can be
> flown by sport and private pilots and be maintained by the builder with a
> repairmans certificate. there don't appear to be any benefits of
> registering and homebuilt as "sport". am I missing something?
>
> John Kerr
> Classic IV, 715 hours and still enamored with it.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Henderson"
>>
>> I don't think the FAA even knows what they want yet. I have a friend who
>> just finished his model IV last month. The FAA came to check out his
>> plane
>> for sport pilot certification and told him they did not have the correct
>> forms yet and he would be back in two weeks. He did tell him that if he
>> certified as amature built he could not go back to Sport. This did not
>> mean it couldn't fly as sport.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>> >
>> > EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
>> > requirements
>> > related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>> >
>> > John Kerr
>> > -------------- Original message --------------
>> >
>> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>> >>
>> >> Gents
>> >>
>> >> Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
>> >> the
>> >> category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by
>> >> way
>> >> of
>> >> paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
>> >> category?
>> >> And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just
>> >> letting
>> >> our
>> >> medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
>> >> registered experimental?
>> >>
>> >> OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
>> >> registered
>> >> bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the N-number
>> >> and
>> >> registration?
>> >>
>> >> I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper-pushing chore
>> >> ahead
>> >> to
>> >> do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Don Gherardini
>> >> FireFly 098
>> >> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>> >>
>> >> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
>> > requirements
>> > related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>> >
>> > John Kerr
>> > -------------- Original message --------------
>> >
>> > -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>> >
>> >
>> > Gents
>> >
>> > Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
>> > the
>> > category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by
>> > way
>> > of
>> > paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
>> > category?
>> > And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just letting
>> > our
>> > medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
>> > registered experimental?
>> >
>> > OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
>> > registered
>> > bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the N-number
>> > and
>> > registration?
>> >
>> > I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper
>> > -pushing chore ahead to
>> > do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>> >
>> >
>> > Don Gherardini
>> > FireFly 098
>> > http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>> >
>> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
>> >
>> >
>> > w.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> there are some benefits of registering the plane experimental, it can be
> flown by sport and private pilots and be maintained by the builder with a
> repairmans certificate. there don't appear to be any benefits of
> registering and homebuilt as "sport". am I missing something?
>
> John Kerr
> Classic IV, 715 hours and still enamored with it.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Henderson" <GJGLH@CEBRIDGE.NET>
>
> I don't think the FAA even knows what they want yet. I have a friend who
> just finished his model IV last month. The FAA came to check out his plane
> for sport pilot certification and told him they did not have the correct
> forms yet and he would be back in two weeks. He did tell him that if he
> certified as amature built he could not go back to Sport. This did not
> mean it couldn't fly as sport.
>
> Gary
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
> requirements
> related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>
> John Kerr
> >
> ; -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>
> Gents
>
> Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean the
> category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by way
> of
> paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
> category?
> And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just letting
> our
> medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
> registered experimental?
>
> OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
> registered
> bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the N-number
>
> and
> registration?
>
> I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper-pushing chore ahead
> to
> do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>
>
> Don Gherardini
> FireFly 098
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
> requirements
> related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>
> John Kerr
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
> <DONGHE@ONE-ELEVEN.NET>
>
> Gents
> <B
> R> Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
> the
> category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by way
> of
> paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
> category?
> And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just letting
> our
> medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
> registered experimental?
>
> OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
> registered
> bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the N-number
> and
> registration?
>
> I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper
> -pushing chore ahead to
> do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>
>
> >
> ; Don Gherardini
> FireFly 098
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> w.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>
>
> Day Browse: http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>
>
>
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: Sport pilot category |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Henderson" <gjglh@cebridge.net>
I believe the sport plane builders still must attnend a 16 hour class to
maintain their plane.
Gary
Model IV Speedster
Oklahoma
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson"
> <rhutson@midsouth.rr.com>
>
> Sport planes can also be flown by private pilots. The sport planes can
> also
> be maintained by the builder.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kerrjohna@comcast.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot category
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>>
>> there are some benefits of registering the plane experimental, it can be
>> flown by sport and private pilots and be maintained by the builder with
>> a
>> repairmans certificate. there don't appear to be any benefits of
>> registering and homebuilt as "sport". am I missing something?
