Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:36 AM - [off-topic] PocketFMS (Michel Verheughe)
2. 05:10 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (Clem Nichols)
3. 05:16 AM - why do some hate kitfoxes? (Clifford Dow)
4. 05:46 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Michel Verheughe)
5. 05:55 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (Michel Verheughe)
6. 06:14 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (Clem Nichols)
7. 06:25 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Cudnohufsky's)
8. 06:26 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (flier)
9. 06:32 AM - New to this forum (Cliff Olson)
10. 06:39 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (flier)
11. 06:39 AM - Gear question (Werner Keiper)
12. 06:50 AM - Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor (Michel Verheughe)
13. 07:07 AM - Fuel Leaking (Dee Young)
14. 07:43 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Clifford Begnaud)
15. 07:46 AM - Re: Gear question (Ben Baltrusaitis)
16. 08:26 AM - Re: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor (jimshumaker)
17. 08:47 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (jimshumaker)
18. 08:49 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Randy Daughenbaugh)
19. 08:57 AM - Re: New to this forum (Randy Daughenbaugh)
20. 09:33 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Donna and Roger McConnell)
21. 10:30 AM - Re: Is this legitimate? (Bruce Harrington)
22. 10:44 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Bruce Harrington)
23. 10:47 AM - Re: New to this forum (Bruce Harrington)
24. 11:14 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Tom Tomlin)
25. 11:26 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Cudnohufsky's)
26. 11:59 AM - Demagnetizing Frame (Guy Buchanan)
27. 12:06 PM - Not Much Room (Guy Buchanan)
28. 12:29 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (kurt schrader)
29. 12:34 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Michel Verheughe)
30. 12:45 PM - Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics (Jimmie Blackwell)
31. 12:53 PM - Re: Not Much Room (kurt schrader)
32. 12:59 PM - more header tanks & fuel sensors (Marco Menezes)
33. 01:30 PM - Re: more header tanks & fuel sensors (kurt schrader)
34. 02:15 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Fox5flyer)
35. 02:15 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame (Jim Hakes)
36. 03:09 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Torgeir Mortensen)
37. 03:10 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Steve Zakreski)
38. 03:27 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Brian Rodgers)
39. 03:29 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? VIDEO? (Aerobatics@aol.com)
40. 03:41 PM - Re: Capacitor (Torgeir Mortensen)
41. 03:48 PM - Re: Florida Trip (kurt schrader)
42. 04:07 PM - Re: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor (Torgeir Mortensen)
43. 04:30 PM - Re: more header tanks & fuel sensors (AlbertaIV@aol.com)
44. 04:31 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Fox5flyer)
45. 05:08 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame - Part one. (Torgeir Mortensen)
46. 05:12 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. (Torgeir Mortensen)
47. 05:14 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Bruce Harrington)
48. 05:55 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Fred Shiple)
49. 06:21 PM - why do some hate kitfoxes? (Tom Tomlin)
50. 06:24 PM - Why I like my Kitfox (Cliff Olson)
51. 06:38 PM - Re: longest build time (Marco Menezes)
52. 06:51 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Clem Nichols)
53. 08:01 PM - Covering (Joel Mapes)
54. 08:44 PM - Re: Covering (Randy Daughenbaugh)
55. 08:50 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Guy Buchanan)
56. 08:50 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. (Guy Buchanan)
57. 08:50 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Guy Buchanan)
58. 08:50 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame (Guy Buchanan)
59. 09:04 PM - Re: longest build time (Rick)
60. 09:39 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame (Jim Hakes)
61. 09:50 PM - Re: longest build time (Rick)
62. 10:35 PM - Re: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics (r.thomas@za.pwc.com)
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] PocketFMS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Hello Kitfoxers,
I have been using a cool freeware program called PocketFMS to do my flight plans.
http://www.pocketfms.com/
Yes, it is mostly European but I am sure, with time, our American friends will
find it interesting too.
It's free, you can download maps, navaids, metar, etc. You can plan your flight
and, if you have a pocketPC, you can connect it to your GPS and used it as a
moving map, in-flight. You can also scan your own maps and overlay them. You
can also upload your scanning to their site so that other people can share it.
That's what I have started doing for the Norwegian "VFR - Light Aircraft Routes."
At the time being, I only use it on my PC, at home, but I intend to buy a
PocketPC to have in my Kitfox.
BTW, they call the route to the next waypoint: TT (true track) as it is given
in true north compass notation. .... hummmm! Bloody Europeans!!!! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Michel, et al:
I've been playing with the PocketFMS program for several months now. I've
been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however. Even
though it has what I think they call a transreflective screen which is
supposed to be easily seen in direct sunlight, I find it hard to see even on
a bright, overcast day. This problem is, no doubt, compounded by the
transparent canopy in the IV's cockpit. Moreover, the flight data numbers
on the moving map page (altitude, speed over ground, heading, etc.) are
quite small which adds to the problem. I might suspect my aging eyes, but I
have no difficulty at all seeing the data on my little Magellan 315 GPS
receiver. I have no reason to think that this problem would be any better
on any of the other commercially available navigation programs such as
Anywhere Map, Airgator, etc. If anyone in the group knows of a screen
overlay or something of that nature that would help, I would appreciate
hearing from them. I may try adding some type sunblocker to the canopy
which would also make things a little cooler in the summer. I'm not certain
that even that would make the PDA a useful navigational tool, however,
because I've played with it in my car, and even there have to get the
viewing angle just so in order to see what's on the screen.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Hello Kitfoxers,
>
> I have been using a cool freeware program called PocketFMS to do my flight
> plans.
>
> http://www.pocketfms.com/
>
> Yes, it is mostly European but I am sure, with time, our American friends
> will
> find it interesting too.
> It's free, you can download maps, navaids, metar, etc. You can plan your
> flight
> and, if you have a pocketPC, you can connect it to your GPS and used it as
> a
> moving map, in-flight. You can also scan your own maps and overlay them.
> You
> can also upload your scanning to their site so that other people can share
> it.
> That's what I have started doing for the Norwegian "VFR - Light Aircraft
> Routes."
>
> At the time being, I only use it on my PC, at home, but I intend to buy a
> PocketPC to have in my Kitfox.
>
> BTW, they call the route to the next waypoint: TT (true track) as it is
> given
> in true north compass notation. .... hummmm! Bloody Europeans!!!! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent me the
following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece
of overpriced crap!!""
he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and loved
it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by Grove -
extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder & comm,
lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin the prop
to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the Kitfoxes have.
they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me?
am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve heard Kitfox
is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business - so what
- isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be purchased somewhere
else - like wheel bearings, etc.
I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in anything
certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price way up.
What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
Thanks
cliff
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: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Clifford Dow wrote:
> "That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece of overpriced crap!!""
I can't help you, Cliff, because I love my Kitfox and I have no other
experience. I came to aviation only two years ago.
Much like you, before I bought my Kitfox, I heard people saying that it was a
difficult plane to fly, nothing for a beginner, old technology and not fit for
this century.
Yet I found in Tango (that's my Kitfox) a plane that is fun to fly. Are other
planes more fun? I don't know. I only flew a Rans S6 and a Sky Arrow. In
comparison, they are easier to fly but IMHO, boring. I love the taildragger. I
love the adverse yaw of my model 3 flaperons. Is it that difficult to keep the
ball in the center by applying rudder in a turn? If ease is the word, then how
would you like to fly a plane on auto-pilot, all the way from the hangar to the
hangar? Boring, right?
And now that I have a Jabiru in my Kitfox, I feel I can just fly, fly and have
fun. I am sure I would also have fun in a Piper Cub with a Continental but ...
I have a Kitfox and I am happy with it.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: [off-topic] PocketFMS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Clem Nichols wrote:
> I've been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however.
Thanks for telling your experience, Clem. I am also at an age where my vision
is getting limited and the size and visibility of a PDA is also my concern. As
I said, I am currently only using PocketFMS as a flight planner at home. Not
that I need that very much for local day trips but I intend to fly to Belgium
this summer and the airspace between here and there is very difficult, many
controlled zones and military zones in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and
Belgium. Navigation and communication will be a challenge. I'll probably will
be flying alone and chart reading will be difficult. I intend then to print my
route from PocketFMS and have that on my kneeboard. What do you think?
Cheers,
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: | Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Michel:
That should work great. I really like the program, and only wish I could
see it better on the iPAQ. The problem is not so much the size of the
screen (the iPAQ has a larger screen than the Magellan 315) but the way it
reflects light. I've no doubt it would work great at night, but I'm not set
up for night flying.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Clem Nichols wrote:
>> I've been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however.
>
> Thanks for telling your experience, Clem. I am also at an age where my
> vision
> is getting limited and the size and visibility of a PDA is also my
> concern. As
> I said, I am currently only using PocketFMS as a flight planner at home.
> Not
> that I need that very much for local day trips but I intend to fly to
> Belgium
> this summer and the airspace between here and there is very difficult,
> many
> controlled zones and military zones in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and
> Belgium. Navigation and communication will be a challenge. I'll probably
> will
> be flying alone and chart reading will be difficult. I intend then to
> print my
> route from PocketFMS and have that on my kneeboard. What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005
>
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net>
Cliff,
Some people just have a thing against experimental aircraft no matter what
the make or model, they feel if it is not certified it is a toy or just
plain junk. You will have to decide what fits your needs and taste and how
you feel about the experimental class aircraft, as for being over priced, my
experience has been that buying a used Kitfox is a better value than
building a new one, you can generally find one for considerably less than
the build cost. And you are right, they are a BLAST! to fly.
Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Dow" <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
> me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
> piece
> of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday
> and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made
> by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a
> transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want
> to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical
> system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to
> me?
> am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
> heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of
> business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the
> kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
> I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
> anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the
> price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
> Thanks
> cliff
>
>
> 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: | why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Over the years I've also heard some disparaging comments from time to time
about the Kitfox. There've been a lot of Kitfoxes torn up over the years
due to poor pilot skills. There are also those that are ashamed to admit
they'd be afraid to fly a taildragger. Then there are those that just won't
be convinced a kitplane can be as safe as a certificated aircraft. I think
it's a combination of all that and more.
The thing I do know is that when I go to a fly-in, the people may glance at
the certificated stuff but they're all gawking around my 'Fox and asking
questions. Then I go out and make a low pass down the runway with the smoke
on followed by a nose high roll-out at the end and really pull'em in
:
)
Regards,
Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford Dow
Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
piece
of overpriced crap!!""
he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and
loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by
Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder
& comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin
the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the
Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me?
am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business -
so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be
purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price
way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
Thanks
cliff
DO NOT ARCHIVE
---------------------------------
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | New to this forum |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cliff Olson" <colsonj@provide.net>
I've been reading this forum for some time and have finally decided to participate.This
is a very good forum ,and I regret not jumping in sooner.I sold my Cessna
150 in June of 04 and bought a Kitfox IV 1050. On the very first couple of
flights I discovered fuel running off the top of the left wing while on short
final.I suspect it could be siphoning out of the vent tube.Looking in the archives
I see a check valve has been used on some vent tubes.Sitting on the ground
with full fuel there isn't any leaks.Does it soud like I'm on the right track?Cliff
Olson
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | [off-topic] PocketFMS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Hey Clem,
I've got a 4310 iPaq and picked up an hx2400 for my wife. I use Delorme
Bluelogger bluetooth gps. I'm happy with both units. I run pFMS on mine
from time to time but I use it all the time to run the iPaq NAV system in my
car -- it rocks.
Mounting the PDA in a location that's easily viewable makes a lot of
difference. Personally though I don't think you can ever get the PDA to
work as well as a handheld aviation gps in a flight environment. You're
right in that the Kitfox is problematic with that skylight. I've found the
PDAs work better in closed cabin type aircraft.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clem Nichols
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Michel, et al:
I've been playing with the PocketFMS program for several months now. I've
been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however. Even
though it has what I think they call a transreflective screen which is
supposed to be easily seen in direct sunlight, I find it hard to see even on
a bright, overcast day. This problem is, no doubt, compounded by the
transparent canopy in the IV's cockpit. Moreover, the flight data numbers
on the moving map page (altitude, speed over ground, heading, etc.) are
quite small which adds to the problem. I might suspect my aging eyes, but I
have no difficulty at all seeing the data on my little Magellan 315 GPS
receiver. I have no reason to think that this problem would be any better
on any of the other commercially available navigation programs such as
Anywhere Map, Airgator, etc. If anyone in the group knows of a screen
overlay or something of that nature that would help, I would appreciate
hearing from them. I may try adding some type sunblocker to the canopy
which would also make things a little cooler in the summer. I'm not certain
that even that would make the PDA a useful navigational tool, however,
because I've played with it in my car, and even there have to get the
viewing angle just so in order to see what's on the screen.
Clem Nichols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Hello Kitfoxers,
>
> I have been using a cool freeware program called PocketFMS to do my flight
> plans.
>
> http://www.pocketfms.com/
>
> Yes, it is mostly European but I am sure, with time, our American friends
> will
> find it interesting too.
> It's free, you can download maps, navaids, metar, etc. You can plan your
> flight
> and, if you have a pocketPC, you can connect it to your GPS and used it as
> a
> moving map, in-flight. You can also scan your own maps and overlay them.
> You
> can also upload your scanning to their site so that other people can share
> it.
> That's what I have started doing for the Norwegian "VFR - Light Aircraft
> Routes."
>
> At the time being, I only use it on my PC, at home, but I intend to buy a
> PocketPC to have in my Kitfox.
>
> BTW, they call the route to the next waypoint: TT (true track) as it is
> given
> in true north compass notation. .... hummmm! Bloody Europeans!!!! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005
>
>
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: "Werner Keiper" <Werner@keiper-koerdorf.de>
Hi Kitfox friends,
Have a question regarding gear. I am bouilding a Kitfox 3 that has the
standard gear to this time. I heared a lot about the Grove gear and it looks
good.
Does someone of you know if it is possible to use a Grove gear on a Kitfox 3
?
Werner Keiper
Kitfox 3
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
kurt schrader wrote:
> But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol
> instead of water.
Alcohol is indeed a beautiful product, Kurt. A good antiseptic and detergent
that - as you say - evaporates without leaving traces. Furthermore, it is a
natural product that doesn't pollute our environment. Taken moderately, it has
also good effects on our health. In the days of Columbus, Hispanic sailors were
drinking two liters of wine, per day. The custom of giving British sailors a
pint of Jamaican rum per week, only ended in 1970.
I went flying today, Kurt. Not long because it started snowing, with reduced
visibility. Alas, while better, my static port still gives about 5 MPH higher
reading. I wonder why. Maybe it could be this, your opinion is requested:
Not to make a hole in my fabric, I decided to put the port where it is
recommended by Skystar, i.e. where I have an inspection cover. I made a tiny
hole in the middle of the cover and added a fitting, inside, that attaches to
the plastic pipe. From the inside, it goes up (to avoid rainwater) and there is
some slack to the pipe so that I can remove the cover, pull the pipe some
inches out, and disconnect the fitting, to remove completely the cover and
inspect the inside of the fuselage aft end.
Now, the cover is nearly flat, but not entirely. It is slightly curved to give
it some strength. Could it be that the very slight curve accelerates the air
passing by and create a lower pressure?
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:07:04 -0700
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" <henrysfork1@msn.com>
Cliff
When I first started flying my model II I had the same problem but also had fuel
transferring from one wing to the other. Most of my problem was a result of
not keeping the tail behind me (ball centered). In checking the fuel caps I found
the vent was wide open on one while the other was almost blocked. I also
installed a check valve on the highest point above the tank. Those things stopped
the leaks for me. Hope this will help you Cliff
Dee Young
Model II
N345DY
Do not archive
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
A "Real" airplane?
Hmm, lets see, a cub cruises at about 75 mph (and that's pushing it). A cub
has the range of a riding lawn mower. A cub can't even be started while
sitting in the plane (without assistance). A cub has a cargo area that will
possibly accommodate a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound much like a real
airplane to me.
On the other hand, there are things about a cub that do indeed qualify it as
a "real" airplane. For one it can only be maintained by an A&P, the annual
inspection is going cost you big bucks, you can't install any of the
thousands of wonderful aftermarket items available to the experimental
market (props, avionics, electronic ignitions etc etc etc). Heck, you can't
even install VG's on a cub without an stc. When you do need a replacement
part, get ready to dig deep into your wallet...
The Cub's flying characteristics have been dumbed down, like all certified
aircraft, so that even the worst pilots have to try hard to kill themselves
in it. And finally, the cub is likely to be older than you are.
Yep that sounds like a real airplane to me...
Now lets look at our kitfox (Model 5 with lycoming 0-235) It cruises
comfortably at 130 mph, burning under 5.5 gph. It has a range of about 600
miles. It has dual electronic ignitions that start easier than any car I've
ever owned (even after a cold night out). It has a cargo area that can hold
150 lbs of stuff, and it often does)
I can do all the maintenance and the annual inspections cost me $100 because
I didn't build the plane. I can install a glass cockpit, a new prop, VG's or
anything else I want without asking anyone's permission. If I need a
replacement part, I can buy it, or I can make it.
How about flying characteristics... no comparison. The kitfox is nimble,
quick and just downright fun. Unlike a cub, the kitfox goes where I tell it
to go, no over or understeering, no sluggish response to my inputs.
Now don't get me wrong, I like cubs, they are fun to fly, though they are
not very comfortable for my 6 foot frame. A neighbor of mine has one and I
occasionally go flying with him. It's a great little plane for relieving the
pressures of the day with a dusk flight. In the 4 years he has owned it I
don't think that the plane has gone 50 miles away from home. Going to
breakfast in Greeley, CO, about 35 miles away, takes most of Saturday
morning.
Let's face it, if you want to go somewhere in your airplane, forget about a
cub (with the possible exception of a supercub or PA 12 with a 160 or 180 hp
engine).
I've never heard such harsh words about a kitfox before. They are very nice
airplanes with a great record (to my knowledge, there has never been an
in-flight breakup of a kitfox). There is a solid demand for them on the used
market, so you'll have no problem selling it when you want to.
So, if all you want is a classic airplane for evening flights, a cub will
fill the bill, but you want anything more, get a kitfox.
Cliff
Model 5, Lycoming 0-235 (our second kitfox)
>
>
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
> me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
> piece
> of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday
> and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made
> by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a
> transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want
> to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical
> system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to
> me?
