Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:35 AM - Re: repairman's certificate (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
2. 04:42 AM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
3. 05:22 AM - Re: IVO (algate@attglobal.net)
4. 05:34 AM - Re: repairman's certificate (W Duke)
5. 05:48 AM - Re: IVO (Chenoweth)
6. 07:27 AM - Re: repairman's certificate (Giovanni Day)
7. 09:02 AM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (Lynn Matteson)
8. 09:23 AM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (Fox5flyer)
9. 09:48 AM - Re: Full Lotus Floats (John Stoner)
10. 10:17 AM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (flier)
11. 11:04 AM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (Lynn Matteson)
12. 11:14 AM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (Lynn Matteson)
13. 04:57 PM - Tex Lyc suit (Fox5flyer)
14. 06:25 PM - Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV (Randy Daughenbaugh)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: repairman's certificate |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 2/22/2005 10:57:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rjdaugh@rapidnet.com writes:
Another take on this - from a friend today. He pointed out that 10 people
can build the plane and one of them chosen to get the repair cert. This is
even without regard to whether he built 10% or most or only a little bit of
the plane.
Building is supposed to be an educational process for one or many.
Randy
I thought the whole purpose of the 51% rule was to insure that the builder
was personally and intimately familiar with the aircraft enough to be issued a
repairman's certificate for that aircraft. Are there "certified" repairmen
out there working on parts of their aircraft that were built largely by
others? Is this good use of the 51% rule?
What if John Denver had been the 51% builder of his aircraft and certified
as a repairman for it, would he have been familiar enough with it's
limitations to be alive today? This may be a bad example to make my point because
a
pilot does not have to build an aircraft to fly it safely. He or she must know
how to ensure there is enough fuel flow to the engine to sustain powered
flight.
Should a "certified repairman" be performing maintenance and repair
activities on his aircraft that he only built 10% of?
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Outback, (out back in the garage)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 2/23/2005 12:21:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
For my part, it wasn't so much an issue of whether to install or not,
but (and I didn't actually express this point) what to do if and when I
decided to swap the SS deck for a Lexan deck, sometime down the road.
It was this thought that made me wonder if the bearing was actually
needed. If not needed, I wouldn't worry about having to swap
Lynn,
You're earlier comment about people not wanting to speak about design
changes.....That's because of people like me that speak up too quickly with
stupid comments....I will bolt my bearing back up the next time I go to the
airport. This list acts as a good sanity check when some go off the deep end.
My apologies.
Anyway, my bearing is completely independent of the one piece turtle
deck. You can remove the deck and the bearing is still in place. It mounts to
the fuselage tab on the inside. Made of 2 piece Delrin. This "might" be a
method of attaching the bearing with the one piece Lexan deck and would
prevent from having to drill any mounting holes in the lexan. I don't know how
the
drawings for the Lexan deck have you do this. I believe this was your
original question.
Sorry about the confusion,
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "algate@attglobal.net" <algate@attglobal.net>
I orid\ginally had the 7" IFA Ultralight prop on my 582 C box and had to
change out the electricmotor every 60 orso hours due to the damage caused
bu harmonic vibration.
I changed to the medium 2 blade as suggeted to you and found thatthe havir
and more rigid 2 blade medium prop was far more efficient than the
Ultralight version which resukted in a higher cruise speed, far less noise
and approx the same rate of climb so it was a resounding success. I have
also had no problms with the electric motr after 200 hrs and the plane now
sounds like a continntal with that big fat prop.
I love it...
GaryA
Litw2/582 IVO CAP
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Harris, Robert Robert_Harris@intuit.com
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IVO
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Harris, Robert"
<Robert_Harris@intuit.com>
Bill,
Go look at IVO's website about the torsional vibration that occurs with a 3
bladed prop and a 3:1 gear ratio and that will explain it.
