Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:52 AM - Re: Fly-n ()
2. 04:38 AM - Re: Model V/VI successful groundloop? (Michel Verheughe)
3. 05:20 AM - Ground looping (kitfox@gto.net)
4. 05:23 AM - Question on Model IV gross (kitfox@gto.net)
5. 06:06 AM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (Paul Peerenboom)
6. 07:29 AM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (Lowell Fitt)
7. 08:07 AM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (Tom Jones)
8. 09:07 AM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (clemwehner)
9. 09:39 AM - Re: Ground looping (Roger Standley)
10. 11:08 AM - Re: Model V/VI successful groundloop? (Cudnohufsky's)
11. 11:11 AM - Re: Ground looping (Bruce Harrington)
12. 01:38 PM - Brown Tool - New Catalog - ADVERTISEMENT (BrownTool@aol.com)
13. 02:10 PM - Re: Model V/VI successful groundloop? (Michel Verheughe)
14. 03:45 PM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (flier)
15. 04:08 PM - Re: Model V/VI successful groundloop? (Rex Hefferan)
16. 04:38 PM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (jdmcbean)
17. 05:11 PM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (clemwehner)
18. 05:37 PM - Fw: Question on Model IV gross (kitfox@gto.net)
19. 05:42 PM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (flier)
20. 06:58 PM - Re: Ground looping (livinnmd@comcast.net (JSattin))
21. 07:20 PM - Re: Ground looping (Steve Cooper)
22. 07:34 PM - Re: Ground looping (John King)
23. 08:13 PM - Re: Five Alive/CG Confusion (Tinne maha)
24. 08:43 PM - Re: Ground looping (Paul Seehafer)
25. 08:56 PM - Re: Question on Model IV gross (clemwehner)
26. 09:19 PM - Re: Re: Five Alive/CG Confusion (kurt schrader)
27. 09:32 PM - Original Kitfox Wheels? (RAY Gignac)
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: <gjglh@cebridge.net>
I hope you can still make it to the fly-in. Sids Kitfox sure is pretty!!
Great to here your hanging your engine.
Gary
On Sat Apr 23 19:01 , 'Donna and Roger McConnell' <rdmac@swbell.net> sent:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell"
rdmac@swbell.net>
>
>Hi Sid & Gary,
> I won't make it this year but hopefully next year after I get the 40
>hrs. flown off. I'm installing the engine now and should be ready to start
>taxi testing by late summer or early fall. Anyway, count me in for next
>year.
> Roger Mac
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>[owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com','','','')">owner-kitfox-list-
server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gjglh@cebridge.net
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kitfox-List: Fly-n
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: gjglh@cebridge.net>
>
>
>Tom Stafford Airport in Weatherford Oklahoma is is starting its
>annual fly-in June 18th. This will coincide with Weatherfords
>annual car show and arts festival. All are welcome. We now have
>two Model IV speedsters on the field and are asking all kitfox
>fliers to join us to make this kitfox Dominant.
>
>Hope to see you
>
>Sid Drake & Gary Henderson
>
>
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: Model V/VI successful groundloop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Glenn Horne wrote:
> You all know how to scare someone.
> Haven't flown my Model II yet and you guys are ground
> looping yours. Will fly soon
Glenn, when my wife was pregnant with our first born, we heard people talking
about everything that could go wrong. We got a beautiful son who is now my co-pilot.
Listen to what this list has to say about toe-in, spring tension, axle angle
and Groove gear. But most of all, get to know your plane and learn to stay
ahead of it.
When I started flying my model 3, I was dead scared to do a ground loop. I even
considered screwing small wheels on the drooping winglets! ;-)
I did a lot of high-speed taxiing in no-wind condition and I think I learnt
from it. I also think I learnt from the Kitfox model I made for the X-Plane
flight simulator.
The bottom line: Stay alert, especially after landing, when you think you can
relax because you are rolling at low speed. I believe there are taildragger
pilots, out there, who never experienced a ground loop. I intend to stay one of
them and I wish you the same, my friend.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Michel, Very well said.
One must stay on top of yaw control at all speeds.