> am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
> heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of
> business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the
> kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
> I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
> anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the
> price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
> Thanks
> cliff
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Gear question |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ben Baltrusaitis" <ben@gmpexpress.net>
HI Werner,
Check this link:
http://www.groveaircraft.com/landing_gear.html#kitfox
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Werner Keiper
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: 03/13/2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Gear question
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Werner Keiper" <Werner@keiper-koerdorf.de>
Hi Kitfox friends,
Have a question regarding gear. I am bouilding a Kitfox 3 that has the
standard gear to this time. I heared a lot about the Grove gear and it looks
good.
Does someone of you know if it is possible to use a Grove gear on a Kitfox 3
?
Werner Keiper
Kitfox 3
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 03/11/05
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Michel
I believe you are on to part of the problem. The Kitfox static port is
supposed to be flush with the fabric. But even with a perfect static port
these cheap little airspeed indicators are not going to show the airspeed
perfectly across the range. When I added my static port it brought my top
speed from about 20 mph slow to about 3 mph slow. It was perfect at about
65 mph and it was slow again at 40 mph. But the range and conistancy were
markedly improved and the altimeter did not jump when I opened the door.
Jim Shumaker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> kurt schrader wrote:
>> But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol
>> instead of water.
>
> Alcohol is indeed a beautiful product, Kurt. A good antiseptic and
> detergent
> that - as you say - evaporates without leaving traces. Furthermore, it is
> a
> natural product that doesn't pollute our environment. Taken moderately, it
> has
> also good effects on our health. In the days of Columbus, Hispanic sailors
> were
> drinking two liters of wine, per day. The custom of giving British sailors
> a
> pint of Jamaican rum per week, only ended in 1970.
>
> I went flying today, Kurt. Not long because it started snowing, with
> reduced
> visibility. Alas, while better, my static port still gives about 5 MPH
> higher
> reading. I wonder why. Maybe it could be this, your opinion is requested:
> Not to make a hole in my fabric, I decided to put the port where it is
> recommended by Skystar, i.e. where I have an inspection cover. I made a
> tiny
> hole in the middle of the cover and added a fitting, inside, that attaches
> to
> the plastic pipe. From the inside, it goes up (to avoid rainwater) and
> there is
> some slack to the pipe so that I can remove the cover, pull the pipe some
> inches out, and disconnect the fitting, to remove completely the cover and
> inspect the inside of the fuselage aft end.
>
> Now, the cover is nearly flat, but not entirely. It is slightly curved to
> give
> it some strength. Could it be that the very slight curve accelerates the
> air
> passing by and create a lower pressure?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" <jimshumaker@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Clem
You do not say where your PDA is mounted. Mine is on a bracket extented
through the panel just above the stick. I can change its angle and it is
low enough to be in the shade most of the time. It is also most viewable
with the backlight turned all the way up. I applied sunshade on the canopy
(it made a huge difference in temperature and sun in the eyes). I used the
automotive stuff that says do not use on plastic. I have had no problem
with the material damaging the lexan, and anyways I change the canopy every
few years due to hazing crazing and rock damage.
I run the ipaq 3600 series and have no trouble viewig it in direct sunlight,
but it is still better in the shade.
I tried Michels free nav software but found that it does not compare to the
Anywhere map or Mountain Scope. Both those softwares are easy to view and
show all the airspaces, even TFR's that pop up daily, or hourly if you can
download that often. The size of the displayed airspeed and the size of the
touchscreen buttons are even adjustable on the Anywhere map. As I work with
Anywhere map I discover that it has incredable capability. It even has
glideslope approaches at airports and runways that do not have instrument
approaches. Flying down the glideslope lands me exactly on the centerline
at the correct touchdown point for that runway. Obviously you have to be
careful setting up the approach on runways with mountains near the ends.
Then Anywhere map comes up with upgrades that add features and make it even
more useful (about once or twice a year).
Jim Shumaker
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: | why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Cliff,
Great post. It's a keeper!
In my view the Kitfox is the modern incarnation of the Cub. It does many
things better than the venerable Cub but still does the things that make the
Cub great.
I will take my Kitfox anytime.
(Note to original poster Cliff. Did you expect any other message from this
list?)
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford
Begnaud
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
<shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
A "Real" airplane?
Hmm, lets see, a cub cruises at about 75 mph (and that's pushing it). A cub
has the range of a riding lawn mower. A cub can't even be started while
sitting in the plane (without assistance). A cub has a cargo area that will
possibly accommodate a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound much like a real
airplane to me.
On the other hand, there are things about a cub that do indeed qualify it as
a "real" airplane. For one it can only be maintained by an A&P, the annual
inspection is going cost you big bucks, you can't install any of the
thousands of wonderful aftermarket items available to the experimental
market (props, avionics, electronic ignitions etc etc etc). Heck, you can't
even install VG's on a cub without an stc. When you do need a replacement
part, get ready to dig deep into your wallet...
The Cub's flying characteristics have been dumbed down, like all certified
aircraft, so that even the worst pilots have to try hard to kill themselves
in it. And finally, the cub is likely to be older than you are.
Yep that sounds like a real airplane to me...
Now lets look at our kitfox (Model 5 with lycoming 0-235) It cruises
comfortably at 130 mph, burning under 5.5 gph. It has a range of about 600
miles. It has dual electronic ignitions that start easier than any car I've
ever owned (even after a cold night out). It has a cargo area that can hold
150 lbs of stuff, and it often does)
I can do all the maintenance and the annual inspections cost me $100 because
I didn't build the plane. I can install a glass cockpit, a new prop, VG's or
anything else I want without asking anyone's permission. If I need a
replacement part, I can buy it, or I can make it.
How about flying characteristics... no comparison. The kitfox is nimble,
quick and just downright fun. Unlike a cub, the kitfox goes where I tell it
to go, no over or understeering, no sluggish response to my inputs.
Now don't get me wrong, I like cubs, they are fun to fly, though they are
not very comfortable for my 6 foot frame. A neighbor of mine has one and I
occasionally go flying with him. It's a great little plane for relieving the
pressures of the day with a dusk flight. In the 4 years he has owned it I
don't think that the plane has gone 50 miles away from home. Going to
breakfast in Greeley, CO, about 35 miles away, takes most of Saturday
morning.
Let's face it, if you want to go somewhere in your airplane, forget about a
cub (with the possible exception of a supercub or PA 12 with a 160 or 180 hp
engine).
I've never heard such harsh words about a kitfox before. They are very nice
airplanes with a great record (to my knowledge, there has never been an
in-flight breakup of a kitfox). There is a solid demand for them on the used
market, so you'll have no problem selling it when you want to.
So, if all you want is a classic airplane for evening flights, a cub will
fill the bill, but you want anything more, get a kitfox.
Cliff
Model 5, Lycoming 0-235 (our second kitfox)
>
>
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
> me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
> piece
> of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday
> and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made
> by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a
> transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want
> to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical
> system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to
> me?
> am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
> heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of
> business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the
> kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
> I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
> anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the
> price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
> Thanks
> cliff
>
>
> 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: | New to this forum |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Cliff,
I am assuming that you have tanks in each wing like my 5. I find that if I
don't keep the ball centered, the fuel will shift from one side to the other
through the header tank. I haven't had any leakage, but I usually do not
have much fuel on board either. If I don't watch the ball, I get used to
flying with one or the other wings low and shifting fuel to that side. I am
sure that if I had the tanks full, I would really have to watch it to keep
from leaking from one side or the other.
Check the level in the two tanks before you leave the ground and then
immediately after you are back on the ground after flying for a bit to see
if you have shifted the fuel to one side.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cliff Olson
Subject: Kitfox-List: New to this forum
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cliff Olson" <colsonj@provide.net>
I've been reading this forum for some time and have finally decided to
participate.This is a very good forum ,and I regret not jumping in sooner.I
sold my Cessna 150 in June of 04 and bought a Kitfox IV 1050. On the very
first couple of flights I discovered fuel running off the top of the left
wing while on short final.I suspect it could be siphoning out of the vent
tube.Looking in the archives I see a check valve has been used on some vent
tubes.Sitting on the ground with full fuel there isn't any leaks.Does it
soud like I'm on the right track?Cliff Olson
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
Cliff,
I'm sure you've heard the expression 'Different Strokes for
Different Folks' and that is exactly what the kit build market is all about.
Don't listen too close to what other well meaning people have to say about
any particular design aircraft. You have to decide for your self what your
flying need is and then find a design that fits that need. The KitFox family
of aircraft fits the need for slow recreational flying with adequate cross
country capability. These aircraft were meant for sightseeing and the pure
joy of flying. It's not a Van's RV or a Glasair but it was never intended to
be. Those aircraft fill a different need for there owners as well as being
more expensive. These are just my thoughts but I'll bet there are people on
this list that will come close to agreeing with me. So chose wisely, chose a
FOX.
Good luck
Roger Mac
S7 (in final assembly)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford Dow
Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
piece
of overpriced crap!!""
he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and
loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by
Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder
& comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin
the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the
Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me?
am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business -
so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be
purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price
way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
Thanks
cliff
DO NOT ARCHIVE
---------------------------------
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Is this legitimate? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Ron,
I haven't seen this, but get lots of "undelivered mail" and a bit of spam.
I delete all of these, as I would the one you got.
I suggest you turn off the preview window (View/Layout in OE), and delete
anything you don't recognize. You can view the "Properties" (right click
menu on an email), click Details tab, click Message Source, expand the
window, and then safely read the contents. Delete those you don't "like".