Robert
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: repairman's certificate |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Hello,
I have a repairman's certificate (incidentally, I easily did over 51% myself)
which entitles me to do all maintenance. However, if I don't feel comfortable
with something, I get help. I don't really know how to weld and I would not
weld anything on the airplane. Everyone should know there limits and not exceed
them. I have know problem with someone getting a Repairman's Certificate
even if they only did minimal work to build their aircraft. It will save them
thousands of dollars over years of ownership if only to allow them to the bulk
of the annual and change things like switches and fuel valves.
10 hours vs 40 hours and a Repairman's Certificate would be a no brainer for
me. Try for the Certificate.
Maxwell S6/TD/IO240
KITFOXZ@aol.com wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 2/22/2005 10:57:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rjdaugh@rapidnet.com writes:
Another take on this - from a friend today. He pointed out that 10 people
can build the plane and one of them chosen to get the repair cert. This is
even without regard to whether he built 10% or most or only a little bit of
the plane.
Building is supposed to be an educational process for one or many.
Randy
I thought the whole purpose of the 51% rule was to insure that the builder
was personally and intimately familiar with the aircraft enough to be issued a
repairman's certificate for that aircraft. Are there "certified" repairmen
out there working on parts of their aircraft that were built largely by
others? Is this good use of the 51% rule?
What if John Denver had been the 51% builder of his aircraft and certified
as a repairman for it, would he have been familiar enough with it's
limitations to be alive today? This may be a bad example to make my point because
a
pilot does not have to build an aircraft to fly it safely. He or she must know
how to ensure there is enough fuel flow to the engine to sustain powered
flight.
Should a "certified repairman" be performing maintenance and repair
activities on his aircraft that he only built 10% of?
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Outback, (out back in the garage)
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: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth@gwi.net>
Thank you Gary, and thank all of you for your help. My only remaining
decision is whether to take this in stages (ground adjustable first) or go
whole hog. Again thanks.
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <algate@attglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: IVO
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "algate@attglobal.net"
<algate@attglobal.net>
>
> I orid\ginally had the 7" IFA Ultralight prop on my 582 C box and had to
> change out the electricmotor every 60 orso hours due to the damage caused
> bu harmonic vibration.
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: | repairman's certificate |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Giovanni Day" <gde01@bellsouth.net>
If you talk to the EAAs Charlie Becker many times about this very issue.
He
will tell you that the person doing the majority of the work on the airplane
can get the RC. He will also tell you that the only thing the RC gets you is
the right to sign of the condition inspection. You as the owner without an
RC can do any work you want to the airplane as stipulated in your operating
limitation. Most of the time all you cannot do is make an major change
affecting flight characteristics. Engine and prop changes are the most
common mentioned. Changing out a damaged or life limited part for the same
part, any owner can do and can sign it in the logs. If you want to rebuild
your engine then it is not a major change according to many. There are
several articles on the EAA website about this by Charlie Becker considered
an authority on experimental FARs. If you have questions about it give him a
call, it is his job and he loves to talk about this stuff. My nickels worth.
:)
Giovanni Day
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of W Duke
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: repairman's certificate
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: W Duke <n981ms@yahoo.com>
Hello,
I have a repairman's certificate (incidentally, I easily did over 51%
myself) which entitles me to do all maintenance. However, if I don't feel
comfortable with something, I get help. I don't really know how to weld and
I would not weld anything on the airplane. Everyone should know there
limits and not exceed them. I have know problem with someone getting a
Repairman's Certificate even if they only did minimal work to build their
aircraft. It will save them thousands of dollars over years of ownership if
only to allow them to the bulk of the annual and change things like switches
and fuel valves.
10 hours vs 40 hours and a Repairman's Certificate would be a no brainer
for me. Try for the Certificate.
Maxwell S6/TD/IO240
KITFOXZ@aol.com wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 2/22/2005 10:57:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rjdaugh@rapidnet.com writes:
Another take on this - from a friend today. He pointed out that 10 people
can build the plane and one of them chosen to get the repair cert. This is
even without regard to whether he built 10% or most or only a little bit of
the plane.