I know many pilots that have never ground looped and only a few that
have ground looped. I think generally you will find that pilots that
only have had tri gear time are generally not as "attentive" to the
rudder pedals as they should be. Beside tricycle gears have become
very popular but ther is no reason for anyone to be scared of
Taildraggers.
Taildraggers are better soft and short field performers that Tri gear
normallly. Plus Skis are no fun on Trigear.
Kitfox
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Can some one post or email me the Differances of the Kitfox IV 1050
gross versus the 1200 Gross.
What Exactly is the differances?
I think i read some where the Struts and spar tubes were larger.
I have a Kitfox with a serial number very close to the #1725 serial and
i think that is where they changed to the classic IV.
Any help would be appreciated, and any other Kitfox Flyers in Ontario
west of Toronto?
Thank you ,
Kitfox
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: Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
I have #1735 and its gross weight is 1200lbs but I am told it is not a true
classic its just a heavy IV
----- Original Message -----
From: <kitfox@gto.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>
> Can some one post or email me the Differances of the Kitfox IV 1050
> gross versus the 1200 Gross.
>
> What Exactly is the differances?
>
> I think i read some where the Struts and spar tubes were larger.
>
> I have a Kitfox with a serial number very close to the #1725 serial and
> i think that is where they changed to the classic IV.
>
> Any help would be appreciated, and any other Kitfox Flyers in Ontario
> west of Toronto?
>
>
> Thank you ,
>
> Kitfox
>
>
>
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: Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
The Classic IV is named as Classic Coke was named - it is the regeneration
of a once discontunued model. There have been some minor improvements (?)
in the Classic. A couple come to mind: The throttle cable splitter in the
cable rather then the bell crank splitter and adjustable feet in the tube
gear for wheel alignment. Structurally and riggingn they are identical.
Discussion in the past suggests that converting from a IV 1050 to a 1200 is
not practical. An Archive search might bring up the pertinent parts of that
discussion.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom"
> <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>
> I have #1735 and its gross weight is 1200lbs but I am told it is not a
> true
> classic its just a heavy IV
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kitfox@gto.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>>
>> Can some one post or email me the Differances of the Kitfox IV 1050
>> gross versus the 1200 Gross.
>>
>> What Exactly is the differances?
>>
>> I think i read some where the Struts and spar tubes were larger.
>>
>> I have a Kitfox with a serial number very close to the #1725 serial and
>> i think that is where they changed to the classic IV.
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated, and any other Kitfox Flyers in Ontario
>> west of Toronto?
>>
>>
>> Thank you ,
>>
>> Kitfox
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Tom Jones <tomfromlapine@peoplepc.com>
If you are trying to determine which you have, the easiest way is to
look at the tail. The 1200 and classic 4 have a 10 inch taller vertical
fin and rudder than the 1050 does. It looks like a P51.
http://www.sportflight.com/kitfoxlistmembers/tom1.jpg
Tom Jones
kitfox@gto.net wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>
> Can some one post or email me the Differances of the Kitfox IV 1050
> gross versus the 1200 Gross.
>
> What Exactly is the differances?
>
> I think i read some where the Struts and spar tubes were larger.
>
> I have a Kitfox with a serial number very close to the #1725 serial and
> i think that is where they changed to the classic IV.
>
> Any help would be appreciated, and any other Kitfox Flyers in Ontario
> west of Toronto?
>
>
> Thank you ,
>
> Kitfox
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
>Discussion in the past suggests that converting from a IV 1050 to a
1200 is
>not practical. An Archive search might bring up the pertinent parts of
>that discussion.
Friends,
I've been part of this group since about 1992 and have read the emails
every day since then. It you can find archives from about 1993, you will
find a LOT (repeat-a LOT) of discussion about increasing the gross
weight of the 1050 to 1200. I seem to recall the same thread recurring
in the mid 90's.
