Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:45 AM - [off-topic] Terminology (Michel Verheughe)
2. 03:55 AM - Re: NSI CAP (kitfoxjunky)
3. 04:54 AM - SV: SV: Static Ports (Michel Verheughe)
4. 05:56 AM - Re: C-90 in Kitfox IV (Roberto Canino)
5. 06:43 AM - Re: SV: SV: Static Ports (Lynn Matteson)
6. 08:08 AM - Re: [off-topic] Terminology (Steve Zakreski)
7. 08:16 AM - course and Heading (EMAproducts@aol.com)
8. 08:31 AM - Re: [off-topic] Terminology (Guy Buchanan)
9. 09:28 AM - (robert schaum)
10. 09:56 AM - Re: (Don Pearsall)
11. 09:57 AM - Re: (Steve Magdic)
12. 11:14 AM - Re: Re: (Mike Couillard - TSI)
13. 11:44 AM - 582 Run-In (Marco Menezes)
14. 12:02 PM - Re: 582 Run-In (Fox5flyer)
15. 12:08 PM - Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) (Cory Emberson)
16. 12:09 PM - Re: (jdmcbean)
17. 12:58 PM - Re: (Rick)
18. 01:25 PM - Re: course and Heading (Michel Verheughe)
19. 01:27 PM - Re: SV: SV: Static Ports (Michel Verheughe)
20. 01:46 PM - Re: (Randy Daughenbaugh)
21. 01:51 PM - Re: Re: (Lynn Matteson)
22. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: (Dcecil3@aol.com)
23. 03:07 PM - Re: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) (Mike Couillard - TSI)
24. 03:10 PM - Re: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) (Cory Emberson)
25. 03:30 PM - Re: (Fred Shiple)
26. 04:49 PM - Lookie Seeie............ (hausding, sid)
27. 06:48 PM - Re: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) (Flier)
28. 06:49 PM - Re: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 (Richard Hutson)
29. 07:09 PM - General questions on Kitfox (robert schaum)
30. 07:28 PM - Re: course and Heading (John Perry)
31. 07:31 PM - Re: Re: (Mdkitfox@aol.com)
32. 07:32 PM - Re: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 (chad lively)
33. 08:06 PM - Re: course and Heading (hausding, sid)
34. 08:15 PM - Redux Jackscrew: (Vic Jacko)
35. 08:35 PM - Re: Re: (Rick)
36. 08:42 PM - Re: course and Heading (Guy Buchanan)
37. 08:42 PM - Re: General questions on Kitfox (Guy Buchanan)
38. 08:47 PM - Re: Redux Jackscrew: (Don Pearsall)
39. 10:20 PM - Re: 582 Run-In (r.thomas@za.pwc.com)
40. 11:02 PM - Re: SV: Static Ports (jimshumaker)
41. 11:27 PM - [off-topic] course and Heading (Michel Verheughe)
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: | [off-topic] Terminology |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hello Guy,
> From: Guy Buchanan [bnn@nethere.com]
> I believe this is incorrect.
I understand your opinion, Guy, as it is what most people tell me when I ask the
question. Don also wrote to me privately, saying the same. I will then answer
both on the list - even if it is somewhat off-topic.
But first: DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional navigator. My interest is purely
in the history of navigation and etymology. I passed my microlight pilot license
in Norwegian (korrigert kurs) and my yachtsman license in Spanish. My English
is international and I think that say, an English sailor may use a different
vocabulary than a US pilot. So, I may say stupid things.
Now, please look at this page of the British Royal Air Force "Air Navigation" from
1944, that I scanned at work, today:
http:home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Course.gif
It says that: "The direction in which an aircraft is heading is called its Course."
then after:
"The direction of the path of an aircraft over the Earth is called its Track."
On the other hand, Don has just sent me a link that is interesting:
http://www.airways.com/java/coordcalc.html
There, it says:
"Mag.Heading: Magnetic Heading (in degrees). This is the Magnetic Course with
a correction for winds "
But, let's first get rid of mag vs. true notations. Sailors use true north and
Mercator charts, airmen use mag north and Lambert charts.
If I understand airways.com correctly, they call the "heading" as the "course"
corrected for winds.
This surely can't be true. I have seen people arguing, like you, that the heading
corrected for the wind is the course, but never the opposite.
In my mind, and until proved wrong, the heading (or course) corrected for the wind
is the track. It looks like the RAF agrees with me. At least, in 1944.
But if you disagree, what is then - for you - the meaning of "track?"
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 |
|
06:54:38 AM,
Serialize complete at 03/03/2005 06:54:38 AM
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky <kitfoxjunky@decisionlabs.com>
Hi everyone.
There are considerable discrepancies between what Lance claims in his
posting below and what is verifiable. I would suggest that owners and
potential buyers do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Lance. You have had my prop for seven months now. You indicated in your
posting below that you finished your investigation in November. I was
good enough to send it to you to. I even paid the shipping. I did not
intend for you to keep it. Please ship it back.
One final point. The name is Walsh, not Welsh.
Gary Walsh, P. Eng
C-GOOT
www.decisionlabs.com/kitfox
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "NSI AERO" <info@nsiaero.com>
Hello John,
It has taken me much longer than expected to review the CAP 140 blade
cuff.
(The part that failed on Gary Welsh's CAP) To replace or not to replace
the
blade cuff on the Model 140 was a difficult one to call. I asked Gary to
hold off on making a posting until I had finished the review of his
failure
and weather their was any connection to 3 other failures reported on the
same model since the beginning of production in 1995.
Of the 4 units in question.....
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: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hello Torgeir and Jim,
> From: Torgeir Mortensen
> Look at this picture, and you'll understand why.
> http://kitfox.net/images/DSC00011.JPG
Yes, that's what I meant, Torgeir, although I don't have the handle that Alfred
made for your plane, and mine is quite flush with the fuselage.
> This position might be usable, but this tube can collect water -and later
> corrosion.
True. But you say that the hole is no more than 0.5 mm? In that case, anything
could do the job. I have just bought the instrument connectors (1/8") and T-connectors,
plus ten meters of 4 mm pneumatic piping. I am all clear for the installation
... except the through-hull fitting near the tail. I could use just
anything that will fit the 4mm pipe and a 0.5 mm hull, right? I think I could
easily make something out of aluminium.
One thing, though: when I taxi on muddy ground, I see a lot of mud being projected
on the tail from the prop wash. Mud could easily obstruct a 0.5 mm hull, isn't
it?
If I was to make that hole in the center of the transversal pipe, as I mentionned
before, wouldn't it be more protected from dirt?
> From: jimshumaker
> Anyway that is what I did on my Model III and it was easier than I expected.