Building is supposed to be an educational process for one or many.
Randy
I thought the whole purpose of the 51% rule was to insure that the builder
was personally and intimately familiar with the aircraft enough to be issued
a
repairman's certificate for that aircraft. Are there "certified" repairmen
out there working on parts of their aircraft that were built largely by
others? Is this good use of the 51% rule?
What if John Denver had been the 51% builder of his aircraft and certified
as a repairman for it, would he have been familiar enough with it's
limitations to be alive today? This may be a bad example to make my point
because a
pilot does not have to build an aircraft to fly it safely. He or she must
know
how to ensure there is enough fuel flow to the engine to sustain powered
flight.
Should a "certified repairman" be performing maintenance and repair
activities on his aircraft that he only built 10% of?
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Outback, (out back in the garage)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
No problem, Don....I just finished drilling the holes for the rivets on
my fuselage-half of the hinge, but will have to wait until warmer
weather to roll the plane outside for wing installation and any further
work on the bearing. (I can get one wing on, but not two). In the
meantime, when the deck gets here, I'll look into a bearing such as
yours sounds like. I've got it imagined in my head what you did. One of
the former owners of my plane drilled a 1/4" hole in that fuselage tab.
I was thinking that they did this erroneously, thinking that's where
the shoulder harness should go. Now I'm thinking that they too, might
have come up with a better bearing idea. While we're on the subject of
that bearing, it does seem like a rather flimsy bearing....only a 1/8"
bearing surface, and mounted like it is, with camlocs being the
fastening method for the t'deck, hence for the upper half of the
bearing, well, I'm only a seat-of-the-pants "engineer" but sounds like
you've got a better idea.
Lynn
On Wednesday, February 23, 2005, at 07:41 AM, AlbertaIV@aol.com wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/23/2005 12:21:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
>
> For my part, it wasn't so much an issue of whether to install or not,
> but (and I didn't actually express this point) what to do if and when
> I
> decided to swap the SS deck for a Lexan deck, sometime down the road.
> It was this thought that made me wonder if the bearing was actually
> needed. If not needed, I wouldn't worry about having to swap
>
>
> Lynn,
> You're earlier comment about people not wanting to speak about
> design
> changes.....That's because of people like me that speak up too
> quickly with
> stupid comments....I will bolt my bearing back up the next time I go
> to the
> airport. This list acts as a good sanity check when some go off the
> deep end.
> My apologies.
> Anyway, my bearing is completely independent of the one piece
> turtle
> deck. You can remove the deck and the bearing is still in place. It
> mounts to
> the fuselage tab on the inside. Made of 2 piece Delrin. This
> "might" be a
> method of attaching the bearing with the one piece Lexan deck and
> would
> prevent from having to drill any mounting holes in the lexan. I
> don't know how the
> drawings for the Lexan deck have you do this. I believe this was your
> original question.
>
> Sorry about the confusion,
>
> Don Smythe
> Classic IV w/ 582
>
>
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: flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
...snip
> the shoulder harness should go. Now I'm thinking that they too, might
> have come up with a better bearing idea. While we're on the subject of
> that bearing, it does seem like a rather flimsy bearing....only a 1/8"
> bearing surface, and mounted like it is, with camlocs being the
> fastening method for the t'deck, hence for the upper half of the
> bearing, well, I'm only a seat-of-the-pants "engineer" but sounds like
> you've got a better idea.
> Lynn
Those building the IV might have a look at the method used in the 5. My
bearing block is about 5/8" nylon and is one piece. Very strong.
Deke
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: Full Lotus Floats |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Stoner" <john@dakotacubaircraft.com>
Thor,
I have Full Lotus floats for my model III 582. I have not tried them in the
snow as I have skis also. The floats add quite a bit to empty weight
reducing performance. I know of a few folks up here in Alaska using full
lotus floats as skis and they seem happy with this arrangement. The very
best recreational flying is done with skis (IMHO) and I would encourage you
to get a set if your budget allows.