In 1993, even Skystar would tell you what could be done to make the
change. I discussed it with them several times. It involved changing
lift struts to the larger diameter ones, changing to spring gear because
the bungee gear was considered the real weak point of the 1050. It also
involved beefing up the carry through tube on the belly that connects
the lift struts together. They had some very specific recommendations on
how to do that with a bolt-on additional steel carry through that used
the holes in the strut attach fitting that are intended for the wing
support tubes used in transporting the aircraft. There was some
discussion on the list about inserting plywood between the tubes that
form triangles behind the seats, but Skystar didn't tell me anything
about that. As I recall, there was also no recommendation from Skystar
about beefing up the spar carry through at the top of the fuselage,
though there was a little discussion on the list. But nobody considered
it a requirement to beef up the spar carry through.
I do remember that Skystar's advice was that increasing the structure to
1200 was not intended for routine operation at that weight, but as a
safety margin when operating at 1050 in turbulence or with an occasional
fat guy passenger that would cause you to go slightly over 1050. Back
then, the increased GW was considered very practical, though maybe not
advised because it might temp one to routinely operate over 1050. One
point was that the builder could register it at any GW he wanted as long
as he had deliberate planning and consideration of the structural
changes that were founded in some engineering analysis. At that time,
the specific suggestions of Skystar were considered sufficient. I'm sure
now-a-days Skystar wouldn't even talk about it.
I changed to the heavier lift struts, got the spring gear, and will make
the mods to the strut carry through if I ever get around to finishing my
KFIV-1050. Life got in the way of the completion, but it's still in the
shop and I'll probably give it to my son to finish.
Clem
Lawton, Oklahoma,
KFIV 1050-1200, 912
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Peerenboom" <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Peerenboom"
> <ppeerenbo@charter.net>
>
> I have #1735 and its gross weight is 1200lbs but I am told it is not a
> true
> classic its just a heavy IV
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kitfox@gto.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
>>
>> Can some one post or email me the Differances of the Kitfox IV 1050
>> gross versus the 1200 Gross.
>>
>> What Exactly is the differances?
>>
>> I think i read some where the Struts and spar tubes were larger.
>>
>> I have a Kitfox with a serial number very close to the #1725 serial
and
>> i think that is where they changed to the classic IV.
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated, and any other Kitfox Flyers in Ontario
>> west of Toronto?
>>
>>
>> Thank you ,
>>
>> Kitfox
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground looping |
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:41:31 -0700
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger Standley" <taildragon@msn.com>
>"One must stay on top of yaw control at all speeds.
>I know many pilots that have never ground looped "
This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you want to do
an intentional, controlled ground loop?
----- Original Message -----
From: kitfox@gto.net<mailto:kitfox@gto.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 5:19 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Ground looping
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net<mailto:kitfox@gto.net>
Michel, Very well said.
One must stay on top of yaw control at all speeds.
I know many pilots that have never ground looped and only a few that
have ground looped. I think generally you will find that pilots that
only have had tri gear time are generally not as "attentive" to the
rudder pedals as they should be. Beside tricycle gears have become
very popular but ther is no reason for anyone to be scared of
Taildraggers.
Taildraggers are better soft and short field performers that Tri gear
normallly. Plus Skis are no fun on Trigear.
Kitfox
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model V/VI successful groundloop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net>
Michel & List,
What were the highlights around what this list has to say about toe-in,
spring tension, axle angle and Groove gear, if you don,t mind me asking, I
am nearing the point of setting up my gear. (Grove)
Lloyd
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground looping |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <aerowood@mcsi.net>
To prevent hitting a heavy duty fence, tree, other airplane, building, etc..
bh
> This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you want
> to do an intentional, controlled ground loop?
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: | Brown Tool - New Catalog - ADVERTISEMENT |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: BrownTool@aol.com
This is an "advertisement / announcement" and will be posted one time
only....do not archive
Kitfoxers,
We have just received our brand new full color 132 page catalog back from
the printer and will be mailing it out this week. If you are not already on
our mailing list, visit our website at _www.browntool.com_
(http://www.browntool.com/) and sign up for a FREE copy of our new catalog.
As the largest aerospace distributor of Sioux Tools in the world and one of
the largest distributors of aircraft sheet metal tools, we have hundreds of
products that are appropriate for Kit Builders. Our new catalog contains
hundreds of new products and is by far the largest we have ever produced in our
14
years....call us toll free or visit our website for a FREE copy.