> If you are interested I can look up the location and install details.
Very kind of you, Jim, thank you. But I think I have the installation details from
Skystar. What I was wondering is, is you hole also a tiny pinhole? In which
case, how do you prevent to have dirt (mud) obstructing it? Isn't it quite exposed?
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: | Re: C-90 in Kitfox IV |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino <robertocannino@yahoo.com>
Thanks Lyle, I'll email Don immediately.
Best,
B
Lyle Persels <lpers@mchsi.com> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lyle Persels
Don Cully has a C90 in his Model IV Speedster. A nice installation,
signed off, but he hasn't flown it yet. His e-mail:
dcully@cecnet.net.
Lyle Persels
Do not archive
Roberto Canino wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino
>
>Does anyone know of a Kitfox IV with a C-90 or similar engine?
>
>Thanks,
>B
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Hi Michel-
I just checked the Skystar port that I recently installed on my IV and
the hole is .059" or a #53 drill. This works out to roughly 1. 5mm.
Lynn
On Thursday, March 3, 2005, at 07:53 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> True. But you say that the hole is no more than 0.5 mm?
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
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: | [off-topic] Terminology |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Michel
I'm with Guy on this one. Possibly there is a variation between the British
terminology and North American.
Course: The line drawn on the map. Also the direction you want to go.
Heading: The direction the nose is pointed
Track: The actual path the aircraft travels over the land below.
SteveZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hello Guy,
> From: Guy Buchanan [bnn@nethere.com]
> I believe this is incorrect.
I understand your opinion, Guy, as it is what most people tell me when I ask
the question. Don also wrote to me privately, saying the same. I will then
answer both on the list - even if it is somewhat off-topic.
But first: DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional navigator. My interest is
purely in the history of navigation and etymology. I passed my microlight
pilot license in Norwegian (korrigert kurs) and my yachtsman license in
Spanish. My English is international and I think that say, an English sailor
may use a different vocabulary than a US pilot. So, I may say stupid things.
Now, please look at this page of the British Royal Air Force "Air
Navigation" from 1944, that I scanned at work, today:
http:home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Course.gif
It says that: "The direction in which an aircraft is heading is called its
Course."
then after:
"The direction of the path of an aircraft over the Earth is called its
Track."
On the other hand, Don has just sent me a link that is interesting:
http://www.airways.com/java/coordcalc.html
There, it says:
"Mag.Heading: Magnetic Heading (in degrees). This is the Magnetic Course
with a correction for winds "
But, let's first get rid of mag vs. true notations. Sailors use true north
and Mercator charts, airmen use mag north and Lambert charts.
If I understand airways.com correctly, they call the "heading" as the
"course" corrected for winds.
This surely can't be true. I have seen people arguing, like you, that the
heading corrected for the wind is the course, but never the opposite.
In my mind, and until proved wrong, the heading (or course) corrected for
the wind is the track. It looks like the RAF agrees with me. At least, in
1944.
But if you disagree, what is then - for you - the meaning of "track?"
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: | course and Heading |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
Course & heading are not the same unless you want to get lost!
****
>...
>While on the subject, another interesting question is the difference
>between "course" and "heading." There is none! It is the same definition,
>although my experience is that the Brits say more often "course" while the
>Americans prefer "heading."
>>>><<<< A course is a track over the ground, the heading is what you fly to
make good the course correcting for wind, not getting into variation,
compass deviation etc. For details go to any flying ground school textbook.
Hope I said that correct! The correct language for each country will be in
your "local" flying textbooks.
Elbie,
over 43 years as flight instructor
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: [off-topic] Terminology |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:05 AM 3/3/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>...
>But if you disagree, what is then - for you - the meaning of "track?"
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
You plot a course. You fly a heading. Your resulting path over the ground
is the track. If you've perfectly anticipated the winds, (or use a fancy
GPS,) the track lies on the course. Otherwise it wanders off.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
From the Oxford's English Dictionary, 2nd edition (1989)
course, n.
12. a. Naut. The direction in which, or point of the compass towards which,
a ship sails. Hence transf. of the direction or line pursued by an
ocean-current, mountain-chain, vein of ore, etc. Also of aircraft: the
(correct) line or direction of flight.
1553 S. Cabot in Hakluyt Voy. 259 All courses in Nauigation to be set
and kept by the aduice of the Captain. 1555 Eden Decades 351 We sette owre
course south and by East. 1669 Sturmy Mariner's Mag. 3 Each several Course
hath two Points of the Compass, by which it is expressed+Where there is any
place scituated South-east, in respect of another place, we say the Rhomb
or Course that runneth betwixt them, is South-east and North-west. 1692
Capt. Smith's Seaman's Gram. i. xvi. 76 The Course, is that Point of the
Compass on which the Ship sails. 1747 in Col. Rec. Pennsylv. V. 107 That
the said Road shall be Resurveyed and laid out according to the Courses it
now runs. 1799 Kirwan Geol. Ess. 159 Mountains are said to have their
course in that direction of their length in which they descend, and grow
lower. 1815 Falconer's Dict. Marine s.v., When a ship sails in a N.E.
direction we say her course is four points 0r 45=B0. 1872 Raymond Statist.
Mines & Mining 308 The Gardner lode is nearly parallel to the Illinois+Its
course is north 85=B0 east, true. 1883 Stevenson Treasure Isl. ii. xii, The
Hispaniola+sailed a course that would just clear the island on the
east. 1905 G. Bacon Balloons vi. 86 To steer his course in a balloon+the
aeronaut must so arrange that he is travelling faster or slower than the
wind. 1909 C. C. Turner Aerial Navig. xii. 181 Heavier-than-air
machines+are+liable to be driven out of their course in strong winds. 1933
Bur. of Standards Jrnl. Research XI. 741 Its [sc. the direction finder's]
operation was entirely satisfactory, indications right and left of =91course=92
being very steady and definite. 1945 T. A. Dickinson Aeronautical Dict.
99/1 Course, the route or direction that should be or has been flown by an
aircraft. It may be a true course, a magnetic course, or a compass course.
heading, n.
c. Aeronaut. (See quot. 1951.)
1935 T. C. Lyon Pract. Air Navigation 29 Compass heading, the true
course plus or minus variation and deviation, and including allowance for
wind. 1951 Gloss. Aeronaut. Terms (B.S.I.) iii. 7 Heading, the direction
of the longitudinal axis of an aircraft defined by the angle it makes with
a specified meridian. 1968 New Scientist 18 Apr. 133/1 The aircraft's
heading is defined by the localizer's two overlapping beams.
track, n.
d. Aeronaut. The projection on the earth's surface of the (actual or
intended) course of an aircraft; the representation of this on a chart.