When shopping for skis, or plans for skis, look for those that have a slight
upturn of the bottoms on the sides and especially the trailing edge. The
side upturn reduces landing gear side loads in turns, and on the trailing
ede it allows pulling the plane backwards when ground handling.
All that being said, I have an old pair of SkyStar skis that are square
edged on the sides and trailing edge that I will sell very inexpensively,
but I am keeping my 'Airglass' style skis.
John Stoner, N166N
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: flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
There's more than a few hundred IV's out there flying
with the flaperon support bearing per Skystar's
original design. It works great, requires no
maintenance, is easy to assemble, and is very hardy
once you twist in the camlocks -- doesn't matter what
the turtledeck is made of.
--- Original Message ---
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: flaperon horn bearing on IV
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
<morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
>...snip
>> the shoulder harness should go. Now I'm thinking
that they too, might
>> have come up with a better bearing idea. While
we're on the subject of
>> that bearing, it does seem like a rather flimsy
bearing....only a 1/8"
>> bearing surface, and mounted like it is, with
camlocs being the
>> fastening method for the t'deck, hence for the
upper half of the
>> bearing, well, I'm only a seat-of-the-
pants "engineer" but sounds like
>> you've got a better idea.
>> Lynn
>
>Those building the IV might have a look at the
method used in the 5. My
>bearing block is about 5/8" nylon and is one piece.
Very strong.
>Deke
>
>
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: flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Are there any pictures of this 5 method available? Not that I couldn't
"imagineer" it, but it would help to see how it was done.
Lynn
do not archive
On Wednesday, February 23, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> ...snip
>> the shoulder harness should go. Now I'm thinking that they too, might
>> have come up with a better bearing idea. While we're on the subject of
>> that bearing, it does seem like a rather flimsy bearing....only a 1/8"
>> bearing surface, and mounted like it is, with camlocs being the
>> fastening method for the t'deck, hence for the upper half of the
>> bearing, well, I'm only a seat-of-the-pants "engineer" but sounds like
>> you've got a better idea.
>> Lynn
>
> Those building the IV might have a look at the method used in the 5.
> My
> bearing block is about 5/8" nylon and is one piece. Very strong.
> Deke
>
>
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: flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I know, but you know how some guys are (me)....gotta see if there's a
better way. : )
Lynn
do not archive
On Wednesday, February 23, 2005, at 01:16 PM, flier wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
>
> There's more than a few hundred IV's out there flying
> with the flaperon support bearing per Skystar's
> original design. It works great, requires no
> maintenance, is easy to assemble, and is very hardy
> once you twist in the camlocks -- doesn't matter what
> the turtledeck is made of.
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: flaperon horn bearing on IV
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>>
>> ...snip
>>> the shoulder harness should go. Now I'm thinking
> that they too, might
>>> have come up with a better bearing idea. While
> we're on the subject of
>>> that bearing, it does seem like a rather flimsy
> bearing....only a 1/8"
>>> bearing surface, and mounted like it is, with
> camlocs being the
>>> fastening method for the t'deck, hence for the
> upper half of the
>>> bearing, well, I'm only a seat-of-the-
> pants "engineer" but sounds like
>>> you've got a better idea.
>>> Lynn
>>
>> Those building the IV might have a look at the
> method used in the 5. My
>> bearing block is about 5/8" nylon and is one piece.
> Very strong.
>> Deke
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Below is a tidbit that I'm sure many on the List will find interesting. I
hope it's not enough to put Textron Lyc down the tubes. I felt it was
Kitfox related because some of our members are using O235s. Not
good for the av world.
Deke
Jury's Crankshaft Verdict Hits Lycoming Hard...