Thanks,
Michael Brown
Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co.
3801 S. Meridian Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73119
USA
1-800-587-3883 (Toll Free in North America)
405-688-6888
Fax: 405-688-6555
_www.browntool.com_ (http://www.browntool.com/)
michael@browntool.com
_browntool@aol.com_ (mailto:browntool@aol.com)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Model V/VI successful groundloop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Cudnohufsky's wrote:
> Michel & List,
> What were the highlights around what this list has to say about toe-in,
> spring tension, axle angle and Groove gear, if you don,t mind me asking, I
> am nearing the point of setting up my gear. (Grove)
I don't feel confident enough to answer, Lloyd, I am still a novice. But it
could he a great idea if someone more experienced on the list could make a
digest of everything we have gathered on the "ground-loop avoidance" idea and
post it somewhere.
If needed, I can offer my services for illustrations and even Flash animations.
Cheers,
Michel
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Gear doesn't have anything to do with the gross. There are plenty of
IV-1200s flying with the tube gear and no plans to change!!
snip----------
In 1993, even Skystar would tell you what could be done to make the
change. I discussed it with them several times. It involved changing
lift struts to the larger diameter ones, changing to spring gear because
the bungee gear was considered the real weak point of the 1050.
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: Model V/VI successful groundloop? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex Hefferan <kitfox-m2@earthlink.net>
Steve,
What is the actual outside width of your gear? I need a dimension that
would define the clearance needed for loading onto a trailer that has
side rails.
Thanks,
Rex
Colorado
Steve Cooper wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
>
>I guess it's closer to a model IV. I installed the big main gear legs
>(14" wider than OEM) They really give the plane an ultra stable
>platform. Probably why I didn't scuff a wing tip.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
For as long as I worked at SkyStar there was not any approved method from
Denny Aero or SkyStar for increasing the gross weight of a Model IV-1050 to
1200. One
exception was if you were going to install floats. Then there was a
recommendation on upgrading the lift struts, the bulkhead carry through and
horizontal lift struts. This
was never tested... it was a carry over from Denny Aerocraft to SkyStar. It
also only allowed for the gross increase when operating on floats. If you
went back to gear
your gross went back to 1050.
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
Yep, you're probably right, but in 1993 there weren't a lot of 1200's
flying at all, so the experience of flying a lot of 1200's with tube
gear was still in the future. Skystar's recommendation was to change to
the spring gear if flying a heavier airplane, because there had been a
number of tube gear collapses on mod III and IV-1050's in those days
(just check the archives). There were also a number of cases where the
tubing that forms the carry through that the seat front rests upon would
bend with hard landings. My friend's did that and it was ugly.
Apparently, the model four design fixed that. A lot of us at that time
converted to spring gear because of the rash of tube gear collapses and
the availability of the new spring gear.
So, while the kind of gear you have doesn't matter while flying, it does
when you are landing. Apparently, at the time Skystar thought the gear
should be changed if adding more weight to the plane. Now, with another
dozen years of experience behind us, maybe it isn't necessary.
In any case changing things on an aircraft is a matter of personal (and
hopefully careful) choice on an experimental.
Fly safe,
Clem
snip--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Gear doesn't have anything to do with the gross. There are plenty of
IV-1200s flying with the tube gear and no plans to change!!
snip----------
In 1993, even Skystar would tell you what could be done to make the
change. I discussed it with them several times. It involved changing
lift struts to the larger diameter ones, changing to spring gear because
the bungee gear was considered the real weak point of the 1050.
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kitfox@gto.net
Hi and thanks for all the input here.
To John Mc Bean,
What did the lift strut size increase to? was it diameter or the wall
thinkness?
I think somewhere i read the spars were increased too --(058 to 065 ?
maybe )
(Then there was a
recommendation on upgrading the lift struts, the bulkhead carry through
and
horizontal lift struts.)
To all others, thank you for your input. And to flier-- the tube gear
I agree changing to a wider gear might make some feel more confident
but the tube gear does seem to be fairly tame. And whoever asked i
think close to zero toe would be pretty decent starting point. Toe in
or out i would limit t o 1/8 inch max though.