1919 S. F. Card Air Navigation i. 6 The straight line on the map or
chart joining the two places will be called the desired track. 1943
Redpath & Coburn Air Transport Navigation viii. 176 Measurement of the line
must give us the groundspeed, since track and groundspeed go hand in
hand. 1970 Taylor & Parmar Ground Stud. for Pilots ii. i. 13 Plot in the
places carefully on the chart+and join them up, putting the two arrows on
the line+to indicate the Track you wish to follow over the Earth's surface.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Robert,
Welcome to the Kitfox List! We have all been through the same
decision-making process that you are going through now. You will receive
lots of expert advice.
I am 6'1" too, and have flown both Model 4 and Series 5 KFs. No problems.
Elbow room is tight on the Model 4, but about the same as your C-172 on the
Series 5.
The skylight on the KFs is great for upward visibility. For lateral
visibility, you can get bubble doors that will make you feel like you are in
a canopy plane. In my opinion, high wings are much better for visibility
than low wings. You usually are looking at the ground, not the sky, and low
wings only give you limited forward ground visibility. If you like taking
photos, high wing is your only choice.
I too often wonder why there are not too many KFs at the airshows when I go
to them. I guess the KF drivers do not like to go cross country (although
the KF is perfectly capable of long X/C), or maybe they are too busy having
fun around their home base.
As for problems, there was a problem with the early S5 trim motor having the
potential to break, and rendering the horizontal tail uncontrollable. That
has been fixed. KF owners have overloaded their plans routinely with no
problems. The airframe is very well made and strong.
The fabric and tube design holds up very well over time. And of course is
much, much easier and cheaper to fix than aluminum.
Good luck with your plane search. We hope you buy a Kitfox.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of robert schaum
Subject:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" <steve.magdic@1psg.com>
If you venture down hill to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, I'll take you up in
my 912 powered Model III.
Steve Magdic
steve.magdic@1psg.com
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: robert schaum [mailto:schaumr@hotmail.com]
Subject:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mike Couillard - TSI" <mike.couillard@tekstarllc.com>
You bring up a problem that I'm wondering about. I have a '98 Series 5
kit and I wonder if Skystar fixed the problem with the trim motor by
then or if I need to work some reinforcement as I've seen a few plans
for...is there a way to determine this?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Pearsall
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall"
--> <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Robert,
Welcome to the Kitfox List! We have all been through the same
decision-making process that you are going through now. You will receive
lots of expert advice.
I am 6'1" too, and have flown both Model 4 and Series 5 KFs. No
problems.
Elbow room is tight on the Model 4, but about the same as your C-172 on
the Series 5.
The skylight on the KFs is great for upward visibility. For lateral
visibility, you can get bubble doors that will make you feel like you
are in a canopy plane. In my opinion, high wings are much better for
visibility than low wings. You usually are looking at the ground, not
the sky, and low wings only give you limited forward ground visibility.
If you like taking photos, high wing is your only choice.
I too often wonder why there are not too many KFs at the airshows when I
go to them. I guess the KF drivers do not like to go cross country
(although the KF is perfectly capable of long X/C), or maybe they are
too busy having fun around their home base.
As for problems, there was a problem with the early S5 trim motor having
the potential to break, and rendering the horizontal tail
uncontrollable. That has been fixed. KF owners have overloaded their
plans routinely with no problems. The airframe is very well made and
strong.
The fabric and tube design holds up very well over time. And of course
is much, much easier and cheaper to fix than aluminum.
Good luck with your plane search. We hope you buy a Kitfox.
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of robert
schaum
Subject:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range
of experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the
sensation of flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that
eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of
freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for
this feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the
wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000
built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could?
Ive heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me
sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type.
Many thanks in advance.
Rob
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: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Having fixed my tach problem (thanks Rex!) I completed run-in on Lola's 582 today.
(OAT 30 degrees Farenheit, GSC prop angle 20 degrees, using 100:1 mix in tanks).
Idle was very rough at 2000 rpm. CDI Transducer check at 3500 rpm showed
barely noticable drop (50 rpm +/-) for each. At 5 min of 5500 rpm, EGTs went
to 1300. Dropped to 1200-1250 at full throttle (6200 static rpm). Pulling choke
to enrich, EGTs will drop 100-150 degrees at all power settings. EGT on rear
cylinder seems to run uniformly about 50 degrees hotter than front. Water temps
never exceeded 160 degrees and CHTs never exceeded 270 (both reached at 3
min full power near end of run-in).
Assuming optimal EGT to be 1150-1200, how do I get there from here? Any comments
or suggestions?
Marco Menezes
KF 2 - N99KX
---------------------------------
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Add a little more prop pitch. Shoot for 6000 and watch the EGTs drop.
Deke
>
> Having fixed my tach problem (thanks Rex!) I completed run-in on Lola's
582 today. (OAT 30 degrees Farenheit, GSC prop angle 20 degrees, using 100:1
mix in tanks). Idle was very rough at 2000 rpm. CDI Transducer check at 3500
rpm showed barely noticable drop (50 rpm +/-) for each. At 5 min of 5500
rpm, EGTs went to 1300. Dropped to 1200-1250 at full throttle (6200 static
rpm). Pulling choke to enrich, EGTs will drop 100-150 degrees at all power
settings. EGT on rear cylinder seems to run uniformly about 50 degrees
hotter than front. Water temps never exceeded 160 degrees and CHTs never
exceeded 270 (both reached at 3 min full power near end of run-in).
>
> Assuming optimal EGT to be 1150-1200, how do I get there from here? Any
comments or suggestions?
>
> Marco Menezes
> KF 2 - N99KX
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: | Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative |
Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" <bootless@earthlink.net>
Hello everyone,
I've subscribed (quietly) to this list for a little more than a year, and
would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has successfully
installed and flown an alternative engine in your plane. I'm writing a
builder's roundup for Kitplanes magazine, and am looking for an installation
that's flown for a minimum of 150 hours, and is currently flying.
For the builders that we profile, the magazine will also be able to pay you
$100 for the write-up. We would also need at least 2-3 good photos,
including a close-up of the engine and an overall shot of the aircraft.
Additional photos would be great, and all photos will be returned. If you
have digital photos, it is very important that they be high-resolution, at
least 300 dpi.
I have a list of specific areas to address if you'd like to participate, but
we can handle that off-line.
Please feel free to contact me off-line at:
cory @ lightspeededit.com (remove the spaces - my anti-spam protection)
or reply offline to my list email address.
I have a rather short deadline, so if you're able to contact me as soon as
you're able, I would greatly appreciate it!