>>
>> John Kerr
>> Classic IV, 715 hours and still enamored with it.
>>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Henderson"
>>>
>>> I don't think the FAA even knows what they want yet. I have a friend
>>> who
>>> just finished his model IV last month. The FAA came to check out his
>>> plane
>>> for sport pilot certification and told him they did not have the
>>> correct
>>> forms yet and he would be back in two weeks. He did tell him that if he
>>> certified as amature built he could not go back to Sport. This did not
>>> mean it couldn't fly as sport.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>>> >
>>> > EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
>>> > requirements
>>> > related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>>> >
>>> > John Kerr
>>> > -------------- Original message --------------
>>> >
>>> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>>> >>
>>> >> Gents
>>> >>
>>> >> Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
>>> >> the
>>> >> category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by
>>> >> way
>>> >> of
>>> >> paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
>>> >> category?
>>> >> And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just
>>> >> letting
>>> >> our
>>> >> medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
>>> >> registered experimental?
>>> >>
>>> >> OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
>>> >> registered
>>> >> bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the
>>> N-number
>>> >> and
>>> >> registration?
>>> >>
>>> >> I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper-pushing chore
>>> >> ahead
>>> >> to
>>> >> do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Don Gherardini
>>> >> FireFly 098
>>> >> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
>>> > requirements
>>> > related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>>> >
>>> > John Kerr
>>> > -------------- Original message --------------
>>> >
>>> > -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Gents
>>> >
>>> > Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
>>> > the
>>> > category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by
>>> > way
>>> > of
>>> > paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
>>> > category?
>>> > And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just
>>> letting
>>> > our
>>> > medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
>>> > registered experimental?
>>> >
>>> > OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
>>> > registered
>>> > bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the
>>> N-number
>>> > and
>>> > registration?
>>> >
>>> > I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper
>>> > -pushing chore ahead to
>>> > do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Don Gherardini
>>> > FireFly 098
>>> > http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>>> >
>>> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > w.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> there are some benefits of registering the plane experimental, it can be
>> flown by sport and private pilots and be maintained by the builder with
>> a
>> repairmans certificate. there don't appear to be any benefits of
>> registering and homebuilt as "sport". am I missing something?
>>
>> John Kerr
>> Classic IV, 715 hours and still enamored with it.
>>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Henderson" <GJGLH@CEBRIDGE.NET>
>>
>> I don't think the FAA even knows what they want yet. I have a friend who
>> just finished his model IV last month. The FAA came to check out his
>> plane
>> for sport pilot certification and told him they did not have the correct
>> forms yet and he would be back in two weeks. He did tell him that if he
>> certified as amature built he could not go back to Sport. This did not
>> mean it couldn't fly as sport.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>>
>> EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
>> requirements
>> related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>>
>> John Kerr
>> >
>> ; -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>>
>> Gents
>>
>> Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
>> the
>> category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by
>> way
>> of
>> paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
>> category?
>> And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just letting
>> our
>> medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
>> registered experimental?
>>
>> OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
>> registered
>> bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the N-number
>>
>> and
>> registration?
>>
>> I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper-pushing chore ahead
>> to
>> do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>>
>>
>> Don Gherardini
>> FireFly 098
>> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>>
>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
>>
>> EAA has a neat diagram that leads you through the options and
>> requirements
>> related to Sport Pilot/Light Plane regs.
>>
>> John Kerr
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
>> <DONGHE@ONE-ELEVEN.NET>
>>
>> Gents
>> <B
>> R> Here is a question.. With the new sport pilot certification...I mean
>> the
>> category for the aircraft, I wonder if there is anything required by
>> way
>> of
>> paperwork to change a previously certified experimental into a sport
>> category?
>> And...if this stuff needs to be done, can we get away with just letting
>> our
>> medical expire and continueing to Fly a MK 3 for instance, that is a
>> registered experimental?
