Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:25 AM - SV: Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas (Michel Verheughe)
2. 04:37 AM - Fuel (Mike Chaney)
3. 04:57 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas (Bob Unternaehrer)
4. 05:12 AM - Re: Fuel (Bob Unternaehrer)
5. 05:51 AM - Re: Ramp Check (Paul Seehafer)
6. 06:47 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Paul Seehafer)
7. 07:00 AM - Re: Gear attach points (matt msg.05.23.05.04:21:08.26754 msg.05.23.05.04:21:08.26790 msg.05.23.05.06:30:00.19402 msg.05.23.05.07:05:35.29938 msg.05.23.05.08:42:28.21575 msg.05.23.05.08:42:28.21582 msg.05.23.05.08:57:10.6698 msg.05.23.05.10:00:04.32377 msg.05.23.05.11:00:42.31353 msg.05.23.05.11:21:06.24674 msg.05.23.05.11:23:26.28832 msg.05.23.05.12:11:57.25083 msg.05.23.05.12:28:45.16902 msg.05.23.05.12:30:46.1343 msg.05.23.05.15:43:11.15724 msg.05.23.05.15:51:21.28004 msg.05.23.05.16:50:42.4473 msg.05.23.05.20:16:01.11220 msg.05.23.05.21:41:19.17147 msg.05.23.05.21:56:05.11810 msg.05.23.05.22:11:26.1600 msg.05.23.05.22:11:29.2888 msg.05.23.05.22:16:47.12967 msg.09.11.05.23:59:51.9550 msg.10.21.05.23:59:54.30931 msg.10.26.05.23:59:24.19170 msg.10.31.05.02:25:06.17448 msg.10.31.05.04:37:34.19216 msg.10.31.05.04:57:50.19163 msg.10.31.05.05:12:30.3280 msg.10.31.05.05:51:53.21646 msg.10.31.05.06:47:04.27490 msg.10.31.05.07:00:05.23687 msg.10.31.05.07:22:29.26745 msg.10.31.05.07:30:32.14600 msg.10.31.05.07:46:30.7090 msg.10.31.05.07:59:31.1229 msg.10.31.05.08:00:12.5869 msg.10.31.05.08:31:23.23555 msg.10.31.05.09:56:29.32487 msg.10.31.05.10:16:14.3973 msg.10.31.05.10:19:06.13560 msg.10.31.05.10:25:41.25521 msg.10.31.05.10:36:51.11047 msg.10.31.05.10:41:56.23802 msg.10.31.05.11:04:39.26241 msg.10.31.05.11:22:08.21304 msg.10.31.05.11:37:09.10688 msg.10.31.05.11:41:23.17421 msg.10.31.05.12:00:26.5556 msg.10.31.05.12:40:27.28282 msg.10.31.05.12:50:41.9566 msg.10.31.05.14:02:00.5081 msg.10.31.05.17:24:49.21824 msg.10.31.05.17:51:13.6574 msg.10.31.05.19:56:41.23175 old_messages web_browse.day.0 web_browse.day.1 web_browse.day.2 web_browse.day.3 web_browse.day.4 web_browse.day.5 web_browse.day.6)
8. 07:22 AM - PACE Program was Re: Ramp Check (Randy Daughenbaugh)
9. 07:30 AM - Re: 0-200 vs 912 performance (Clifford Begnaud)
10. 07:46 AM - Re: Fuel (Randy Daughenbaugh)
11. 07:59 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas (kurt schrader)
12. 08:00 AM - Re: Ramp CheckRamp Check (Michael Gibbs)
13. 08:31 AM - Homebuilders Special tailwheel (Len Shorethose)
14. 09:56 AM - Tall gear (Fox5flyer)
15. 10:16 AM - Re: Homebuilders Special tailwheel (Len Shorethose)
16. 10:19 AM - Re: Tall gear (jdmcbean)
17. 10:25 AM - Re: Tall gear (Clifford Begnaud)
18. 10:36 AM - Re: Tall gear (Jose M. Toro)
19. 10:41 AM - fuel (Mike Chaney)
20. 11:04 AM - Re: Tall gear (Fox5flyer)
21. 11:22 AM - Tall gear (Fox5flyer)
22. 11:37 AM - Re: fuel (Rick)
23. 11:41 AM - Re: Tall gear (Clifford Begnaud)
24. 12:00 PM - Re: Tall gear (John Anderson)
25. 12:40 PM - Re: fuel (Mike Chaney)
26. 12:50 PM - Re: fuel (Rick)
27. 02:02 PM - Re: Tall gear (Fox5flyer)
28. 05:24 PM - Certified Rotax 912F3 (Jose M. Toro)
29. 05:51 PM - Re: Fuel (dwight purdy)
30. 07:56 PM - Electric Attitude (jareds)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
> From: kurt schrader [smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com]
> I am back on the list.