Blame ... And Nearly $100M In Damages
In a stunning verdict (the effects of which could ripple through
the aviation world for years to come) a Texas jury has found Textron
Lycoming entirely to blame for crankshaft failures in high-horsepower
engines between 2000 and 2002. What's more, the Grimes County jurors
found that Lycoming's investigation of the crankshaft failures was
fraudulent and incorrectly put the blame on the manufacturer of the
crankshaft forgings, Interstate Southwest, of Navasota, Texas. In fact,
the FAA also accepted Lycoming's version that Interstate had improperly
heat-treated the forgings, which weakened the steel and led to the
failures. What the jury found was that the crankshafts were
under-designed for high-horsepower engines, and that Lycoming changed
the recipe for the steel alloy used in the cranks by adding vanadium (to
make the metal easier and less expensive to work with) and that that
weakened them. According to court documents obtained by AVweb, the jury
found that the "sole cause" of the crankshaft failures was Lycoming's
design. "The jurors found the combination of poor design and vanadium
pushed these crankshafts beyond their limits," said Interstate attorney
Hal Walker. The jury awarded Interstate $9.7 million in actual damages
and $86.4 million in punitive damages. Interstate launched the suit in
April of 2003. A month later, Lycoming answered with a suit filed in
Pennsylvania claiming $173 million against Interstate. According to
Interstate's lawyers, the Texas verdict effectively stops Lycoming from
pursuing the Pennsylvania suit. "This is a total victory for our side,"
said Marty Rose, another Interstate lawyer.
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: | flaperon horn bearing on IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
My understanding is that the bearings are still required on the Model IV,
but are not to be used on the 5/6/7. I believe I got that straight from
Skystar.
The reason I was told was as Lynn says below. There is a lot of flex in the
Kitfox wing and the bearing causes binding when the wing is loaded.
Has anyone seen the building instructions for the 7?
Randy - kitfox 5 with 7 firewall forward.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: flaperon horn bearing on IV
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Lotsa good thoughts on this issue, and a big thanks for everyone's
input.
For my part, it wasn't so much an issue of whether to install or not,
but (and I didn't actually express this point) what to do if and when I
decided to swap the SS deck for a Lexan deck, sometime down the road.
It was this thought that made me wonder if the bearing was actually
needed. If not needed, I wouldn't worry about having to swap the upper
bearing half from this deck to that deck, whenever that time came. It
is certainly no big job for me to continue installing the bearing, as
the consensus seems to agree is wise.
One more point though...I heard off-list that on at least one occasion
a flaperon became bound up during a high-G maneuver, and this was
attributed to the flaperon horn bearing binding. (Hope I translated
this incidence correctly).
Lynn
On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 06:05 PM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> I agree with Steve. The plans on my S5 included the bearing and I
> fabricated and installed it according to instructions. Personally, I
> can't
> see any merit in not installing it. That bearing takes the load when
> the
> flaperon is under stress and during heavy turbulence, in my opinion it
> does
> its job by giving support to the flaperon right where it's needed most.
> They weigh almost nothing and aren't difficult to install, so I can't
> see
> why anyone would want to leave them off.
> Deke
>
>
>> szakreski@shaw.ca writes:
>> opinion, I would say be careful on this one. That bearing obviously
>> has
> a
>> purpose, probably flutter control. If it was me, I certainly would
>> not
>> delete it.
>>
>>
>> Question on this bearing. Do the model 5's and 7's use the flapperon
>> bearing at the turtledeck? Second question. Am I operating on poor
> memory or
>> didn't we discuss this many moons ago and wasn't it discussed that
>> the
> 4's and
>> above could do without the bearing. I also seem to remember Skystars
>> involvement and their concurrence that the bearing wasn't necessary.
> Somebody with a
>> better memory please help me here.
>> I agree that the bearing has or had an obvious purpose. On the
>> other
>> hand, if later design/testing has proved the bearing unnecessary,
>> then it
> is
>> perfectly OK to delete.
>> I find that particular bearing a bit of a pain in my situation. I
> don't
>> think I would have deleted it on my own without some concurrence.
> Actually,
>> mine is still there just not fastened.
>>
>> Don Smythe
>>
>>
>
>
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! --
|