It's also good to have OE move group list emails to unique folders as they
are downloaded. You can do that for friends also. Then only strange stuff
is left in the Inbox. I even have separate "* name" inboxes for my Sonex
buddies!
Cheers,
bh
> I get this notice every month and I am wondering if everyone gets it and
> follows its directions....Or am I the only one to get this? Is this a way
> for scammers to get info on us?
>
> Thanks, Ron N55KF
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Cliff,
I owned a 2-stroked (Rotax 582) Kitfox IV-1200 for 8 years, put 800+ hours
on it, took it on 5 Air Tours here in the NW USA, with visits to N. Calif.,
Idaho, Washington, and all over it's home state of Oregon. It's been to
Cameron Air Park near Sacremento, Ca., routinely flew over the Cascade
Mountains, and into Half Moon Bar down in the rugged Rogue River Valley.
Everywhere I went, people gained appreciating for the Fox, and 2-stroke. I
was welcomed every where I flew it. Our Oregon Antique and Classic Airplane
Club greeted me with a hearty come join us.
Besides all this, the fox is a blast to fly. On most of the Air Tours, I
flew with Cubs, an L-3, and other similar types, but I got off the ground
quicker, climbed faster, had greater range, and burned about the same fuel
rate.
So you can tell that guy he doesn't know what he's talking about!
Cheers,
bh
Ex-582ed IV-1200, 800+ hrs
Sonex Jab 3300ed N321SX, 103+ hrs
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
> me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
> piece
> of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday
> and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made
> by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a
> transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want
> to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical
> system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to
> me?
> am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
> heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of
> business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the
> kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
> I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
> anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the
> price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
> Thanks
> cliff
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: | Re: New to this forum |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Cliff,
The fuel tank cap may have unsealed holes around the lower lip of the cap
that allow fuel to exit thru them. A bit of solder seals them. Many of us
early Foxers had this leak. There were 4 holes as I recall.
Cheers,
bh
> I've been reading this forum for some time and have finally decided to
> participate.This is a very good forum ,and I regret not jumping in
> sooner.I sold my Cessna 150 in June of 04 and bought a Kitfox IV 1050. On
> the very first couple of flights I discovered fuel running off the top of
> the left wing while on short final.I suspect it could be siphoning out of
> the vent tube.Looking in the archives I see a check valve has been used on
> some vent tubes.Sitting on the ground with full fuel there isn't any
> leaks.Does it soud like I'm on the right track?Cliff Olson
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: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
Cliff it all comes down to what do you want versus what you need, influenced
by
what you can afford.
The Kitfox is the aviation form of the good old Beetle...only Better!
Okay some may take offense to that but check it out.
It's basic and fun to fly.
It's inexpensive to operate.
It's relatively simple to work on.
It'll go places most other aircraft can go to only once, if you know what I
mean.
It's reliable.
It has very good range.
It's an attractive enough design where you aren't skeered to be seen in one.
It is versatile and can be adapted to pavement, dirt, tundra, snow, amphib,
Etc...
It is customizable with your particular needs in mind.... engine, speed
options,
wing length, VFR/IFR, fuel quantity, storage options, towability, Etc.......
It can be painted more that just Cub Yellow.
The list goes on and on.
If you must have that Mercedes Benz because your friends all drive
Porsches...
(appologies to Janis Joplin) then there's plenty of those out there too.
Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net>
Ted,
Smoke? Tell me more!! What are you running for an engine and smoke
generation.
Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Over the years I've also heard some disparaging comments from time to time
> about the Kitfox. There've been a lot of Kitfoxes torn up over the years
> due to poor pilot skills. There are also those that are ashamed to admit
> they'd be afraid to fly a taildragger. Then there are those that just
> won't
> be convinced a kitplane can be as safe as a certificated aircraft. I
> think
> it's a combination of all that and more.
>
> The thing I do know is that when I go to a fly-in, the people may glance
> at
> the certificated stuff but they're all gawking around my 'Fox and asking
> questions. Then I go out and make a low pass down the runway with the
> smoke
> on followed by a nose high roll-out at the end and really pull'em in
> :
> )
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford Dow
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
>
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
> me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
> piece
> of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday
> and
> loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by
> Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a
> transponder
> & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to
> spin
> the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the
> Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me?
> am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
> heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of
> business -
> so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be
> purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
> I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
> anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the
> price
> way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
> Thanks
> cliff
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
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: | Demagnetizing Frame |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I know this has been discussed before, but I have some more
questions. My compass swings badly when put in place at the top of the
panel. It appears the frame was not demagnetized after welding.
1. What's the easiest way to demagnetize?
2. How much of the frame do I need to do?
3. I will remove all electronics, but do I need to remove my 582 to
preclude demagnetizing the starter and PM alternator?
4. Any chance I can use one of those cute hand held surface demagnetizers?
5. Can I make a demagnetizer myself? If so, how?
Thanks again,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
This one's kind of funny. I'm 6' and don't seem to fit very well
in my as-yet uncompleted Kitfox.
1. I don't think I'll have full stop left aileron with the doors on.
2. The throttle is pointed right at my right knee. (The builder made this
gorgeous panel but put the throttle just left of center below the frame
crossbar. To access the throttle my leg must be to one side or the other of
it, meaning either I have no right aileron capability, or my passengers
suffer with my knee. If I install both sticks, I don't see how I'll have
aileron control.) I've thought of a vertical quadrant throttle, but don't
yet have the patience to invent it.
Does anyone else have fitting problems? Where are your throttles?
Should I move/rebuild the panel? Can you fly with two sticks and a passenger?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Cliff,
I was asked the same thing once. Why not a "real
airplane" You got a lot of good answers already, but
I'd like to add a few points. Not a home run like
Cliff B's, but a few points. :-)
Before buying my Fox, I checked the accident records.
At that time there were some 4000 kits sold. I think
there are over 4500 now, but not sure. About 1/2 are
completed and flying around the world. In fact, one
of our list members has flown his around the world.
When I looked, there were nearly 300 accidents in
them, but only 4 fatailites in 2 accidents. Both
those were from climb out stalls, probably from people
showing off to their passanger. The planes were
operating fine.
There were no major failures of the KitFox structure.
One broken trim motor, which has been replaced by a
stronger unit in our kits, and a number of tube and
fabric gear failures, were the only structural
weaknesses I found. The Grove gear takes care of
that.
Since then, there have been rudder peddle failures and
maybe a few problems with the flapperons that relate
to the design. hter ehave been a few more fatalities
too, but none aircraft induced that I know of.
Some "improvements" are always available here on the
list and these people do know how to make them better.
Overall, the KitFox has a better record for keeping
you alive than the Cub. It also doesn't have a flight
control that jambs up the rear seater's butt in a
crash like a Cub.
I practiced in a Cub and a Champ before flying mine.
My immediate impression was that, if my Fox flew this
poorly, I made a mistake in building it. Then I got
mine signed off and can state that mine flys
"embarrassingly well". Think of a brand new Cessna
180 with quicker controls using a stick, and JATO
takeoff. Sure it is slow at the top end, but just try
and not smile while flying one. Mine has that
"heavy-solid" feel while still being quick.
This is no weak structured ultralight that you will
have to oppologize for, or only fly under the cover of
darkness.
As for the financial weakness of SkyStar, they are
surrounded by prospective new owners ready to jump in
should the company go bankrupt. Ownership may change
from time to time, but KitFox's won't die out in our
lifetimes.
Question for your friend. How much does a NEW Cub
cost?
One other good selling point is the old KitFox IV
acrobatic airshow video. Let's see a Cub do that!
I'll send you a copy if you can handle a major
download. It's 10 mb long.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of
> mine heard this and sent me the following comment:
> ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
> piece of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead?
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
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: | Re: Not Much Room |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Guy Buchanan wrote:
> Can you fly with two sticks and a passenger?
I do, Guy. It is my policy to inform my passenger (I made a leaflet about it)
about a few things:
1) Keep the stick free, especially under landing and take-off.
2) Stop talking when ATC speaks. I could be for us.
3) Notice the pilot if the experience is unpleasant. Better land before one
gets air-sick.
I also make it a policy to explain, once in the air, the rudiment of stick
control and - if wanted - even let any passenger the experience of flying the
plane. My reasoning is this: Should I have a malaise, heart attack, faint, my
passenger should get a fair chance to save his/her neck.
I know, there has been cases of passengers panicking and then the stick
shouldn't be there. But - and from my sailing experience - I know how to talk
to the passenger as soon as we are in the air and feel if the person is relaxed
or not.
Anyway, a passenger's stick or not, it is a choice. I made mine but understand
those who think differently.
About the throttle, mine is in the centerline. I am only 5'4" and it is no
problem. My knee meeting my passenger's knee when giving aileron to the right
is normally not a problem either. At run-up, I test my controls to full
deflection in all directions and the passenger quickly learns that it may come
a pressure from his/her left side.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
I am considering getting the Attitude Reference System from MGL Avionics. Has
anyone on the list used one and if so would like to have your assessment of this
instrument?
Jimmie
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Not Much Room |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi Guy,
Yes it might be a good idea to change some things to
fit you best. I put my throttle right on the middle,
bottom of the panel. Both people can reach it equally
and it is out of the way otherwise. Can you move your
throttle?
Also are your rudder peddles full fwd for leg room?