Welcome back to the list, Kurt, we have missed you.
Sorry, I can't meet you half way between Kentucky and Florida with a truck of mogas
but ... have a nice flight and stay away from hurricanes Alpha, Beta, Gamma
and ... :-(
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
I have been using auto fuel from a local Shell station since 1996 and have
tested for alcohol every tank and have never found any indication of
alcohol.
To test I place about an inch of water in a tube, mark this level, and fill
the rest of the tube with the fuel. I shake the contents up and let it
settle. The assumption I am working under is that if there is alcohol in
the fuel it will mix with the water thus giving the appearance that the
water level has risen above the mark.
This last batch of fuel now shows there is alcohol in the fuel and they
claim there is none. Can other additatives in the fuel cause this?
I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. This test may be absolutely
unreliable. Should I even worry about the alcohol in the wing tanks of a
1996 kitfox?
Mike Chaney
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: | Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
Try www.airnav.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
<rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>
> Welcome back Kurt! I have learned a lot from your posts.
>
> I know that there are at least two web sites that list airports with Mogas
> or auto-gas, but I can't find them in my favorites list.
>
> Randy
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt schrader
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi everybody!
>
> I am back on the list. Not quite as big a move as
> from Alaska to Texas, but I am near completion of my
> move from KY to FL.
>
> If WX allows, I expect to be flying My S-5 from KY to
> FL between Wed and Friday this coming week. (Nov
> 2-4)Route of flight is probably down V-51 with the
> first fuel stop at AJR, Habersham Co, Georgia.
>
> I need a mogas fuel stop somewhere in S.E. Georgia to
> northen most FL. Anybody know of a good mogas stop in
> the area? Bacon Co GA is just about the right
> distance, but they don't list mogas.
>
> Kurt S.
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
I think it's viable. I have a alcohol tester tube that works exactly the
same way. I actually haven't used it lately, but I thought the water level
would go down with the absorbtion of water by the ethanol. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chaney" <mdps_mc@swoca.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
>
> I have been using auto fuel from a local Shell station since 1996 and have
> tested for alcohol every tank and have never found any indication of
> alcohol.
>
> To test I place about an inch of water in a tube, mark this level, and
fill
> the rest of the tube with the fuel. I shake the contents up and let it
> settle. The assumption I am working under is that if there is alcohol in
> the fuel it will mix with the water thus giving the appearance that the
> water level has risen above the mark.
>
> This last batch of fuel now shows there is alcohol in the fuel and they
> claim there is none. Can other additatives in the fuel cause this?
>
> I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. This test may be absolutely
> unreliable. Should I even worry about the alcohol in the wing tanks of a
> 1996 kitfox?
>
> Mike Chaney
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Randy,
Please tell us what the "Pace Program" is. I never heard of it until now.
Paul S
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
> I have been looking for an opportunity to take advantage of the PACE
> program. I think all my paper work is correct, but...
>
> Randy -- way under gross most of the time - and always within CG range!
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Puls
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
>
> They only do the weight, balance and CG computations after the crash. Jeff
> Ohio
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Don Pearsall <donpearsall@comcast.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Date: 10/30/2005 11:29:39 AM
>> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall"
> <donpearsall@comcast.net>
>>
>> Randy,
>> I don't know anything about the penalties, but how would over gross be
>> discovered on a ramp check? Just think of the length the FAA would have
>> to
>> go through to find out. They would have to bring in scales, guys to help
> get
>> the plane on scales, etc. Most of the time, a ramp check is to find out
>> if
>> you, the pilot and the plane has the proper documents and equipment. It
>> is
>> not really for determining airworthiness, especially for experimental
>> like
>> the Kitfox.
>>
>> Don Pearsall
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
>> Daughenbaugh
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>>
>>
>> What is the penalty for being over gross at a ramp check?
>>
>> Randy - Just curious.
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Cliff,
The model IV I referred to with the 0-235 has long wings, and fwiw has an
empty weight on wheels around 800 pounds. He played with a lot of props and
finally ended up having a standard metal prop repitched for max power on
floats.
As far as missing your point, no I think I understand perfectly. If one is
around float planes alot, what I'm saying would probably be a little easier
to understand. It's all about horsepower to weight along with a light wing
loading. Your airplane would be very interesting to see perform on floats
due to it's lightweight. But technically, that model IV I just spoke of is
lighter yet with the same wing area, airfoil, and lift. So technically, I
already know how it performs. Now don't get me wrong, the owner is not
disappointed with his airplane as it does everything he wants it to do. But
as I said earlier, it is far from the overall best performing float plane
you will find (Incidentally, it had a Subaru previously, and on floats with
that engine, it was an anemic poor performer at best).