>>
>> OR Another question might come up if a person wants to buy a exp
>> registered
>> bird, and fly it under sport rules....what do you do with the N-number
>> and
>> registration?
>>
>> I have a feeling there would be a pretty good paper
>> -pushing chore ahead to
>> do this...anybody been able to figure it out?
>>
>>
>> >
>> ; Don Gherardini
>> FireFly 098
>> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>>
>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
>>
>> w.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>>
>>
>> Day Browse: http://www.matronics.com/browse/kitfox-list
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Michel,
Not to butt in, but here are some observations from my ASI calibration
activities of a couple of years ago. My IV-1200 stalls (actually just
wallows around) at an indicated 34 mph. When I did my ASI calibration
following Ed Kolano's instructions published in Sport Aviation, I discovered
that my ASI was pretty much right on in the 75 - 90 mph range and quite low
in the 40 - 60 range. In fact it appears that my stall speed is closer to
42 mph. From what I've read the problem is with the static port as much or
more than with the pitot (and its angle to the airstream at high angles of
attack).
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harris, Robert" <Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Pictures of cowling
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
>
> Hi Michel,
> My KF II stall might be higher too. Factory literature says the stall is
> 36MPH. When I touch down my indicated airspeed is about 30MPH but my Air
> speed indicator may not be accurate.
>
> I'll go to x-plane website today and see if the newest version is ready
for
> me to order. Don't worry about updating x-plane on my account. Is your
> cowling done now? Have you posted any new pictures? I'd like to see it. I
> looked at your drawings a several weeks ago and was impressed.
>
> I recently bought a Model V Kitfox and am doing some minor cowling and
> wingtip repair and have thought about you and your plane on several
> occasions.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
> Verheughe
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 2
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> "Harris, Robert" wrote:
> > Michel what is your aprox stall speed?
>
> Er, hum ... 40 mph! It's high, I know, and I have discussed it on this
list
> before. I think it may come from the fact that I don't have a static port
> and
> my cockpit might be a bit underpressurized at low speed. The important is
> that
> I know what is the "indicated" stall speed, isn't it?
>
> BTW, Robert, I am not sure I'll ever get the X-Plane version of my Kitfox
> finished. The simulator is no longer working on Macintosh OS 9, and I have
> problems installing OS X. If I do, one day, I'll let you know. But right
> now,
> flying the real thing is more fun than the simulator! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Guy Buchanan wrote:
> P = 2 * pi * r * sin(theta) for no slippage.
Thanks, Guy. I'll use that.
I think that Tom has a point saying that you can't really compare props with an
equation. But it should give an indication, don't you think? About slippage, I
am familiar with it from maritime design. But if my memory is correct, pitch in
inches is always given as if the prop was cutting through a solid medium, hence
no slippage, isn't that correct?
Cheers,
Michel
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: Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
"Harris, Robert" wrote:
> Is your cowling done now? Have you posted any new pictures?
Here is a picture taken Saturday, Robert:
http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/RedNose1.jpg
This evening, the plane was inspected and only two minor faults were found:
1) The prop tips have to be painted in a bright colour.
2) A small leak in my right wing tank drain. I didn't see it since the tank has
been empty for two months. I think I read about it earlier on the list and it
is only a matter of changing an o-ring, isn't it?
Anyway, tomorrow at nine hundred zulu (10:00 local) we will be flying the test
procedure. Today was too windy for that. At the program: follies like: stall at
30 degrees bank, etc. We will first do four landing patterns, each time
changing the CHT from a cylinder to detect the hottest one, then we will
request 2,500 above a nearby island for some airwork. Will be fun.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Chenoweth wrote:
> From what I've read the problem is with the static port as much or
> more than with the pitot (and its angle to the airstream at high angles of
> attack).
Yes, I think that the most important is that the pilot knows when the plane is
about to stall, more than what the actual TAS is. The latter is only for
statistics. I wish I knew better when my plane is about to stall because, so
far, I haven't managed to detect early signals. But maybe planes are like
women, they give subtle signals that take a lifetime to learn and understand! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:33 PM 2/15/2005 +0100, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>Guy Buchanan wrote:
> > P = 2 * pi * r * sin(theta) for no slippage.