The flight controls should not reach the door, even
with your hand on the stick. Nor should you bust your
nuckles on the panel when full fwd. You can adjust
the sticks, but make sure you end up with the right
flight control diflection.
My sticks hit my legs when near full aft. I only get
4" of travel, 2" either side. This makes for a
landing cross wind limitation. I need to move my
stick angle fwd to nearer the panel to get better
deflection. That adjustment is to come. It hasn't
been a problem yet and I have a few better mods to do
first.
What about seat cushions? Smallest ones that you can
fly with?
You should be able to make some adjustments that fit
you best. Hopefully not to muck up a fine panel.
Kurt S. S-5
--- Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
> All,
> This one's kind of funny. I'm 6' and don't seem
> to fit very well in my as-yet uncompleted Kitfox.
>
> 1. I don't think I'll have full stop left aileron
> with the doors on.
>
> 2. The throttle is pointed right at my right knee.
> (The builder made this gorgeous panel but put
> the throttle just left of center below the frame
> crossbar. To access the throttle my leg must be to
> one side or the other of it, meaning either I have
> no right aileron capability, or my passengers
> suffer with my knee. If I install both sticks, I
> don't see how I'll have aileron control.) I've
> thought of a vertical quadrant throttle, but don't
> yet have the patience to invent it.
>
> Does anyone else have fitting problems?
> Where are your throttles?
> Should I move/rebuild the panel? Can you fly with
> two sticks and a passenger?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
__________________________________
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
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: | more header tanks & fuel sensors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Hi folks. I pulled my header tank today to repair a slow leak and, since it's out,
thought I'd install a low fuel sensor as many of you have recommended.
My problem is I have the old style plastic header tank with 3 holes on top (R,L
tanks and vent) and one on bottom (to engine). There are no "side" holes as others
have described. As much as I'd like to support Skystar, I'd rather not purchase
a new tank if this one can be retrofitted.
So the questions are: 1) What are my chances of successfully drilling and tapping
this plastic to take a 3/4" NPT bushing and produce a leak-free fit? 2) If
it's feasible, how far from top of tank should hole for the sensor be? I'm using
the Aircraft Spruce float type, p/n 6905-004.
Thanks as always for your valuable advice.
Marco Menezes
KF 2 - 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
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: more header tanks & fuel sensors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I have used JB Weld on metal tanks with good success,
but don't know haw well it would stick to that
plastic. I bet it will be a problem.
There are some well sealed two sided fixtures that
migh work, but are probably too big to get the inside
part installed.
The best idea I know of is to install a seperate small
"tank" above your header just big enough for the
switch. Plumb it into one of the tank lines. then
all of your header fuel is reserve.
I forgot who did that here on the list, but the pics
may be on the Sportflight site.
Ah, yes. It was John King under add ons/mods. Try
this as a great idea.
http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1035256822
Kurt S.
--- Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks. I pulled my header tank today to repair a
> slow leak and, since it's out, thought I'd install a
> low fuel sensor as many of you have recommended.
>
> My problem is I have the old style plastic header
> tank with 3 holes on top (R,L tanks and vent) and
> one on bottom (to engine). There are no "side" holes
> as others have described. As much as I'd like to
> support Skystar, I'd rather not purchase a new tank
> if this one can be retrofitted.
>
> So the questions are: 1) What are my chances of
> successfully drilling and tapping this plastic to
> take a 3/4" NPT bushing and produce a leak-free fit?
> 2) If it's feasible, how far from top of tank should
> hole for the sensor be? I'm using the Aircraft
> Spruce float type, p/n 6905-004.
>
> Thanks as always for your valuable advice.
>
> Marco Menezes
> KF 2 - 582 N99KX
__________________________________
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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: | Re: Florida Trip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I'm flying northbound from FL to MI. Let me understand this. With the
fronts moving generally from west to east, are you saying to thread the
needle just behind the high? I would have thought it best to slip in just
in front of the high. What's your thinking on this Kurt?
Deke
> Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the
> Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low and
> you should get good winds and maybe good WX.
>
> Now if you can just have what you want when you want
> it.... :-)
>
> Kurt S.
>
> Do not archive
>
> --- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> .......
> > I'm planning fuel stops every three
> > hours, but don't know where those stops will be
> > until I find out what the winds will be doing.
> > A 20 mph tailwind would get me all the way home in a
> > day! Not much chance of that though.
> > Deke
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Demagnetizing Frame |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" <jhakes@emily.net>
My daughter took the plane for a few weeks and the battery needed a jump.
My Fox's compass was also out of whack because of a line boy who did a poor
job of jumping the battery. First I tried to correct it by hooking up
jumper cables and shorting them on the frame. All this did was to reverse
the compass so instead of always reading north it always read south. I then
borrowed a degouser from a TV repairman and used it. I started at the wind
screen and made circles as I moved it away. It worked.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> All,
> I know this has been discussed before, but I have some more
> questions. My compass swings badly when put in place at the top of the
> panel. It appears the frame was not demagnetized after welding.
>
> 1. What's the easiest way to demagnetize?
>
> 2. How much of the frame do I need to do?
>
> 3. I will remove all electronics, but do I need to remove my 582 to
> preclude demagnetizing the starter and PM alternator?
>
> 4. Any chance I can use one of those cute hand held surface demagnetizers?
>
> 5. Can I make a demagnetizer myself? If so, how?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
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: Florida Trip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
> Torgeir,
> Nothing to it. It's like going around the pattern 800 times.
>
> Do Not Archive
> Don Smythe
> Classic IV w/ 582
>
Ha - Ha Don, I liked this one...
I see the ironic you put in here... :)
Well, take this one-. In the pattern you'll always get paid back (?), but
enroute you might get trapped by strong head wing (hmm) -all the way.
-But if you'll follow Kurts advice, it can go much faster - and feels
you'd only gone "half" the way.
He he.. How about that?
Torgeir.
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
Guy
I'm not very tall, but I did find the stick interfered with my knees a bit.
More important, I did not like the close clearance with the underside of the
instrument panel. So I cut a few inches off the bottom of the control stick
to lower it. Works great!
SteveZ
Calgary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Subject: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
This one's kind of funny. I'm 6' and don't seem to fit very well
in my as-yet uncompleted Kitfox.
1. I don't think I'll have full stop left aileron with the doors on.
2. The throttle is pointed right at my right knee. (The builder made this
gorgeous panel but put the throttle just left of center below the frame
crossbar. To access the throttle my leg must be to one side or the other of
it, meaning either I have no right aileron capability, or my passengers
suffer with my knee. If I install both sticks, I don't see how I'll have
aileron control.) I've thought of a vertical quadrant throttle, but don't
yet have the patience to invent it.
Does anyone else have fitting problems? Where are your throttles?
Should I move/rebuild the panel? Can you fly with two sticks and a
passenger?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" <brodg@texas.net>
Howdy Cliff,
Well, they say that you can pick your friends (and airplanes?), but not your
relatives....
Okay....
I bought my Kitfox IV Speedster last October and have about 40 hours on it.
The builder did a fine job on it and I am fortunate to have it now. I've
put almost 40 hours on it.
It has flown to Alaska and Nova Scotia from Texas, although I've only
managed to get it 150 miles from home so far.
As you are also buying a 'pre-owned' aircraft, as with any aircraft
purchase, do a careful review. Maybe even get a good A&P to look at it for
you.
The plane is a lot more sturdy that it may look. Yes, the Grove gear is
good and I've been surprised at how much it can flex (you know, the
occasional bad landing !). As it is fairly light, it does get tossed about
a bit in turbulence, but that should be expected of a lightly loaded wing.
I have exactly one Cub flight on my logbook. Yes, it was fun, but the
cockpit was even more cramped (I'm 6'2" and 210 lbs) than the 'fox !
Actually, looking back, I'd say that the 'fox is easier to land than the Cub
(maybe more practice?).
As noted previously, the Kitfox (mine has the 912 and a CAP140 in-flight
adjustable pitch prop) is faster than the Cub.
As for range, it holds 26 gallons and burns about 3.5-4 gph in cruise @ 90 -
100 mph.
When we first got it, my partner and I were somewhat annoyed that we
couldn't put gas into it after flying as it had hardly used any ! Ha ! Now
that's a good thing !
As also noted previously, the 'fox does get attention when you fly in
somewhere. I like that as I am quite proud to discuss this wonderful,
little aeroplane and look forward to sharing it.
I had previous tailwheel time in the Cub and about 20 hours or so in
Citabrias.
The main difference on landing is that the 'fox has offset, rather than
centerline, seating, so a slight "landing picture" adjustment is needed.
Probably would be the same as for 180 / 185.
I have not found it to be too difficult to land or take-off. Yes, it is a
tailwheel type, so the general rules apply compared to a tricycle gear. I
like that challenge.
As you might guess from this list, there are also LOTS of happy Kitfox
owners / pilots out there.
Make NEW (open-minded?) friends; get the 'fox !
Happy flying,
Brian Rodgers
Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Dow" <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent
me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a
piece
> of overpriced crap!!""
> he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday
and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by
Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder
& comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin
the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the
Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me?
> am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve
heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business -
so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be
purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc.
> I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in
anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price
way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox?
> Thanks
> cliff
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? VIDEO? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
Would LOVE to see....
Dave Patrick
KF 2 582
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi there,
I'll think this is as good as it can be.. :)
The only thing is the "mysteries" about the 0.5 VDC., I can explain a
little about.