Kitfox IV what a great versatile plane, whether flown solo or a gross,
still a great performer.
Thanks again and keep the info coming.
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Clem,
Three of my friends built their IV's in '93 and I got mine in early '94.
They're original IV-1200s and Speedsters. Spring gear was just coming
around when I got my IV flying in '96. I flew the first Skystar
demonstrator with the spring gear in '96. I don't recall Skystar
recommending spring gear but they did begin offering it as an option. They
did recommend not landing sideways. Also there was concern about the safety
wire around the tubes bottoming-out and crimping the tubes.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of clemwehner
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Question on Model IV gross
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
Yep, you're probably right, but in 1993 there weren't a lot of 1200's
flying at all, so the experience of flying a lot of 1200's with tube
gear was still in the future. Skystar's recommendation was to change to
the spring gear if flying a heavier airplane, because there had been a
number of tube gear collapses on mod III and IV-1050's in those days
(just check the archives). There were also a number of cases where the
tubing that forms the carry through that the seat front rests upon would
bend with hard landings. My friend's did that and it was ugly.
Apparently, the model four design fixed that. A lot of us at that time
converted to spring gear because of the rash of tube gear collapses and
the availability of the new spring gear.
So, while the kind of gear you have doesn't matter while flying, it does
when you are landing. Apparently, at the time Skystar thought the gear
should be changed if adding more weight to the plane. Now, with another
dozen years of experience behind us, maybe it isn't necessary.
In any case changing things on an aircraft is a matter of personal (and
hopefully careful) choice on an experimental.
Fly safe,
Clem
snip--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <flier@sbcglobal.net>
Gear doesn't have anything to do with the gross. There are plenty of
IV-1200s flying with the tube gear and no plans to change!!
snip----------
In 1993, even Skystar would tell you what could be done to make the
change. I discussed it with them several times. It involved changing
lift struts to the larger diameter ones, changing to spring gear because
the bungee gear was considered the real weak point of the 1050.
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: | Re: Ground looping |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: livinnmd@comcast.net (JSattin)
An intentional ground loop was done at a flyin I was attending where a pilot landed
too fast on a short field with a grove of apple trees at the end. We were
positive he was going to hit the trees, but at the last second he did a 180
and gave it full power. Luckily it was a grass field as the plane was sliding
sideways during the ground loop. He walked away with out a scratch on him or
the plan.
Jeff Sattin
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington"
>
> To prevent hitting a heavy duty fence, tree, other airplane, building, etc..
> bh
>
> > This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you want
> > to do an intentional, controlled ground loop?
>
>
>
>
>
>
An intentional ground loop was done at a flyin I was attending wherea pilot landed
too fast on a short field with a grove of apple trees at the end. We were
positive he was going to hit the trees, but at the last second he did a 180 and
gave it full power. Luckily it was a grass field as the plane was sliding sideways
during the ground loop. He walked awaywith out a scratch on him or the
plan.
Jeff Sattin
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" <AEROWOOD@MCSI.NET>
To prevent hitting a heavy duty fence, tree, other airplane, building, etc..
bh
This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you want
to do an intentional, controlled ground loop?
================================
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Steve Cooper" <spdrflyr@earthlink.net>
When you're at the fence.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Standley
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ground looping
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger Standley" <taildragon@msn.com>
>"One must stay on top of yaw control at all speeds.
>I know many pilots that have never ground looped "
This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you
want to do an intentional, controlled ground loop?
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: Ground looping |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Roger,
I once landed on a short grass strip cut out of a large hill or small
mountain. To favor the winds I chose to land down hill over trees.
Problem was the end of the strip I was headed for after touchdown
dropped off very sharply, almost to a cliff. I had to quickly apply
brakes as I approached the end of the strip. As the tail wheel kept
leaving the ground I had to release the brakes to keep from noising over
and striking the prop. I quickly realized that I might not stop in
time and seriously considered ground looping at the last minute. It was
a split second decision, but I chose to not ground loop. I stopped just
a few feet from the end of the runway.