Thank you so much!
best,
Cory Emberson
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
This will most likely create a heated discussion and I will not go any
further then this post with it.. This is my opinion.
The trim system on the 5 and 6 was a electrical screw jack.. There are
thousands of hours flown with this jack and it was structurally tested.
Does that mean that things don't break ? NO. There have been a grand total
of 2 incidents reported.... And I won't go into either of those. I have
inspected these screw jacks in aircraft that have been wrecked hard and the
jack was still intact... I personally have over a thousand hours in type
with the screw jack and it is installed on my aircraft with over 200 hours..
I would install it again.
Now there are different screw jacks out there. My understanding is the early
design did not have a limit. Therefore, once it reached it extend or
retracted limit if a person continued to press the switch it would bind the
jack. If I had one of those I would change it out for the newer style.
Getting the newer style... There were 2 reasons for the change from the
screw jack to the manual trim now offered by SS.
1. There was interest in a manual trim type system.
2. The manufacture of the screw jack refused to continue to sell them to SS
(apparently they discovered they were being installed in aircraft) This
forced SS to look at alternatives.
That's my input on the screw jack...
as far as the visibility issue goes... all I can say is 102YB has the bubble
doors and the visibility is absolutely wonderful. If you ever get to Idaho
give a shout.. I gladly take you up. I may be making a trip to Burlington,
VT this summer...
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of robert schaum
Subject:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
All I can say is if its going to get you it wont matter if it comes from
above or underneath for that matter. And yes the view through the top,
turtle deck and in my case bubble doors make it like a bell helicopter. If
its clear to turn from below as soon as you bank around you can see from the
top. Add a traffic alert device and you have it pretty well covered. There
will always be pros and cons for both. I like being able to see the below
picture as my primary view. The most dangerous area is close to the airport.
So being able to see what is ahead and under me suits my needs best. There
are issues with every aircraft. Decide on the type you want and go from
there. Good luck, and my model 5 fly's like a champ no pun intended, real
flying :).
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of robert
schaum
Subject:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: course and Heading |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
EMAproducts@aol.com wrote:
> Course & heading are not the same unless you want to get lost!
Biiip, biiip, biiip! We've got a flame, guys! Er, ... looks like I am alone on
my side of the board ... ok, I'll take the challenge. :-)
Elbie, be a good sport, friend! We are talking about terminology, definition,
semantic. No one will ever get lost over words!
Steve Zakreski wrote:
> I'm with Guy on this one. Possibly there is a variation between the British
> terminology and North American.
Then it must be so, Steve. Have you seen the scanned copy of the R.A.F manual?
I didn't forged it.
> Course: The line drawn on the map. Also the direction you want to go.
> Heading: The direction the nose is pointed
> Track: The actual path the aircraft travels over the land below.
Ok, but in North America, don't you use the expression "course to steer?" Isn't
that the points of the compass you, as a helmsman or pilot, is suppose to keep?
Guy Buchanan wrote:
> From the Oxford's English Dictionary, 2nd edition (1989)
Thank you, Guy. It might be helpful to know what the Oxford boys think of it.
Let's have a look:
> course: The direction in which, or point of the compass towards which,
> a ship sails. <SNIP>
Yes, I agree!
> 1945 T. A. Dickinson Aeronautical Dict.
> 99/1 Course, the route or direction that should be or has been flown by an
> aircraft. It may be a true course, a magnetic course, or a compass course.
Here, I am confused. In my mind, a "route" is equivalent to a "track," i.e.
traced on the ground. But "direction" is rather where the nose of the craft is
pointing. Do you agree?
> Compass heading, the true course plus or minus variation and deviation,
> and including allowance for wind <SNIP>.
Here, the confusion gets deeper. If the "heading" is the "course including
allowance for the wind" then the "heading" of Oxford is what you guys call the
"course" and what I call the "track." In fact, it is what was written on Don's
link. Are you still with me, guy?
> track, The projection on the earth's surface of the (actual or
> intended) course of an aircraft; the representation of this on a chart <SNIP>.
Here, Oxford tells us that the track and the course are synonyms. In my
opinion, it would be true if there are no wind, head wind, or tailwind, just as
the track is defined in the R.A.F. manual.
http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Course.gif
Guys, we will agree that there is different interpretations of those
definitions. I still believe that "course" was the first word used by early
navigators. Interestingly, while the word comes from French, it is called "le
cap" (but "el curso" in Spanish). In French, "course" in its maritime meaning,
is an archaism for "voyage." (another French word). Victor Hugo wrote: "O,
combien de marins, combien de capitaines, qui sont partis joyeux pour des
courses lointaines ..." (... gone happily on far away voyages).
In those days, there was no way of knowing how one was moving in relation to
the land, only to the water. And any other notion than the magnetic course was
unnecessary.
But then came aviation and the word "course" followed on board, as did the
navigators, borrowed from the Navy, to do the tasks of e.g. plotting a position
from an airborne sextant, a demanding task!
Then, at one time, the word "heading" entered the vocabulary. Originally, it
was a synonym of "course." It still was for the Royal Air Force in 1944. But
apparently it is not anymore for our friends across the big pond. One learns
every day. Thanks for sharing, guys.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Lynn Matteson wrote:
> This works out to roughly 1. 5mm.
Thanks, Lynn!
Michel
do not archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Rob,
Probably, most to be said has already been said, but,,,,
I am 6'5" and didn't fit well in a model IV Kitfox. But the series 5 works
fine with minimal cushion in the seat. For some reason the visibility seems
much better under the wing than in a 172. I think my eyeballs were at the
same height as the wing root in the 172, but are under the wing in my
Kitfox.
So why don't you hear more about Kitfoxes? Because the builders are out
flying them! I would urge anyone who has not yet sent in their pictures and
short messages to Sport Aviation (EAA), Sport Plane (EAA), and Kitplanes for
their "Completions" or "What our members are Building" sections to do so
soon to help raise awareness of the breed. Yeah, I know.... too busy
flying!
I started in a 172 and then got my tail wheel endorsement in a Champ. I
thought the Champ was much, much better than the 172,,,, but my Kitfox is
lots more fun than the Champ!
But do try to define your "mission" and then find a plane that fits that
mission. Your mission may change after a few years, but then you can build
another plane!
Randy - Series 5/7 912S
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of robert schaum
Subject:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
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: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Hi Robert-
I must've missed your original message, 'cause my head snapped back
when I read that you were in the Ann Arbor area....you are about 30
miles from me. If you'd like to see a Kitfox IV (1994 version) under
construction (both wings covered, fuse half covered, no engine yet,
tail feathers covered) respond via email and we'll get together.