You'll know, in "most" devices there is a polarity protection, a diode in
series with the input line for the particular device.
All those devices will be feed by this large capacitor (22 000 mmF -
Skystars standard) for a little moment, as- when shutting off the master
switch.
For a few millisecond (well - maybe seconds), the capacitor will be
discharged - all the way down to approx. 0.5 VDC. This is true, as there
will be approx. 0.6 VDC across a silicone diode.
I'll think most of the Western type of instruments is fitted with such a
diode, this because of the type of "generator system" actually PMG's that
Rotax uses in their engines..
Also absolutely agree with Kurt, keep the capacitor in there.
As you have a circuit breaker connected in series with it, it's a safe
installation.
Torgeir.
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:06:50 -0800 (PST), kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi Jareds,
>
> Torgier can check me on this....
>
> Jareds, your description is much more helpful now.
>
> First, if you can make due without it and the noise
> isn't bad, you can take it out. Be sure to test
> against recieving a weak station while in flight
> first. That should be where you encounter the most
> noise and is a good test. If the breaker is one you
> can push/pull easily, this is an easy test. Find some
> ATIS station 100 miles or so away and try it with the
> Cap on and off. Then it is a case of how much noise
> you can deal with.
>
> Second, if it is on the insolated/equipment side of
> the solenoid with the solinoid off and not not the
> battery side, you shouldn't have such a big problem
> with a little leakage. It can't run the battery down
> with the master off. Then it can retain some voltage
> like a battery and give you no real problems. With
> the breaker in there, you are protected, so if you
> need it for noise reduction and keep it, you are OK
> too.
>
> If the leakage got very big it would work your
> alternator hard like a big load though. If you have
> an amp meter, you can see the difference when you pull
> the Cap breaker with the power on. If you can't see
> the amps change, you are OK.
>
> Your radio equipment may have caps in them to that
> give a low voltage reading when switched on, but the
> master is off. However, you said that the volts went
> to zero when you disconnected this cap, so this Cap
> seems to be the source.
>
> It doesn't seem you have a great risk with this wiring
> to the Cap as long as you check the amps from time to
> time by looking for a drop when you pull the breaker.
> No significant change in amps = no big problem.
>
> If the volts with it off bothers you, a high ohm
> resistor can be wired across the Cap leads to bleed it
> off when the power is off. Any high ohm resister of
> say 1/4 amp and 10K (10,000) ohms or higher should do
> fine. It should bleed the cap down to zero after
> shutdown without being a load by itself.
>
> What do you think Torgier?
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- jareds <jareds@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> torgeir and kurt
>>
>> Vaguely i remember an explanation like that before
>> but not as descriptive.
>> Yes by secondary I mean it is after the solenoid
>> actuated by inst panel master on the side where
>> all my instraments are. Cap runs through a breaker
>> and has one side connected to ground and the
>> other side to the posotive strip. That is where the
>> .5 volts resides and disappears when i disconnect
>> cap.
>>
>> With my resistor plugs and everything grounded
>> seperately i have little noise in my microair.
>> Is the consensus that it needs to be on the
>> equipment side with the instraments?
>> I do have 5 amp breaker seperating in case it shorts
>> out but .5volts seems like alot and wasnt sure if
>> i even needed the dumb thing?
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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: | Re: Florida Trip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hey Deke,
I was only talking about winds here. Of course you
need to consider the other factors too. Winds around
a high in our hemisphere go clockwise, and around lows
counter-clockwise. Highs screw down/in, lows unscrew
up...
So if you have a high to your right and a low to your
left, the winds should be out of the south. Could be
SE or S to SW blowing from high to low. How close
they are together, their strength, and which you are
flying closest to determines the winds you see.
Highs are colder heavy air that pushes out and down.
Harder to get convective activity when that happens,
but it does get bumpy 'cus the sun is out. :-)
Lows are from warm light air that sucks inward and up.
A setup for convective activity, especially when the
jetstream is pulling air out the top of a low.
If you fly to the right, front of a high, it should be
pretty clear, but winds will be moe in your face. The
closer you are in front of the low, the more
southerly, but then there is the wx to deal with.
So generally speaking, when going north, takeoff just
behind the high and get there before the lead wx in
front of the low reaches your destination. If you
need to leave earlier into the wind to beat the
weather, do it.
You can think of Norhtern hemishpere winds around
highs and lows just like turning a bolt or screw.
High pressure to screw down and in. Low pressure to
screw up and out. Plan for the right side of a low
and the left side of a high, no matter which direction
you fly, to get favorable winds. Then adjust your
plans for the weather.
Kurt S.
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
> I'm flying northbound from FL to MI. Let me
> understand this. With the fronts moving generally
> from west to east, are you saying to thread the
> needle just behind the high? I would have thought
> it best to slip in just in front of the high.
> What's your thinking on this
> Kurt?
> Deke
>
> > Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the
> > Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low
> and you should get good winds and maybe good WX.
> >
> > Now if you can just have what you want when you
> want it.... :-)
> >
> > Kurt S.
> >
> > Do not archive
__________________________________
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message 42
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: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Michel,
Maybe it's time to check your airspeed indicator, as I said; those
indicators is not just a high accurate indicators, get it checked soon.
You've all the remedies you'll need at home!!
And your test will be as accurate as any high performance "Kollsman"
device.
Hurry up man.. :)
Torgeir.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:41:55 +0100, Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> kurt schrader wrote:
>> But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol
>> instead of water.
>
> Alcohol is indeed a beautiful product, Kurt. A good antiseptic and
> detergent
> that - as you say - evaporates without leaving traces. Furthermore, it
> is a
> natural product that doesn't pollute our environment. Taken moderately,
> it has
> also good effects on our health. In the days of Columbus, Hispanic
> sailors were
> drinking two liters of wine, per day. The custom of giving British
> sailors a
> pint of Jamaican rum per week, only ended in 1970.
>
> I went flying today, Kurt. Not long because it started snowing, with
> reduced
> visibility. Alas, while better, my static port still gives about 5 MPH
> higher
> reading. I wonder why. Maybe it could be this, your opinion is requested:
> Not to make a hole in my fabric, I decided to put the port where it is
> recommended by Skystar, i.e. where I have an inspection cover. I made a
> tiny
> hole in the middle of the cover and added a fitting, inside, that
> attaches to
> the plastic pipe. From the inside, it goes up (to avoid rainwater) and
> there is
> some slack to the pipe so that I can remove the cover, pull the pipe some
> inches out, and disconnect the fitting, to remove completely the cover
> and
> inspect the inside of the fuselage aft end.
>
> Now, the cover is nearly flat, but not entirely. It is slightly curved
> to give
> it some strength. Could it be that the very slight curve accelerates the
> air
> passing by and create a lower pressure?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 43
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: more header tanks & fuel sensors |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com
In a message dated 3/13/2005 4:00:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
msm_9949@yahoo.com writes:
So the questions are: 1) What are my chances of successfully drilling and
tapping this plastic to take a 3/4" NPT bushing and produce a leak-free fit? 2)
If it's feasible, how far from top of tank should hole for the sensor be?
I'm using the Aircraft Spruce float type, p/n 6905-004.
Thanks as always for your valuable advice.
Marco,
Based on past reports of the older style header tanks, I'd think about
getting a new header. You can purchase one or have one made from Alum. That
plastic is "thin" and there is nothing to hold threads You might just end up
with more leaks than you can handle. My side hole (newer style 95) is about
2" down from the top (memory). I use that hole as a port to a dump valve on
the A./C bottom.
Don Smythe
Classic IV w/ 582
Message 44
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: Florida Trip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
That was the best and most useful "in a nutshell" bit of weather trivia I've
read yet. Makes easy sense, even for this partially fried brain to handle.
Now, another question. What do you (or others) use for easy to interpret
online weather sources to enable you to grab this good info?
Thanks Kurt. Good stuff.
Deke
> Hey Deke,
> I was only talking about winds here. Of course you
> need to consider the other factors too. Winds around
> a high in our hemisphere go clockwise, and around lows
> counter-clockwise. Highs screw down/in, lows unscrew
> up...
>
> So if you have a high to your right and a low to your
> left, the winds should be out of the south. Could be
> SE or S to SW blowing from high to low. How close
> they are together, their strength, and which you are
> flying closest to determines the winds you see.
>
> Highs are colder heavy air that pushes out and down.
> Harder to get convective activity when that happens,
> but it does get bumpy 'cus the sun is out. :-)
>
> Lows are from warm light air that sucks inward and up.
> A setup for convective activity, especially when the
> jetstream is pulling air out the top of a low.
>
> If you fly to the right, front of a high, it should be
> pretty clear, but winds will be moe in your face. The
> closer you are in front of the low, the more
> southerly, but then there is the wx to deal with.
>
> So generally speaking, when going north, takeoff just
> behind the high and get there before the lead wx in
> front of the low reaches your destination. If you
> need to leave earlier into the wind to beat the
> weather, do it.
>
> You can think of Norhtern hemishpere winds around
> highs and lows just like turning a bolt or screw.
> High pressure to screw down and in. Low pressure to
> screw up and out. Plan for the right side of a low
> and the left side of a high, no matter which direction
> you fly, to get favorable winds. Then adjust your
> plans for the weather.
>
> Kurt S.
>
> --- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> >
> > I'm flying northbound from FL to MI. Let me
> > understand this. With the fronts moving generally
> > from west to east, are you saying to thread the
> > needle just behind the high? I would have thought
> > it best to slip in just in front of the high.