>
>Thanks, Guy. I'll use that.
>I think that Tom has a point saying that you can't really compare props
>with an
>equation. But it should give an indication, don't you think? About slippage, I
>am familiar with it from maritime design. But if my memory is correct,
>pitch in
>inches is always given as if the prop was cutting through a solid medium,
>hence
>no slippage, isn't that correct?
Yes, though after some thought I came up with a reason that my numbers were
a little different than Tom's. My numbers are based on a no-lift chord
line, whereas his were probably based on a straight edge across the back
face, which would be a smaller number.
>Cheers,
>Michel
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Michel, generally with the Kitfox the first thing you notice when you're
getting close to stall is that the controls will loosen up. When pitch pull
starts to get easy you're getting close.
Deke
> Yes, I think that the most important is that the pilot knows when the
plane is
> about to stall, more than what the actual TAS is. The latter is only for
> statistics. I wish I knew better when my plane is about to stall because,
so
> far, I haven't managed to detect early signals. But maybe planes are like
> women, they give subtle signals that take a lifetime to learn and
understand! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> 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: Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Michel:
Red looks better than yellow. Good luck tomorrow. Will be looking for the "status
report".
Jose
Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe
"Harris, Robert" wrote:
> Is your cowling done now? Have you posted any new pictures?
Here is a picture taken Saturday, Robert:
http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/RedNose1.jpg
This evening, the plane was inspected and only two minor faults were found:
1) The prop tips have to be painted in a bright colour.
2) A small leak in my right wing tank drain. I didn't see it since the tank has
been empty for two months. I think I read about it earlier on the list and it
is only a matter of changing an o-ring, isn't it?
Anyway, tomorrow at nine hundred zulu (10:00 local) we will be flying the test
procedure. Today was too windy for that. At the program: follies like: stall at
30 degrees bank, etc. We will first do four landing patterns, each time
changing the CHT from a cylinder to detect the hottest one, then we will
request 2,500 above a nearby island for some airwork. Will be fun.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
---------------------------------
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: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Michel,
You're absolutely right.
However, my interest in the "truth" was related to bragging rights,
comparison with other aircraft (specifically RV9), and general interest in
just how fast I was really going at stall. The speed one is really going is
the determining factor in landing field length and I was curious about it.
Also if you're working with the concept of 1.3 times stall speed for
approach speed you'll be a low if you use indicated speed instead of
calibrated speed. So what I've done is take 1.3 of my calibrated stall
speed, convert that back to indicated speed, and I fly that on approach.
Given the benign nature of this airplane all that is a bit beside the point
but I like to know this kind of stuff.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Chenoweth wrote:
> > From what I've read the problem is with the static port as much or
> > more than with the pitot (and its angle to the airstream at high angles
of
> > attack).
>
> Yes, I think that the most important is that the pilot knows when the
plane is
> about to stall, more than what the actual TAS is. The latter is only for
> statistics. I wish I knew better when my plane is about to stall because,
so
> far, I haven't managed to detect early signals. But maybe planes are like
> women, they give subtle signals that take a lifetime to learn and
understand! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
Er, hum ... 40 mph! It's high, I know, and I have discussed it on this list
before. I think it may come from the fact that I don't have a static port
and
my cockpit might be a bit underpressurized at low speed. The important is
that
I know what is the "indicated" stall speed, isn't it?
Michel, I suggest you look under the seat you must have a stowaway or two.
My MKIV with 32ft laminar flow wing stalls at 32-33 Knots with very close to
MTOW. I too have my static ports open to cabin pressure. Anyway as you say
the important thing is you lnow your indicated speed at stall. Just thought
40 MPH which equates to 35 Knots an interesting figure especially in that
cold air of yours up there.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
>Michel, you've got a simulator that runs on OS 9 or OS X? I didn't
>think there was a simulator for a Mac...