Lynn
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum"
> <schaumr@hotmail.com>
>
> Hello everyone,
> Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
> some esoteric questions for you.
> I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow
> range of
> experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation
> of
> flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all
> want to
>
> take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
> plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
> (usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of
> freedom
>
> requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for
> this
> feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings
> on the
> 172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
> downright annoying.
>
> Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
> when it comes to the visibility?
>
> Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000
> built).
> Am I in the dark here?
> What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could?
> Ive
> heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
> corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
> What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
> Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let
> me sit
>
> in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
>
> I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type.
> Many
> thanks in advance.
>
> Rob
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dcecil3@aol.com
If anyones Interested I think I'm going to have to sell my model III basically
it's in kit form right now the plane had 5 hours on when it was involved in an
off airport accident.the right wing needs a complete rebuild and I have all the
materials for that, plus the 13.5 Gal. wing tank.Options include Wing locker,Extended
Gear and a rotax 912 with 600 hrs. TT and yes I have the 912 installation
kit.I don't have a radiator or Prop.but will go together alot faster than
a regular kit because everything's been assembled once before.just bought a
house in a restricted subdv. and need to sell
Thanks David Cecil
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative |
Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mike Couillard - TSI" <mike.couillard@tekstarllc.com>
Very cool. Sounds like a great topic. I'm wondering myself about
engine options, though I have a long way to go before I get to that
point
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cory
Emberson
Subject: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine
(Alternative Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson"
--> <bootless@earthlink.net>
Hello everyone,
I've subscribed (quietly) to this list for a little more than a year,
and would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has successfully
installed and flown an alternative engine in your plane. I'm writing a
builder's roundup for Kitplanes magazine, and am looking for an
installation that's flown for a minimum of 150 hours, and is currently
flying.
For the builders that we profile, the magazine will also be able to pay
you $100 for the write-up. We would also need at least 2-3 good photos,
including a close-up of the engine and an overall shot of the aircraft.
Additional photos would be great, and all photos will be returned. If
you have digital photos, it is very important that they be
high-resolution, at least 300 dpi.
I have a list of specific areas to address if you'd like to participate,
but we can handle that off-line.
Please feel free to contact me off-line at:
cory @ lightspeededit.com (remove the spaces - my anti-spam protection)
or reply offline to my list email address.
I have a rather short deadline, so if you're able to contact me as soon
as you're able, I would greatly appreciate it!
Thank you so much!
best,
Cory Emberson
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative |
Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" <bootless@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Mike! This article is slated for the July issue, although the
mileage may vary. :-)
best...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Couillard - TSI
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes
Magazine (Alternative Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mike Couillard - TSI"
<mike.couillard@tekstarllc.com>
Very cool. Sounds like a great topic. I'm wondering myself about
engine options, though I have a long way to go before I get to that
point
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cory
Emberson
Subject: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine
(Alternative Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson"
--> <bootless@earthlink.net>
Hello everyone,
I've subscribed (quietly) to this list for a little more than a year,
and would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has successfully
installed and flown an alternative engine in your plane. I'm writing a
builder's roundup for Kitplanes magazine, and am looking for an
installation that's flown for a minimum of 150 hours, and is currently
flying.
For the builders that we profile, the magazine will also be able to pay
you $100 for the write-up. We would also need at least 2-3 good photos,
including a close-up of the engine and an overall shot of the aircraft.
Additional photos would be great, and all photos will be returned. If
you have digital photos, it is very important that they be
high-resolution, at least 300 dpi.
I have a list of specific areas to address if you'd like to participate,
but we can handle that off-line.
Please feel free to contact me off-line at:
cory @ lightspeededit.com (remove the spaces - my anti-spam protection)
or reply offline to my list email address.
I have a rather short deadline, so if you're able to contact me as soon
as you're able, I would greatly appreciate it!
Thank you so much!
best,
Cory Emberson
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
I'm in Toledo OH and completed a Series 6 last spring.
We're in the middle of a condition inspection with a
few upgrades now, but you're welcome to stop any time
you want.
Fred
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would
be willing to let me sit
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lookie Seeie............ |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" <sidh@charter.net>
Robert,
If you are really serious, and after viewing Lynn's project, contact Deke
and see about him flying down, over, or up, depending on which plane he is
sitting in at the time..............and see a finished plane that is flying
and looking good.................Lynn will open your eyes with the build
info, and Darrel can open them while looking down......................we
uns is up north, but not too far from AA.
Just a thought.
Sid
-------------------
Hi Robert-
I must've missed your original message, 'cause my head snapped back
when I read that you were in the Ann Arbor area....you are about 30
miles from me. If you'd like to see a Kitfox IV (1994 version) under
construction (both wings covered, fuse half covered, no engine yet,
tail feathers covered) respond via email and we'll get together.
Lynn
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum"
> <schaumr@hotmail.com>
>
> Hello everyone,
> Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
> some esoteric questions for you.
> I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow
> range of
> experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation
> of
> flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all
> want to
>
> take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
> plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
> (usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of
> freedom
>
> requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for
> this
> feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings
> on the
> 172 (Im 61) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead. Its
> downright annoying.
>
> Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
> when it comes to the visibility?
>
> Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000
> built).
> Am I in the dark here?
> What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could?
> Ive
> heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
> corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
> What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
> Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let
> me sit
>
> in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
>
> I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type.
> Many
> thanks in advance.
>
> Rob
>
>
Message 27
| 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: | Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative |
Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Cory,
I'm assuming when you refer to alternative you're talking about something
other than the Rotax engines recommended by Skystar? Like Sube conversions
or a Jabiru etc....
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Cory
Emberson
Subject: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine
(Alternative Engines)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" <bootless@earthlink.net>
Hello everyone,
I've subscribed (quietly) to this list for a little more than a year, and
would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has successfully
installed and flown an alternative engine in your plane. I'm writing a
builder's roundup for Kitplanes magazine, and am looking for an installation
that's flown for a minimum of 150 hours, and is currently flying.
For the builders that we profile, the magazine will also be able to pay you
$100 for the write-up. We would also need at least 2-3 good photos,
including a close-up of the engine and an overall shot of the aircraft.
Additional photos would be great, and all photos will be returned. If you
have digital photos, it is very important that they be high-resolution, at
least 300 dpi.
I have a list of specific areas to address if you'd like to participate, but
we can handle that off-line.
Please feel free to contact me off-line at:
cory @ lightspeededit.com (remove the spaces - my anti-spam protection)
or reply offline to my list email address.
I have a rather short deadline, so if you're able to contact me as soon as
you're able, I would greatly appreciate it!