Lesson learned, "NEVER LAND DOWN HILL", regardless of the favoring
winds. That was the second scary time I landed downhill and will never
do it again.
--
John King
Warrenton, VA
Roger Standley wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger Standley" <taildragon@msn.com>
>
>
>
>
>>"One must stay on top of yaw control at all speeds.
>>I know many pilots that have never ground looped "
>>
>>
>
>This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you want to do
an intentional, controlled ground loop?
>
>
>
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: Five Alive/CG Confusion |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Hi Brad,
Thanks again for the info - hopefully I didn't overdo it. Where is your ELT
mounted? I can't handle the idea of having to carry around a 30 lb tool
box! Or even an unnecessary extra 11 lbs of battery.
My Wings are swept forward per Sky Star's recommendations & I do have both
wheel pants & strut fairings. I will probably try your rough W&B technique
even though I've been told by a qualified authority that it will not do any
good prior to covering. I don't think it can hurt......'sides, it will be
interesting to see how close to actual it comes out. Did you do a rough W&B
on your kit?
Grant,
I do have the airfoiled tail sections.
Honestly--if I would have had the funds available, the lightweight products
you installed would have been on mine also.
There are many variations from plane to plane.
I assume your wings are swept forward?
Do you have wheelpants installed?----I do not.
Do you have the lift strut fairings installed yet?---I do not. (about 20
pounds) Probably will install later.
The 925 Odyssey will fit in the tail battery box supplied by skystar. If you
need it this will add approx. 11 pounds
pretty much right on the tail wheel. (you probably will not need this)
Your arms will probably vary from mine.
You want a rough W&B? Go to Walmart and buy 5-10$ scales. Put 2 each under
the mains with blocks
on them, then a 2by10 on the blocks to connect them together. Build a ramp
or
jack the plane up to the
scales. Level the aircraft. The tail wheel will only need one scale. This
will give you a ballpark to kind of
see where you are at. Use calibrated scales to weight the plane when you are
finished with it.
Most of the heavy engine planes on this list seem to be a little heavy up
front.
Leo Rice was my first save from the list about the lyc. W&B. He carried
around a 30 pound tool bag in the back
of his cargo bay----mine pretty much turned out like his.
Everything I know about the W&B was saved e-mails from this list--so save
everything!
Hopefully some of these guys will get with you with the heavy engines--there
are more then you think
on this list. My experience is limited and only comes from their
suggestions.
Try not to worry to much---it will all work out!
Brad Martin
Wichita
N232WB
In a message dated 4/22/05 4:07:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
tinnemaha@hotmail.com writes:
>
>As I'm rounding 3rd base on virtually the same aircraft I too am keenly
>interested in your performance numbers once you get them. I believe my
>prop
>
>is exactly the same as yours. Do you have the airfoiled tail sections?
>
>Thank You for posting Your weight &balance data: I'm a little confused on
>this subject with respect to the Lycoming O-235 in the S5 Taildragger. I'm
>hoping you and/or others can give some helpful suggestions: I now know of
>two completed S5 Taildraggers with Lyc O-235s. Brad's &the one that Cliff
>Begnaud built. Brad's seems to be nose heavy &Cliff's seems to be tail
>heavy. Not only do I not know what to expect, I feel like I only have
>limited options for balancing whatever I do get (With the exception of
>moving my ELT location....which will be difficult to do after covering the
>fuselage.......what can I do to balance? Different tail wheel? I am
>firmly
>
>opposed to adding balast.)
>
>Are there any other completed S-5's with Lyc O-235 out there? What have
>your experiences been?
>
>Knowing that I was installing a relatively heavy engine, I've been very
>conscious of weight throughout my building process, especially in the
>engine
>
>compartment. (I've isntalled a light weight starter, light weight
>alternator (vacuum pad driven), one electronic ignition, light weight oil &
>fuel lines, had a custom prop extension made that is ~5/8" shorter than the
>one skystar supplied &even went so far as to remove the alternator belt
>pulley from the starter ring gear) I have airfoiled tail sections &put in
>the 12 lb Oddysey battery. Several months ago, I got in touch with Cliff
>Begnaud whose airplane tends to be tail heavy even with the ELT in the tail
>(He too has the 12 lb Oddysey battery.) I was dismayed, thinking I might
>have over done it. Now Brad has pretty much the opposite experience.
