---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 03/03/05: 41 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:45:14 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:55:31 AM PST US From: kitfoxjunky Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: NSI CAP 06:54:38 AM, Serialize complete at 03/03/2005 06:54:38 AM --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfoxjunky 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:54:08 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:56:53 AM PST US From: Roberto Canino Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: C-90 in Kitfox IV --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Roberto Canino Thanks Lyle, I'll email Don immediately. Best, B Lyle Persels 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:05 AM PST US Subject: Re: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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 > > True. But you say that the hole is no more than 0.5 mm? > Michel > > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:08:24 AM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:16:40 AM PST US From: EMAproducts@aol.com Subject: Kitfox-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:31:31 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] Terminology --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 10:05 AM 3/3/2005 +0100, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > >... >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:28:59 AM PST US From: "robert schaum" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:20 AM PST US From: "Don Pearsall" Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:26 AM PST US Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: From: "Steve Magdic" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Magdic" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:10 AM PST US Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: From: "Mike Couillard - TSI" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mike Couillard - TSI" 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" --> 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:44:36 AM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 Run-In --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:39 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Run-In --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:08:38 PM PST US From: "Cory Emberson" Subject: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:09:42 PM PST US From: "jdmcbean" Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:58:28 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:25:35 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: course and Heading --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe 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. 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 . 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 . 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:12 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: SV: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Lynn Matteson wrote: > This works out to roughly 1. 5mm. Thanks, Lynn! Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 01:46:01 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:51:40 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: From: Lynn Matteson --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:30 PM PST US From: Dcecil3@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:07:28 PM PST US Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) From: "Mike Couillard - TSI" --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mike Couillard - TSI" 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" --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:10:30 PM PST US From: "Cory Emberson" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson" 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" 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" --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:30:19 PM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:49:09 PM PST US From: "hausding, sid" Subject: Kitfox-List: Lookie Seeie............ --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:16 PM PST US From: "Flier" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Builder Feedback Requested for Kitplanes Magazine (Alternative Engines) --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Flier" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:48 PM PST US From: "Richard Hutson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson" Chad where in West Tennessee I'm in Bartlett. do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "chad lively" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" > > Stan, > > I live in West Tennessee, which might be a problem with going to Alaska, > fly a IV-1200, 912UL Chad > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:28 PM PST US From: "robert schaum" Subject: Kitfox-List: General questions on Kitfox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:28:41 PM PST US From: "John Perry" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: course and Heading --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:31:19 PM PST US From: 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 32 ____________________________________ Time: 07:32:12 PM PST US From: "chad lively" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" Hey, Carroll County airport, HZD Chad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hutson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Hutson" > > Chad where in West Tennessee > I'm in Bartlett. > > do not archive > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "chad lively" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfoxes to Alaska 2005 > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "chad lively" > > > > Stan, > > > > I live in West Tennessee, which might be a problem with going to Alaska, > > fly a IV-1200, 912UL Chad > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:54 PM PST US From: "hausding, sid" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: course and Heading --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" "burp"...................... ------------------------ -------Original Message------- From: kitfox-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: course and Heading --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Perry" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:15:56 PM PST US From: "Vic Jacko" Subject: Kitfox-List: Redux Jackscrew: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:35:52 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: RE: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:53 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: course and Heading --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 10:17 PM 3/3/2005 +0100, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > >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. > >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 . > >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 > . > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:53 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: General questions on Kitfox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 10:08 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "robert schaum" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:49 PM PST US From: "Don Pearsall" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Redux Jackscrew: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:43 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 582 Run-In From: r.thomas@za.pwc.com 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 Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com 03/03/2005 09:44 PM Please respond to kitfox-list@matronics.com To "Matronics.com" cc Subject Kitfox-List: 582 Run-In Size: 5 Kb --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:38 PM PST US From: "jimshumaker" Subject: Re: SV: Kitfox-List: Static Ports --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:20 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] course and Heading --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > 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