Thank you so much!
best,
Cory Emberson
Message 28
| 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: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson" <rhutson@midsouth.rr.com>
Chad where in West Tennessee
I'm in Bartlett.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
>
> Stan,
>
> I live in West Tennessee, which might be a problem with going to Alaska,
> fly a IV-1200, 912UL Chad
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SOURDOSTAN@aol.com>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: SOURDOSTAN@aol.com
>>
>> Chad -
>>
>> It would be great to have you as part of the Alaska trip, especially with
> all
>> of your experience!!! I will keep you informed and hope you decide to
>> go.
>> Where do you live and what Kitfox do you have?
>>
>> Stan Specht
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 29
| 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: | General questions on Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
Hello everyone,
Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
some esoteric questions for you.
I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
172 (Im 6feet1inch) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead.
Its
downright annoying.
Im curious-does the glass roof in the kitfox make a world of difference
when it comes to the visibility?
Also, I dont hear much about Kitfoxes (although there are over 2000 built).
Am I in the dark here?
What, if any, things about the kitfox would you change if you could? Ive
heard of some issues around the elevator trim motor, has this been
corrected? What are the major flaws of the design?
What about maintenance and durability of tube-&-fabric vs aluminum?
Is there anyone in the Ann Arbor MI area that would be willing to let me sit
in one (maybe even go up right seat) to see what its like?
I was just hoping to learn from those with experience with the type. Many
thanks in advance.
Rob
Message 30
| 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: course and Heading |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
ya forgot ta add in the the terminology for some of us rebel Americans.
Yonder, we goin yonder way , over yonder , we goin over yonder way < meens
we goin further than yonder . North ,we flyin towards dem eskimos today.
South , headed towards crawdad country. West, flyin yonder towards dat place
gettin washed out to sea( california). East , flyin towards dem crazy left
wing no good egg suckin tax collectin rum drinkin low down liberal
democrat republicans. ( just about everyone in the white house ). Course ,
course i kin fly yonder. Heading , We flyin over yonder of Course.
OK im goin for another big tall glass of ice cold bourbon n coke
Night all
JP
Message 31
| 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: Mdkitfox@aol.com
IMHO
John is correct about the jack screw on the Model V. I have Model V, serial
number 1. The jack screw that came with my aircraft, and the next few, had
a potential problem with cracking where the attach bolt goes thru the base.
I did some research and found a number of actuators that could be used as a
replacement for the original actuator. Their cost was about $400 but there
was no documentation (actuator or aircraft) that could be provided that would
show the base attach point was strong enough or that the problem wouldn't be
transferred to some other location in the trim system. The new actuator
from Skystar was about the same cost and appears to have solved the problem, but
the single point failure mode of the actuator attach point remains
Despite the low risk of failure and considering the potential control
problem if there is a failure and since I am still building I opted to convert
to
the manual trim system that is on the Model VII. I think the manual trim
system provides a significant improvement to the original design and has far
fewer failure modes and no real single failure points such as the actuator base.
I have the original actuator should anyone want to see it. I would not want
to see it installed on any Kitfox.
Just my 2 cents.
Rick Weiss
Message 32
| 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: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
Hey, Carroll County airport, HZD Chad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hutson" <rhutson@midsouth.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson"
<rhutson@midsouth.rr.com>
>
> Chad where in West Tennessee
> I'm in Bartlett.
>
> do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" <chadl@compu.net>
> >
> > Stan,
> >
> > I live in West Tennessee, which might be a problem with going to Alaska,
> > fly a IV-1200, 912UL Chad
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <SOURDOSTAN@aol.com>
> > To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005
> >
> >
> >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: SOURDOSTAN@aol.com
> >>
> >> Chad -
> >>
> >> It would be great to have you as part of the Alaska trip, especially
with
> > all
> >> of your experience!!! I will keep you informed and hope you decide to
> >> go.
> >> Where do you live and what Kitfox do you have?
> >>
> >> Stan Specht
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 33
| 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: course and Heading |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" <sidh@charter.net>
"burp"......................
------------------------
-------Original Message-------
From: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: course and Heading
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" <eskflyer@pld.com>
ya forgot ta add in the the terminology for some of us rebel Americans.
Yonder, we goin yonder way , over yonder , we goin over yonder way < meens
we goin further than yonder . North ,we flyin towards dem eskimos today.
South , headed towards crawdad country. West, flyin yonder towards dat place
gettin washed out to sea( california). East , flyin towards dem crazy left
wing no good egg suckin tax collectin rum drinkin low down liberal
democrat republicans. ( just about everyone in the white house ). Course ,
course i kin fly yonder. Heading , We flyin over yonder of Course.
OK im goin for another big tall glass of ice cold bourbon n coke
Night all
JP
Message 34
| 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: | Redux Jackscrew: |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
If you are using the electric jackscrew I would recommend placing limit
stops on the vertical rod of the rudder. These stops should be placed after
a few test flight using the trim in the stages of flight requiring trim.
Placing a loose piece of tape on each side of the elevator drive during
your test flight will give you these limits.
If this is done properly then you will not loose control if the jack breaks
or you have a runaway trim situation .
Vic
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> IMHO
>
> John is correct about the jack screw on the Model V. I have Model V,
> serial
> number 1. The jack screw that came with my aircraft, and the next few,
> had
> a potential problem with cracking where the attach bolt goes thru the
> base.
> I did some research and found a number of actuators that could be used as
> a
> replacement for the original actuator. Their cost was about $400 but
> there
> was no documentation (actuator or aircraft) that could be provided that
> would
> show the base attach point was strong enough or that the problem wouldn't
> be
> transferred to some other location in the trim system. The new actuator
> from Skystar was about the same cost and appears to have solved the
> problem, but
> the single point failure mode of the actuator attach point remains
>
> Despite the low risk of failure and considering the potential control
> problem if there is a failure and since I am still building I opted to
> convert to
> the manual trim system that is on the Model VII. I think the manual trim
> system provides a significant improvement to the original design and has
> far
> fewer failure modes and no real single failure points such as the
> actuator base.
>
> I have the original actuator should anyone want to see it. I would not
> want
> to see it installed on any Kitfox.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Rick Weiss
>
>
>
Message 35
| 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: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Rick this is Rick. I have a model 5 serial number 0009. Do you think this is
in the few? How adjustable is the manual control compared to the screw
actuator? Do you have a source and PN for the new type actuator? Could you
post a pic for all to see?
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Mdkitfox@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
IMHO
John is correct about the jack screw on the Model V. I have Model V,
serial
number 1. The jack screw that came with my aircraft, and the next few, had
a potential problem with cracking where the attach bolt goes thru the base.