>What's a boy to do? Is there that much variation in paint jobs?
>
>Any experienced suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Grant Krueger
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: Ground looping |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
John:
Your story reminds me of when I once landed the Avid Flyer prototype on my
dads farm field on a very early morning. It was spring of '87 as I recall.
Wind direction dictated I land downhill leading down into a valley where I
had decided to land crossways on my fathers 300 foot by 75 foot model
airplane runway, which happened to be located 2/3rds of the way down the
hill. Everything was just fine until I touched down. That's when I learned
that wet grass combined with a downhill landing on a very short field was a
recipe for disaster. Being that the Avid was a tri-gear I was able to skid
the airplane left and right without nosing over, but even with the brakes on
full (and locked up) it felt nearly like landing on glare ice. Nothing was
slowing me down! The brand new barb wire fence I had helped my dad put up
the previous summer was getting really close fast! And even worse yet, on
the other side of the fence was a deep ditch, with an elevated roadway 4
feet higher than the fence just beyond the ditch. I had this vision of
seeing my treasured Avid tearing through that barbed wire fence, sliding
through that rocky ditch stopping only after slamming into the roadway
embankment. That vivid picture in my mind made me realize I had to do
something drastic. Knowing I was now too slow to fly I chose to do an
intentional ground loop. I applied full left rudder, full left aileron in
an effort to keep the inboard wing low, and full power while releasing the
right brake and holding the left. After what seemed like an eternity, the
airplane came to rest on all three wheels only 10 feet from the fence. And
facing the other direction! Whew!!!! Only visible damage to the airplane
were grass stains and scratches on the right wingtip, which mostly cleaned
right off. Talk about lucky...
Just for grins after thinking of that day I went in the hangar and looked at
the bottom of ol' N99AF's wingtip. After looking close I can still see the
scratches on the wingtip bottom. It was if it had just happened yesterday.
Live and learn they say.
I learned a lot that day....
Paul Seehafer
Central Wisconsin
(incidentally, that airplane utilized a tube gear that handled the side
loads just fine. However, it only weighed 360 pounds empty. It is a
dinosaur compared to the airplanes that evolved from it that we fly
today...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John King" <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ground looping
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: John King <kingjohne@adelphia.net>
>
> Roger,
>
> I once landed on a short grass strip cut out of a large hill or small
> mountain. To favor the winds I chose to land down hill over trees.
> Problem was the end of the strip I was headed for after touchdown
> dropped off very sharply, almost to a cliff. I had to quickly apply
> brakes as I approached the end of the strip. As the tail wheel kept
> leaving the ground I had to release the brakes to keep from noising over
> and striking the prop. I quickly realized that I might not stop in
> time and seriously considered ground looping at the last minute. It was
> a split second decision, but I chose to not ground loop. I stopped just
> a few feet from the end of the runway.
>
> Lesson learned, "NEVER LAND DOWN HILL", regardless of the favoring
> winds. That was the second scary time I landed downhill and will never
> do it again.
> --
> John King
> Warrenton, VA
>
> Roger Standley wrote:
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Roger Standley" <taildragon@msn.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>"One must stay on top of yaw control at all speeds.
>>>I know many pilots that have never ground looped "
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This brings up a point...intentional ground looping...when might you want
>>to do an intentional, controlled ground loop?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Question on Model IV gross |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "clemwehner" <clemwehner@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks to all for the information. I stand corrected on the timing of
the spring gear. I went back and looked over my invoices and I got my
spring gear about the same time when Grove first came out with them. I
also checked my notes from talking with the tech guy at Skystar and it
was all in the same time frame. It's getting hard to remember dates
these days. So if the archives are still around from the mid 90's (about
96-97), there was a lot of discussion about increasing gross weight.
I did have a discussion with Skystar in earlier years also, because I
got one of the last 1050's (#1461) in October 1991, not too long before
the 1200 came out. That's what stimulated my interest in increasing GW.