> > What's your thinking on this
> > Kurt?
> > Deke
> >
> > > Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the
> > > Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low
> > and you should get good winds and maybe good WX.
> > >
> > > Now if you can just have what you want when you
> > want it.... :-)
> > >
> > > Kurt S.
> > >
> > > Do not archive
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
>
Message 45
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: Demagnetizing Frame - Part one. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Hi Guy,
Couple of years ago I wrote two "small" notes about such problem, never
published on this list I'll think.
Here it is:
Hi Out there!
Do you have problem with your "stand by compass" ?
Read completely wrong courses - large course offset or stuck at one
heading?
The correction does not work very well, nothing seems to work the way it
should.
Finally, removing the compass from plane- outside the compass work OK.
All this can be a symptom of residual "magnetism" in the framework-, this
tend to happened due to the TIG welding process. As all electrical current
has its accompanying magnetic field around the feeder, it's quite normal
that any Ferro magnetic material can be magnetized during the welding
process. The welding object act as an electrical feeder, in our case the
4130 steel (which is a Ferro magnetic material). Don't know that if the
frame has been defluxed after the welding process at factory, but probably
not. So one of the first thing to do with the frame is to deflux it, just
to remove any magnetic remains. At least this procedure should be carried
out before the instrument installation.
OK, whats the first step? -- It's to find out if your frame have any
magnetic remains.
I am using a very simple method for this detection, in fact Im using a
sewing needle
(make sure that the one you are using is made of a Ferro magnetic
material).
This can be checked by using a magnet on one of the needles you have, if
it's stick to the magnet - this kind of needles is OK to use. Put this
test needle away from the others to avoid that those new become magnetic.
It's important that your test needle is absolutely free from rest
magnetic. The test needle shall not stick with other needles. Then add
some thread (say two feet), but not into the eye end - tie the thread in
the middle of the needle, so that the needle will hang in horizontal
position. By using this method its easier to see any sticking due to
magnetic. Now you are ready to check your frame. The first place to look
at is,: at all the tubes near your compass installation.
The needle will stick wherever there is any magnetic remains. Sure you
must hold the thread at least a feet from the free hanging needle, by
moving the needle against the frame, you will easily see if the needle
stick. I have used this method for many years, and always work fine.
As we might find some magnetic spots around, we need a method to remove
the magnetism.
Then- lets talk about what to do next. The tool we need now is a defluxing
device.
So, how does this device work?
Hmm, it's quite simple, suppose that you have a winded up coil, connect
this coil to a DC source, this setup will create a magnetic field around
the coil. The strongest "magnetic field density" will occur in the middle
of the coil, and we will have one north pole and one south pole. If we put
a Ferro magnetic material into the middle of this coil, it will be
magnetized. Well, this is a device to create a stable magnetic field.
By just adding AC (alternate current) instead of DC (direct current), to
this same coil, we will have something different, yes we will have a
magnetic field, but now a fluctuating magnetic field, i.e. the magnetic
polarity will change with the alternate current.
In US the main have 110 VAC at 60 Hz, most other countries have 220 VAC at
50 Hz.
The magnetic field polarity will now change very rapid, in fact as fast as
the main frequency.
If we now put a Ferro magnetic object into the coil, we know that this
object will be force magnetized with alternating magnetic field. If we now
start moving - slowly our object out from this coil, what happen then?
Well, the field will decrease by distance, but the object is still being
magnetized, but by a gradually reducing field (as you are moving the
object away). In this way, the residual magnetic will become lower and
lower until all is gone.
This is basically how it's done, except that we are moving the coil
instead of the object (the fox is a bit heavy).
Where can I get such a device? ( I'll expect such a question.)
Any radio and television repair shop (with self respect) should normally
have such a devices in their hand. They normally have one small defluxing
device to be used for the recording/playback head on tape recorders - and
also a big device meant for defluxing CRT frames (defluxing frames in
color televisions). This latter device is the most proper one for our
steel frame alone, the small one is better to be used when you don't like
to spread a heavy magnetic field around, such strong magnetic field device
can ruin an instrument faster than you can
say d....
Here is a picture of the big device:
http://kitfox.net/images/L_deflux.jpg
And here is the small defluxing device:
http://kitfox.net/images/S_deflux.jpg
The very important lesson to learn here is.: Remove your sensitive
instruments, if you need to use a strong defluxing device. And please-
don't defluxe your compass, you will be surprised of the result.
Also if you are one of those using the screw driver with a magnetic bit
holder, -- throw this away (well I'll can accept it as a part of your cars
tool box).
Next time I'll like to talk about the electrical wiring vs. your compass
installation.
Regards from
Torgeir.
----------------------------------------------
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:55:19 -0800, Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> All,
> I know this has been discussed before, but I have some more
> questions. My compass swings badly when put in place at the top of the
> panel. It appears the frame was not demagnetized after welding.
>
> 1. What's the easiest way to demagnetize?
>
> 2. How much of the frame do I need to do?
>
> 3. I will remove all electronics, but do I need to remove my 582 to
> preclude demagnetizing the starter and PM alternator?
>
> 4. Any chance I can use one of those cute hand held surface
> demagnetizers?
>
> 5. Can I make a demagnetizer myself? If so, how?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Message 46
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: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
Here is the second one.
Torgeir.
--------------------------------
Compass installation in Kitfoxes.
Second report.
In the first article I talked about detecting and removing magnetic
remains. There is some more to add, when I warn you about how a strong
magnetic field can ruin your instruments, the intention is to warn you
that most of our instruments are calibrated against a standard and "can"
give vital information. The instrument can be damaged, or the calibration
can be ruined, the latter is even worse! But this would not happen with
those small defluxers-, when they are locally used on screws, tube point
etc. The small ones normally has an internal core, made up by a number of
sheet metal- added close together (as in transformers). At the end, there
is a nose where the magnetic field is very concentrated, this is the part
of the defluxer (degausser) to be moved slowly over the magnetic object to
be defluxed. Another importance note.: Don't turn a defluxer on or off
when it's positioned near the object you like to deflux, such an
operation can magnetize your object again.
-- So, when instruments is installed- don't use the BIG degausser.
-
The electrical wiring and the compass.
When installing / finding a proper place to put your magnetic compass, the
following might be taken into consideration. As we recover that all
electrical wiring with electrical flow (current) will have an accompanying
proportional magnetic field. In other word, it's quite difficult to
predict the effect of wiring installation nearby a magnetic compass. The
first step is to install the compass in a physical center position, to
avoid having unsymmetrical errors due to nearby Ferro magnetic material.
If this can be obtained, the errors will be easy to correct. Next, this
position is to be as far as practical from your main electrical loom. This
will decrees the errors due to "electrical configurations". By this I
mean, the various combination of equipment on - off relationship. All
kind of electrical usage combination can make your compass read different
at same AC (aircraft) heading. Can you imaging having one compass course
for heater on, another for heater and position light together- and so on.
In fact, we can (quite often) issue a correction table with one correction
for day, and one for night (they are both day/night at the same table).
If the home lesson is done quite well, no equipment will influence very
much on the stand by compass, but I'll tell you this is very difficult to
obtain. A number of parameter is working against us as you see-, another
one is the latitude. As we approach the north or the south, the resultant
magnetic field become more vertical, this also keep things worse for us.
As a general role we say that the compass is to be corrected by every
degree, when above 70 deg. south or north (meaning for a plane with home
base in such an area). There is various rules for this, but you better
check out the your authorities.
How can this happen you may ask? Sure your frame become different for a
surrounding magnetic field with some higher vertical vector. (You know the
vector angle at the magnetic pole?) The first thing you'll see is that
your compass become very slow, seem to have no reaction, hanging etc.,
even when start turning. Under such condition, it's even more important to
have an electrical installation who have lo influence to your compass.
So, saying this give you the most ideal position for our compass
installation, on the center frame in the middle of the cockpit window.
This is the position giving less trouble, well proven - I'll tell you-.
However, sometime we have to compromise, and here common sense make the
decision. Well, where do I put my main loom (electrical main bundle)?
There is no standard answer to this question, but basically as far from
your compass as possible. In our case thats mean in the lower part of the
instrument panel, as we here need vertical separation. So, thats mean a
low position for the power carrying cables/wires and fuses,- this is what
we see on the certified equivalents.. If you are of those having installed
the internal light wires to the compass, here is something interesting.
From the compass there is two wires, the positive and the ground
(negative) wire. Those two wires are also twisted, dont attempt to untwist
or to cut the ground wire and ground it in the compass attachement
screw(s). The meaning with this twisted wire, is to have the magnetic
field in the plus and minus wire to work against each other, more or less
canceling (minimize) each others magnetic field, clever isn't it?
Now to the real power wires, the battery cable(s) and the ground. As you
now know that any electrical current lead to a magnetic field-, there is
more lessons to learn. "The issue of repositioning the main battery to
obtain a proper CG range". I am not sure how people have solved the ground
path, but this can "sometimes" cause a very erratic compass. If you assume
that most of the main current-, to - from the battery, by some reason
take the path via the frame tube you have attached your compass to. Well,
this is worst case- and I am not saying this will happen, but there is a
risk. So such an installation from time to time require a separate ground
feeder to avoid such path. From a "compass installations" point of view,
the battery should be in the front with main ground to a single point,
thus keep all the electrical as close as possible to reduce magnetic field
effect. However, different interest count here, for instance, the battery
is better placed aft of the seats or "cargo room"-, with a proper master
relay, just for safety - fire risk in case of a forced landing. Sure a lot
more can be said, but basically-, if you put attention to the above You'll
probably be safe with your compass installation.