I did some research and found a number of actuators that could be used as a
replacement for the original actuator. Their cost was about $400 but there
was no documentation (actuator or aircraft) that could be provided that
would
show the base attach point was strong enough or that the problem wouldn't
be
transferred to some other location in the trim system. The new actuator
from Skystar was about the same cost and appears to have solved the
problem, but
the single point failure mode of the actuator attach point remains
Despite the low risk of failure and considering the potential control
problem if there is a failure and since I am still building I opted to
convert to
the manual trim system that is on the Model VII. I think the manual trim
system provides a significant improvement to the original design and has
far
fewer failure modes and no real single failure points such as the actuator
base.
I have the original actuator should anyone want to see it. I would not
want
to see it installed on any Kitfox.
Just my 2 cents.
Rick Weiss
Message 36
| 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: course and Heading |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:17 PM 3/3/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>EMAproducts@aol.com wrote:
> > Course & heading are not the same unless you want to get lost!
>
>Biiip, biiip, biiip! We've got a flame, guys! Er, ... looks like I am alone on
>my side of the board ... ok, I'll take the challenge. :-)
>
>Elbie, be a good sport, friend! We are talking about terminology, definition,
>semantic. No one will ever get lost over words!
>
>Steve Zakreski wrote:
> > I'm with Guy on this one. Possibly there is a variation between the British
> > terminology and North American.
>
>Then it must be so, Steve. Have you seen the scanned copy of the R.A.F manual?
>I didn't forged it.
>
> > Course: The line drawn on the map. Also the direction you want to go.
> > Heading: The direction the nose is pointed
> > Track: The actual path the aircraft travels over the land below.
>
>Ok, but in North America, don't you use the expression "course to steer?"
>Isn't
>that the points of the compass you, as a helmsman or pilot, is suppose to
>keep?
Yes, that's the expression used on a yacht, but never in an aircraft. On a
yacht you seldom know, or can even guess heading variations due to current.
Even on an inshore course it's very hard to discern heading variations from
a course; they therefore become synonymous. However in the America's Cup
where we had Differential GPS accurate to a few feet, we definitely
referred to course, heading, and track, just like in aircraft.
>Guy Buchanan wrote:
> > From the Oxford's English Dictionary, 2nd edition (1989)
>
>Thank you, Guy. It might be helpful to know what the Oxford boys think of it.
>Let's have a look:
>
> > course: The direction in which, or point of the compass towards which,
> > a ship sails. <SNIP>
>
>Yes, I agree!
>
> > 1945 T. A. Dickinson Aeronautical Dict.
> > 99/1 Course, the route or direction that should be or has been flown by an
> > aircraft. It may be a true course, a magnetic course, or a compass course.
>
>Here, I am confused. In my mind, a "route" is equivalent to a "track," i.e.
>traced on the ground. But "direction" is rather where the nose of the craft is
>pointing. Do you agree?
Well I agree that DIckenson's Aeronautical Dictionary is a little bit
confusing. :) I would say route is equivalent to track, myself. I would say
direction is equivalent to heading. They all become equivalent, of course,
in the absence of wind or other cross track variations.
> > Compass heading, the true course plus or minus variation and deviation,
> > and including allowance for wind <SNIP>.
>
>Here, the confusion gets deeper. If the "heading" is the "course including
>allowance for the wind" then the "heading" of Oxford is what you guys call the
>"course" and what I call the "track." In fact, it is what was written on Don's
>link. Are you still with me, guy?
What!? What!? Where am I? ROFL! If nothing else this thread has been dang
entertaining. I just LOVE the English Language!
> > track, The projection on the earth's surface of the (actual or
> > intended) course of an aircraft; the representation of this on a chart
> <SNIP>.
>
>Here, Oxford tells us that the track and the course are synonyms. In my
>opinion, it would be true if there are no wind, head wind, or tailwind,
>just as
>the track is defined in the R.A.F. manual.
I agree. Once again it appears they are confused. In a perfect world it
wouldn't be defined as both "actual or intended", except to show that the
word has been used, in the past, as we now know, to represent both.
Unfortunately, that's the problem with English, and therefore with
Oxford's. Any common usage, however "wrong", is represented within and is
considered valid if ever there was a significant group of people using it
in that fashion that understood each other.
>http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Course.gif
>
>Guys, we will agree that there is different interpretations of those
>definitions. I still believe that "course" was the first word used by early
>navigators. Interestingly, while the word comes from French, it is called "le
>cap" (but "el curso" in Spanish). In French, "course" in its maritime meaning,
>is an archaism for "voyage." (another French word). Victor Hugo wrote: "O,
>combien de marins, combien de capitaines, qui sont partis joyeux pour des
>courses lointaines ..." (... gone happily on far away voyages).
Oxford's certainly agrees with you regarding which came first, as course
predates heading and track in the English literature by almost 400 years.
>In those days, there was no way of knowing how one was moving in relation to
>the land, only to the water. And any other notion than the magnetic course
>was unnecessary.
>
>But then came aviation and the word "course" followed on board, as did the
>navigators, borrowed from the Navy, to do the tasks of e.g. plotting a
>position
>from an airborne sextant, a demanding task!
>
>Then, at one time, the word "heading" entered the vocabulary. Originally, it
>was a synonym of "course." It still was for the Royal Air Force in 1944. But
>apparently it is not anymore for our friends across the big pond. One learns
>every day. Thanks for sharing, guys.
Thank you. It's been fun.
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
Message 37
| 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: General questions on Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 10:08 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" <schaumr@hotmail.com>
>
>Hello everyone,
>Im in the process of selecting a plane to build (who isnt!) and I have
>some esoteric questions for you.
>I am a new pilot (Cessna-172 trained) and thus still have a narrow range of
>experiences. However I do know this: I like flying for the sensation of
Well, my personal opinion of the Cessna 172 is that it keeps you about as
far from the "sensation of flight and freedom" as a 737. Once you get in a
more, shall we say, sprightly, aircraft, you'll either be terrified or your
face will get sore from smiling.
>flight and freedom. Trouble is, I also know that eventually, we all want to
>take a trip somewhere. Thats where it gets tricky-I have yet to see a
It just depends on your trip/fun flight ratio. I seldom travel far, so when
I do I rent the Bonanza. It goes like heck and is a blast to fly. (I can't
recommend it highly enough.) For local fun I much prefer the 152 with the
150hp motor. (My Kitfox isn't flying yet, but that will become my main
squeeze when it is, replacing the 152.) For me, renting for the long hauls
makes sense. I get the best of both worlds.