Later, I ordered the larger lift struts and spring gear and installed
them, but never got around to fabricating the lift strut carry through
mod. That would require fancy welding skill, which I don't have. I had
decided that when I finished my plane, I'd install the mods as suggested
and declare the aircraft a 1200 GW airplane. But I intended to not fly
it above 1050, using the extra beef as safety margin. I didn't like the
idea of routinely exceeding 1050 because there are so many other
components that were not addressed, like the spar carry-through, and the
strut attach points on the wing. The Skystar guys did say, though, that
these components are very strong and shouldn't be a problem.
I agree also with someone who wrote back earlier, that Skystar did not
officially approve the mods, but a couple of their tech guys would
freely discuss it back then and even sent me a drawing of the lift strut
mod. Their willingness to help the builder mod the design probably
didn't last very long considering the liability of the matter.
I've got 1461 all done except final wiring and installation of the
doors, but my son (a pilot and builder) will have to finish it. It'll
fly one day.
Good luck and thanks for the correction on timing of history. It'll help
anyone looking for old archive emails.
Clem
Oklahoma
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: | Re: Five Alive/CG Confusion |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Just jumping in the middle of this....
I have the NSI turbo with CAP prop. It is very
similar in weight to the O-235, so I use the O-235
page out of the KitFox Pilots' Guide for my data.
My W&B came in right where I wanted it at the forward
limit. That allows me to put up to 135 lbs in the
cargo bay without going past the aft limit. With only
a 170 lb pilot on board, it needs 17 lbs of header
fuel or baggage to stay aft of the forward limit. I
am over 170 lbs, so I can always fly it in limits.
To allow for this outcome, I put a 22 lb battery in
the tail with the ELT behind it. Then I used a 4 lb
B/U battery to fine tune my W&B after construction.
That ended up just behind the firewall, but I could
have put it anywhere in the cockpit and been OK. If I
was nose heavy, it would have gone in back.
If my W&B had been farther off either way, I would
have put the B/U battery in the tail, or moved the ELT
up front with the B/U battery. If I was too tail
heavy, I could have used a smaller battery in back, or
moved the battery to the cargo deck.
For your needs, I would put a large battery box in the
back with a spacer. If you need more tail weight, put
in a bigger battery and smaller or no spacer. If you
need less tail weight, you can down size the battery,
move the battery to the cargo deck, under the cockpit
seat, or to the fire wall. Your battery mounting will
give you a great deal of W&B adjustment if you plan
for it.
Since the tail is the hardest to get access to after
covering, plan for the biggest battery back there you
can fit. Downsizing or moving it forward later is
much easier.
I don't like dead weight either, but at least a
battery is useful weight, even if it is heavier than
the minimum required. On cold mornings, the bigger
battery may not seem bad at all.
If all turns out well, you can keep your minimum
battery with a spacer and just move the ELT for fine
adjustments. Adding or removing a pound or two from
the tail makes a big difference so plan for the ELT
back there to start and move it forward as necessary
if it works out for you.
Between the battery and ELT you have a lot of
flexibility if you plan for it. No dead weight
required.
Hope that helps.
Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo
--- Tinne maha <tinnemaha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
>
> Thanks again for the info - hopefully I didn't
> overdo it. Where is your ELT
> mounted? I can't handle the idea of having to carry
> around a 30 lb tool box! Or even an unnecessary
> extra 11 lbs of battery.
>
> My Wings are swept forward per Sky Star's
> recommendations & I do have both wheel pants
> & strut fairings. I will probably try your rough
> W&B technique even though I've been told by
> a qualified authority that it will not do any
> good prior to covering. I don't think it can
> hurt......'sides, it will be interesting to see how
> close to actual it comes out. Did you do a rough
> W&B on your kit?
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Original Kitfox Wheels? |
Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:31:21 -0400
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "RAY Gignac" <KITFOXPILOT@msn.com>
If anyone on the list has a pair of the original wheels for the Model IV, I whould
like to buy them from you. I don't need the tires just the wheels. Want
a pair as back-up. Also looking for a tail wheel spring a triple leaf if anyone
has an extra.
Thanks
Ray Gignac, N2BH
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! --
|