One last word here, have you seen those black (anodized) screws used to
attach the instruments? Yes, those screws are made of brass-, non magnetic
material - now you should know why. The stainless steel screws are also
non magnetic.
Now you know why we need a deviation card for the magnetic compass.
Maybe I'll say something about how to calibrate (make a compass swing)
the magnetic compass and the errors we have to fight.
Torgeir.
Message 47
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: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Hi Tom,
Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed.
A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs.
bh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
Message 48
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: Florida Trip |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple <fredshiple@sbcglobal.net>
try: duats.com
fred
> Now, another question. What do you (or others) use
> for easy to interpret
> online weather sources to enable you to grab this
> good info?
Message 49
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: | why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most)
kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that.
I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month
or so.
99.9% completed and still with much left to do.
I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time?
Tom Tomlin
IV Speedster
Jab 3300
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
>
> Hi Tom,
> Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed.
> A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs.
> bh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
>
>> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
>> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 50
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: | Why I like my Kitfox |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cliff Olson" <colsonj@provide.net>
I like to trailer my Fox home in the off season to do all my tinkering.Roll it
in my steel building,turn the lights,muisic,and heat on and go to work.Couldn't
seem to get the wings folded on my Cessna (have you ever tried to pull the
wings on a cessna?)When some of my certified friends learned of my switch to a
Kitfox they said when do I get a ride.There are so many aircraft to choose from
it gets hard to make a final choice.Ninety percent of my flying is solo,off
of short grass strips,and less than 250 miles from home.I grew up in the family
auto salvage bussiness and I'm used to fixing any and everything.This Kitfox
is new to me but it feels right,and I have a feeling its gonna be mine for quite
a long time.I loved my cessna and if I could have gotten a STC to fold the
wings I would still own it.Just my two cents in responce to {why do some hate
the Fox}Please don't archive.Cliff
Message 51
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: longest build time |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Tom:
My Model 2 (s/n 374) was started by previous owner in 1989. She'll fly this spring.
That has to be close to the world's record I would think.
Marco Menezes
N99KX
do not archive
Tom Tomlin <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin"
Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most)
kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that.
I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month
or so.
99.9% completed and still with much left to do.
I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time?
Tom Tomlin
IV Speedster
Jab 3300
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Harrington"
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington"
>
> Hi Tom,
> Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed.
> A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs.
> bh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Tomlin"
>
>> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
>> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 52
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: why do some hate kitfoxes? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" <cnichols@scrtc.com>
Hey, Tom:
A Jabiru 3300 in a Model IV. Sounds exciting. Keep us posted.
Clem Nichols
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
>
> Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most)
> kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that.
> I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month
> or so.
> 99.9% completed and still with much left to do.
> I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time?
>
> Tom Tomlin
> IV Speedster
> Jab 3300
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>> Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed.
>> A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs.
>> bh
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Tomlin" <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net>
>>
>>> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
>>> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005
>
>
Message 53
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: "Joel Mapes" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
Hi,
I'm covering my model 5 and am wondering about the 6 tabs on the bottom of
the fuselage. They are in two lines of three each under the cockpit an run
for / aft. Should the fabric be slit to allow these tabs to protrude thru
the fabric? I've got the landing gear and lift strut attachments taken care
of.
Thanks,
Joel
Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs (this summer!)
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Message 54
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>
Joel,
Yup. They get reinforced when you put the tapes along frame members. Cut
holes in the tapes too.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joel Mapes
Subject: Kitfox-List: Covering
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes" <foxfloatflyer@hotmail.com>
Hi,
I'm covering my model 5 and am wondering about the 6 tabs on the bottom of
the fuselage. They are in two lines of three each under the cockpit an run
for / aft. Should the fabric be slit to allow these tabs to protrude thru
the fabric? I've got the landing gear and lift strut attachments taken care
of.
Thanks,
Joel
Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs (this summer!)
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Message 55
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: Not Much Room |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 12:53 PM 3/13/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>Hi Guy,
>
...
>Can you move your
>throttle?
You know how it is. Yes and no. Yes I can but it won't be easy.
>Also are your rudder peddles full fwd for leg room?
That depends. They don't quite hit the firewall with about 30 degrees of
rudder deflection.
>The flight controls should not reach the door, even
>with your hand on the stick. Nor should you bust your
>nuckles on the panel when full fwd. You can adjust
>the sticks, but make sure you end up with the right
>flight control diflection.
The stick doesn't hit the door, but it does hit my knee, which would then
hit the door, if I had one. The only way to avoid it would be to have the
stick short enough to go under my knee. But then, flying with my left hand,
I couldn't drive it under that knee anyway.
>My sticks hit my legs when near full aft. I only get
>4" of travel, 2" either side. This makes for a
>landing cross wind limitation. I need to move my
>stick angle fwd to nearer the panel to get better
>deflection. That adjustment is to come. It hasn't
>been a problem yet and I have a few better mods to do
Yes, I've got the same problem.
>first.
>
>What about seat cushions? Smallest ones that you can
>fly with?
No, but they sure are comfortable. The builder put in some comfy seats, but
you're right, I may have to sacrifice them, at least on the back.
...
>Kurt S. S-5
Thanks Kurt,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 56
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: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 02:16 AM 3/14/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen <torgemor@online.no>
>
>Here is the second one.
>
>Torgeir.
Thanks Torgeir. Very thorough. I've found a couple of demagnetizers on the
web for about $65. One's a loop and one's a brick (surface type). I wonder
if I can demagnetize the tubes with the small brick sized unit and avoid
pulling the engine. It sure would save some time, though I'm sure I'll have
to pull the darn thing before this thing's done anyway.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 57
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: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Steve,
Did you have a dogleg bend in your stick? I think I'll chop mine
down as much as possible, but with the dogleg bend it won't be all that much.
Guy
At 04:06 PM 3/13/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski <szakreski@shaw.ca>
>
>Guy
>
>I'm not very tall, but I did find the stick interfered with my knees a bit.
>More important, I did not like the close clearance with the underside of the
>instrument panel. So I cut a few inches off the bottom of the control stick
>to lower it. Works great!
>
>SteveZ
>Calgary
Message 58
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: Demagnetizing Frame |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 04:15 PM 3/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" <jhakes@emily.net>
...
> I started at the wind
>screen and made circles as I moved it away. It worked.
Jim,
Did you do it with the engine in place?
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 59
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: | longest build time |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Nope, just read about a gut that took 37 years...see your a fast build.:)
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: longest build time
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Tom:
My Model 2 (s/n 374) was started by previous owner in 1989. She'll fly this
spring. That has to be close to the world's record I would think.
Marco Menezes
N99KX
do not archive
Tom Tomlin <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin"
Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most)
kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that.
I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month
or so.
99.9% completed and still with much left to do.
I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time?
Tom Tomlin
IV Speedster
Jab 3300
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Harrington"
To:
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington"
>
> Hi Tom,
> Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed.
> A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs.
> bh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Tomlin"
>
>> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
>> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 60
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: Demagnetizing Frame |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" <jhakes@emily.net>
Yes, the engine was in place. It seemed like a hocus pocus thing, but it
worked.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> At 04:15 PM 3/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" <jhakes@emily.net>
> ...
>
> > I started at the wind
> >screen and made circles as I moved it away. It worked.
>
>
> Jim,
> Did you do it with the engine in place?
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
Message 61
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: | longest build time |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
I am going to bed...that was guy not gut though you need both.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: longest build time
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <turboflyer@comcast.net>
Nope, just read about a gut that took 37 years...see your a fast build.:)
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marco
Menezes
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: longest build time
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com>
Tom:
My Model 2 (s/n 374) was started by previous owner in 1989. She'll fly this
spring. That has to be close to the world's record I would think.
Marco Menezes
N99KX
do not archive
Tom Tomlin <ThomasTomlin@comcast.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin"
Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most)
kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that.
I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month
or so.
99.9% completed and still with much left to do.
I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time?
Tom Tomlin
IV Speedster
Jab 3300
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Harrington"
To:
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes?
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington"
>
> Hi Tom,
> Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed.
> A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs.
> bh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Tomlin"
>
>> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold?
>> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit.
>
>
---------------------------------
Message 62
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: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics |
06:35:12,
Serialize complete at 14/03/2005 06:35:12
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com
Hi Jimmie
These instruments are really good, well designed, and their LCD displays
from a readability/light emission/brightness point of view are probably
one of the best that I have seen at this end of the market.
I do not have one installed, I have another brand of instrument doing
something similar, but I wish I could swop it for the MGL.
From other owners who have the MGL installed, they have indicated that
MGL's backup is also excellent.
Regards
Roger
"Jimmie Blackwell" <jablackwell@ev1.net>
Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
14/03/2005 12:46 AM
Please respond to
kitfox-list@matronics.com
To
<kitfox-list@matronics.com>
cc
Subject
Kitfox-List: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics
Size: 4 Kb
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell"
<jablackwell@ev1.net>
I am considering getting the Attitude Reference System from MGL Avionics.
Has anyone on the list used one and if so would like to have your
assessment of this instrument?
Jimmie
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.
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! --
|