>plane that can carry a reasonable load, but doesnt sacrifice visibility
>(usually because such planes are high-wing). For me, the feeling of freedom
>requires great visibility, and high wings are not high on my list for this
>feature. Im constantly lowering my head to look out under the wings on the
>172 (Im 6feet1inch) yet want to sit high enough to take in the view ahead.
>Its
>downright annoying.
Airplanes have wings that get in the way no matter what. It just depends on
what you like. Even the P-51 I rode in had a limited view down, though the
view through that bubble canopy was just gorgeous. (Of course we could see
down quite well when we were inverted. YEEHAW!)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
In my
>opinion, it would be true if there are no wind, head wind, or tailwind,
>just as
>the track is defined in the R.A.F. manual.
I agree. Once again it appears they are confused. In a perfect world it
wouldn't be defined as both "actual or intended", except to show that the
word has been used, in the past, as we now know, to represent both.
Unfortunately, that's the problem with English, and therefore with
Oxford's. Any common usage, however "wrong", is represented within and is
considered valid if ever there was a significant group of people using it
in that fashion that understood each other.
>http://home.online.no/~michel/tmp/Course.gif
>
>Guys, we will agree that there is different interpretations of those
>definitions. I still believe that "course" was the first word used by early
>navigators. Interestingly, while the word comes from French, it is called "le
>cap" (but "el curso" in Spanish). In French, "course" in its maritime meaning,
>is an archaism for "voyage." (another French word). Victor Hugo wrote: "O,
>combien de marins, combien de capitaines, qui sont partis joyeux pour des
>courses lointaines ..." (... gone happily on far away voyages).
Oxford's certainly agrees with you regarding which came first, as course
predates heading and track in the English literature by almost 400 years.
>In those days, there was no way of knowing how one was moving in relation to
>the land, only to the water. And any other notion than the magnetic course
>was unnecessary.
>
>But then came aviation and the word "course" followed on board, as did the
>navigators, borrowed from the Navy, to do the tasks of e.g. plotting a
>position
>from an airborne sextant, a demanding task!
>
>Then, at one time, the word "heading" entered the vocabulary. Originally, it
>was a synonym of "course." It still was for the Royal Air Force in 1944. But
>apparently it is not anymore for our friends across the big pond. One learns
>every day. Thanks for sharing, guys.
Thank you. It's been fun.
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
Message 38
| 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: | Redux Jackscrew: |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" <donpearsall@comcast.net>
Not to belabor the fear of a jackscrew failing, but years ago, I wrote an
article about this. The failure of one jackscrew and a suggested fix is
here: http://www.sportflight.com/kfb/calkins1.html
Don Pearsall
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic Jacko
Subject: Kitfox-List: Redux Jackscrew:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
If you are using the electric jackscrew I would recommend placing limit
stops on the vertical rod of the rudder. These stops should be placed after
a few test flight using the trim in the stages of flight requiring trim.
Placing a loose piece of tape on each side of the elevator drive during
your test flight will give you these limits.
If this is done properly then you will not loose control if the jack breaks
or you have a runaway trim situation .
Vic
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mdkitfox@aol.com
>
> IMHO
>
> John is correct about the jack screw on the Model V. I have Model V,
> serial
> number 1. The jack screw that came with my aircraft, and the next few,
> had
> a potential problem with cracking where the attach bolt goes thru the
> base.
> I did some research and found a number of actuators that could be used as
> a
> replacement for the original actuator. Their cost was about $400 but
> there
> was no documentation (actuator or aircraft) that could be provided that
> would
> show the base attach point was strong enough or that the problem wouldn't
> be
> transferred to some other location in the trim system. The new actuator
> from Skystar was about the same cost and appears to have solved the
> problem, but
> the single point failure mode of the actuator attach point remains
>
> Despite the low risk of failure and considering the potential control
> problem if there is a failure and since I am still building I opted to
> convert to
> the manual trim system that is on the Model VII. I think the manual trim
> system provides a significant improvement to the original design and has
> far
> fewer failure modes and no real single failure points such as the
> actuator base.
>
> I have the original actuator should anyone want to see it. I would not
> want
> to see it installed on any Kitfox.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Rick Weiss
>
>
>
Message 39
| 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 |
|
06:19:54,
Serialize complete at 04/03/2005 06:19:54
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com
Hi Marco
You can richen the mixture by moving the clips on the carb needles. That
will help bring your temps down. On my 582 I had to move my clips to the
second lowest position to get the EGT's into the correct range.
Regards
Roger
KF 2 - 582 (ZU-AHF)
Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
03/03/2005 09:44 PM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
"Matronics.com" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
cc
Subject
Kitfox-List: 582 Run-In
Size: 5 Kb
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Having fixed my tach problem (thanks Rex!) I completed run-in on Lola's
582 today. (OAT 30 degrees Farenheit, GSC prop angle 20 degrees, using
100:1 mix in tanks). Idle was very rough at 2000 rpm. CDI Transducer check
at 3500 rpm showed barely noticable drop (50 rpm +/-) for each. At 5 min
of 5500 rpm, EGTs went to 1300. Dropped to 1200-1250 at full throttle
(6200 static rpm). Pulling choke to enrich, EGTs will drop 100-150
degrees at all power settings. EGT on rear cylinder seems to run uniformly
about 50 degrees hotter than front. Water temps never exceeded 160 degrees
and CHTs never exceeded 270 (both reached at 3 min full power near end of
run-in).
Assuming optimal EGT to be 1150-1200, how do I get there from here? Any
comments or suggestions?
Marco Menezes
KF 2 - N99KX
---------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.
Message 40
| 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: Static Ports |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Michel
True, it is just a pinhole. It is a part that can be had from Aircraft
spruce for a few dollars. I have had no trouble with it collecting dirt or
fouling. Even when landing in muddy cow pastures. The spash pattern is not
a problem. Nor have I had any trouble on any of the certified planes that
have similar static ports.
Jim Shumaker
Message 41
| 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: | [off-topic] course and Heading |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: Guy Buchanan [bnn@nethere.com]
> Thank you. It's been fun.
Hey! Hang on, guys! I was wrong!
Yesterday, as I went to bed with yet another load of books, I took another memorabilia
from my father: The "Theory of instrument flying" from the US department
of the Air Force, edition of April 1954, and there, at page 112, I read:
"Definitions - True Course: True course is the course as measured on a map or chart
from point of departure to destination."
Then follows examples of worked out calculation of "true heading" based on the
known "true course."
Conclusion: At least, the US Air Force makes a difference between heading and course,
and I stand corrected.
Now, I'd like to ask our British friends if, today, they still used the R.A.F.
terminology of course and track, or rather the US heading and course?
Thanks in advance.
Michel
do not archive
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! --
|