---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 02/15/05: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:07:16 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Flight simulator WAS: Kitfox 2 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:22:05 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:34:37 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:56:10 AM PST US From: "Nate Free" Subject: Kitfox-List: Missing LiteSqaured found in OK --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Nate Free" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:37:26 AM PST US From: "Jay & Beverly Carter" Subject: Kitfox-List: missing --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jay & Beverly Carter" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:20 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 03:56 PM 2/14/2005 -0800, Tom Jones wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:48 AM PST US From: "Harris, Robert" Subject: Kitfox-List: Pictures of cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" 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 "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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:37:25 AM PST US From: "Richard Hutson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot category --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson" Sport planes can also be flown by private pilots. The sport planes can also be maintained by the builder. ----- Original Message ----- From: 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" > > 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 > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:10:22 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport pilot category From: "Gary Henderson" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Gary Henderson" 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" > > > Sport planes can also be flown by private pilots. The sport planes can > also > be maintained by the builder. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > 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" >> >> 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 >> > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:05:45 PM PST US From: "Chenoweth" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pictures of cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Pictures of cowling > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert" > > 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 > > "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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:41:25 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:48:22 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pictures of cowling --> 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 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:29 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:01 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Pitch/prop-angle/rpm --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 10:33 PM 2/15/2005 +0100, Michel Verheughe wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:09 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:21 PM PST US From: "Jose M. Toro" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Pictures of cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" Michel: Red looks better than yellow. Good luck tomorrow. Will be looking for the "status report". Jose Michel Verheughe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:56 PM PST US From: "Chenoweth" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Chenoweth" 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" Subject: Kitfox-List: Stall speed. WAS Pictures of cowling > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:59 PM PST US From: "Rex & Jan Shaw" Subject: Kitfox-List: Stall speed --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:36 PM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 2 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs >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 . 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:36 PM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:30:13 PM PST US From: Michael Gibbs Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox 2 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:52 PM PST US From: "Steve Cooper" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Sport Pilots and Sport Airplanes --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" 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 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