A quick Google search just turned up half a dozen. The one that
Michel refers to, though, is X-Plane, available at
<http://www.x-plane.com>. X-plane is definitely one of the most
sophisticated simulators around and is used by NASA and others who
are looking for serious flight model fidelity.
Although it is available for Windoze, Linux and Macintosh, it is
developed on the Mac.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Guys,
We are being very sloppy with our terminology here.
To "certify" an airplane or piece of equipment for use on a plane
means that the certification authorities (FAA, CAA, whomever) are
granting you permission to build as many of these things as you want
without each one being inspected by them.
Airplanes that we amateurs build are NOT certified. Our airplanes
receive an airworthiness certificate but we are not authorized to
make 100 more just like them and skip the inspection by the
authorities.
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is a new category of certified airplanes.
None of us are likely to be building LSA airplanes unless we are in
the business of building airplanes for others. The idea behind LSA
is that the certification requirements are simpler than for the
existing categories and therefore easier and cheaper to get a new
design certified. Only someone in the business of building airplanes
for others will be concerned with this category (e.g., SkyStar may
decide to build completed Kitfoxes and have them certified under the
LSA rules, after which they can mass-produce finished airplanes).
Sport Pilot is a new category of pilot certificate--it has nothing
directly to do with LSA, which applies to the airplane. Someone
holding a sport pilot certificate is limited in what types of
airplanes and what types of operations are permitted.
Sport Pilots may only operate the following types of equipment:
Airplanes (single-engine only)
Gliders
Lighter-than-air ships (airship or balloon)
Rotorcraft (gyroplane only)
Powered Parachutes
Weight-Shift control aircraft (e.g. trikes)
Sport Pilots must abide by the following limitations:
no flights into Class A airspace (at or above 18,000' MSL in the US)
no flights into Class B, C, or D airspace unless you receive
training and a logbook endorsement;
no flights outside the U.S. without advance permission from
the other country or countries
no sightseeing flights with passengers for charity fund raisers
no flights above 10,000' MSL
no night flights
no flights when the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 SM
no flights unless you can see the surface of the earth for reference
no flights contrary to any limitation listed on the pilot's
certificate, U.S. driver's license, FAA medical certificate,
or logbook endorsement(s)
no flights while carrying a passenger or property for hire
no renting a light-sport aircraft unless it was issued a "special"
airworthiness certificate;
Sport Pilots may fly any of the following types of aircraft:
an experimental aircraft, including amateur-built aircraft, for
which the owner must construct more than 51-percent of the aircraft.
a Standard category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that
is type-certificated in accordance with FAR Part 43.
a Primary category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that
is type-certificated in accordance with Primary category regulations.
a special light-sport aircraft
an experimental light-sport aircraft
I hope this clarifies the new rules a bit. It makes no sense to say
"...FAA came to check out his plane for sport pilot certification..."
because pilots get a sport pilot certificate, not airplanes. It
would make sense to verify that this particular plane meets the
requirements for operation by a pilot holding a sport pilot
certificate but you don't need the FAA to do that, it's the pilot's
responsibility.
Also, private pilots or higher can choose to exercise the privileges
of a sport pilot and operate any sport-pilot eligible aircraft in the
categories or classes in which they are rated using their valid
driver's license or third-class medical as their medical
certification. So, in answer to the question, "...can we get away
with just letting our medical expire and continuing to Fly a MK 3 for
instance, that is a registered experimental?", yes, you can, as long
as the 'fox in question meets the limitations set forth for operation
by a sport pilot.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Don asks:
>1:The airfoil is said to be different than on the 3 and newer models. what
>effect did this have?
The Model I, II, and III Kitfoxes use the original Avid airfoil,
which is cambered on the bottom for maximum lift. The Model IV and
Series 5, 6, and 7 'foxes use a newer airfoil designed by Harry
Riblet that is convex on the bottom for better cruise performance.
>2: the vertical is also mentioned on the Skystar history homepage as being
>enlarged on newer models to compensate for the neutral yaw of the older
>models. can anyone tell me just how taill the newer verticals are?..and
>maybe how wide?
The Model I, II, and III and early IV 'foxes have a noticeable
adverse yaw when the flaperons are deflected. The Model IV-1200 and
later 'foxes have a vertical stabilizer and rudder that are, I
believe, about 4 inches taller to improve yaw stability. Later model
'foxes may have even larger tail surfaces, but I don't know.
In addition, SkyStar modified the flaperon mixer assembly on the IV,
5, 6 and 7 aircraft so that the movement is differential--the
flaperon moving upward moves about twice as far as the one moving
downward, which produces more drag in the direction of a turn.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
Pretty good analysis Michael...the only thing I take exception with is that
the FAA has eliminated the 51% rule for ELSA. Remember all those illegal FAT
ULs flying around? They will all be grandfathered into ELSA without a
construction log and no 51% rule.
Steve Cooper
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gibbs
Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Guys,
We are being very sloppy with our terminology here.
To "certify" an airplane or piece of equipment for use on a plane
means that the certification authorities (FAA, CAA, whomever) are
granting you permission to build as many of these things as you want
without each one being inspected by them.
Airplanes that we amateurs build are NOT certified. Our airplanes
receive an airworthiness certificate but we are not authorized to
make 100 more just like them and skip the inspection by the
authorities.
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is a new category of certified airplanes.
None of us are likely to be building LSA airplanes unless we are in
the business of building airplanes for others. The idea behind LSA
is that the certification requirements are simpler than for the
existing categories and therefore easier and cheaper to get a new
design certified. Only someone in the business of building airplanes
for others will be concerned with this category (e.g., SkyStar may
decide to build completed Kitfoxes and have them certified under the
LSA rules, after which they can mass-produce finished airplanes).
Sport Pilot is a new category of pilot certificate--it has nothing
directly to do with LSA, which applies to the airplane. Someone
holding a sport pilot certificate is limited in what types of
airplanes and what types of operations are permitted.
Sport Pilots may only operate the following types of equipment:
Airplanes (single-engine only)
Gliders
Lighter-than-air ships (airship or balloon)
Rotorcraft (gyroplane only)
Powered Parachutes
Weight-Shift control aircraft (e.g. trikes)
Sport Pilots must abide by the following limitations:
no flights into Class A airspace (at or above 18,000' MSL in the US)
no flights into Class B, C, or D airspace unless you receive
training and a logbook endorsement;
no flights outside the U.S. without advance permission from
the other country or countries
no sightseeing flights with passengers for charity fund raisers
no flights above 10,000' MSL
no night flights
no flights when the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 SM
no flights unless you can see the surface of the earth for reference
no flights contrary to any limitation listed on the pilot's
certificate, U.S. driver's license, FAA medical certificate,
or logbook endorsement(s)
no flights while carrying a passenger or property for hire
no renting a light-sport aircraft unless it was issued a "special"
airworthiness certificate;
Sport Pilots may fly any of the following types of aircraft:
an experimental aircraft, including amateur-built aircraft, for
which the owner must construct more than 51-percent of the aircraft.
a Standard category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that
is type-certificated in accordance with FAR Part 43.
a Primary category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that
is type-certificated in accordance with Primary category regulations.
a special light-sport aircraft
an experimental light-sport aircraft
I hope this clarifies the new rules a bit. It makes no sense to say
"...FAA came to check out his plane for sport pilot certification..."
because pilots get a sport pilot certificate, not airplanes. It
would make sense to verify that this particular plane meets the
requirements for operation by a pilot holding a sport pilot
certificate but you don't need the FAA to do that, it's the pilot's
responsibility.
Also, private pilots or higher can choose to exercise the privileges
of a sport pilot and operate any sport-pilot eligible aircraft in the
categories or classes in which they are rated using their valid
driver's license or third-class medical as their medical
certification. So, in answer to the question, "...can we get away
with just letting our medical expire and continuing to Fly a MK 3 for
instance, that is a registered experimental?", yes, you can, as long
as the 'fox in question meets the limitations set forth for operation
by a sport pilot.
Mike G.
N728KF
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! --
|