I'll tell you all a short story to further explain what I'm trying to say;
Last year a friend of mine with a Zenair 701 on Czech amphibs and a 912s was
challenged to a takeoff contest by a highly experienced (and skilled)
straight float 160 hp Supercub owner. This owner had been hearing my buddy
explain to all the interested onlookers of his airplane how well it
performed, particularly with it's short take offs. That irritated the
Supercub pilot enough that he basically told my friend his claims were
impossible with such a small motor and such a funny looking airplane. The
gauntlet had been dropped. So the Supercub pilot fired up his
lightened-to-the-max 160 hp straight float Supercub for a contest against my
friends 95 hp amphibious 701 showplane. I was a little worried actually, as
the Supercub pilot had previously demonstrated to a bunch of us watching a 6
second solo water takeoff. That is a pretty phenemonal water takeoff .
But just like my friend said, he takes off short. Under 5 seconds that day,
obviously beating out the Supercub. My friend suggested doing the contest
three times to be fair, but the Supercub pilot wasn't interested. So that
ended that.
Moral of my story? If an airplane has just the right combination of power,
wing area, and weight, it will be an awesome performer. And sometimes the
smaller engine can actually make the airplane outperform the larger engined
versions if weight of the smaller engine is significantly lower. This is
true for all aircraft, but more obvious in seaplanes due to the additional
drag of the water and the additional weight of the undercarriage. That's
not to say the higher horsepower airplane might not haul more weight, or
maybe fly a little faster, because it may. But for overall flying
characteristics of most aircraft, the highest horsepower to weight ratio,
along with the lightest wing loading will provide the best overall
performance. Exceptions to this rule are not common.
Incidentally, I'd bet a properly set up Model IV kitfox with a 912s on the
same floats will get off at least as well as the Zenair. And as a side
note, another friend of mine with an early Rotax 2 stroke powered Avid Flyer
on straight floats holds the record for the shortest water takeoff (2.7
seconds). Seaplane pilots can be a competitive bunch, so there have been
guys all over the north american continent trying to beat him for 20 years
now, including 200 hp Supercubs. Hasn't happened yet.
Out of fairness to your comments Cliff, I realize I have been talking mostly
about water takeoff performance, and not all the other performance
conditions. I generally feel the 912 Rotax provides very good overall
performance, but has exceptionally good takeoff performance for a water
operated aircraft. But in defense of your opinions, pretty much every
engine combination has it's strong points. In the case of the Lycoming
0-235 in the Kitfox, it is probably cruise and weight carrying. In the case
of the Rotax it is keeping the horsepower to weight ratio high, while
keeping the wing loading numbers low. So I'm still convinced for seaplane
demands, the Rotax will always make the best off the water performer. But I
sure would love for someone to prove me wrong, as there is a lot to be said
for the reputation of those great Lycomings.
Paul Seehafer
ps - I agree 100% that the Kitfox gear should be lengthened. Check out the
Just Aircraft Highlander on my buddies website (www.cornellaeroworks.com) to
see how much higher that gear is. The airplane is essentially the same as
our Foxes, yet no one knows that when they first walk up to the plane
because it sits higher and looks bigger. So besides improving STOL ops, it
makes the airplane look more significant.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: 0-200 vs 912 performance
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud"
> <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
>
> Paul wrote: snip>
> The best example I can give is a Model IV on straight (non-amphibious)
> floats I
>> know of that utilizes an 0-235..... and in the end it resulted in a
>> respectable performing float
>> plane. But it certainly wasn't the hot rod one might think it should be.
>
> This is interesting. No doubt that when you put on an engine that is MUCH
> larger than the airframe is designed for, strange things can happen. What
> prop is he using? Also, where did the CG end up? Does it have the long
> wings
> or short? All of these things will strongly affect how the plane flies. In
> the case of a model 4 the extra weight of the Lycoming is a much larger %
> of
> the total plane weight than it is on a model 5 or later. So in this case I
> would agree that the 912s just can't be beat. I also agree with you about
> the 912s vs. 0-200.
>
> snip> If it weren't for my overrunning desire to land in the water
> occasionally, I might
>> be shopping around for an 0-235 right now!
>
> I think you missed my point about the 0-235, it is exactly in this
> situation
> where I believe it will excel. On floats, do you not need raw thrust for
> best performance? The high torque of the 0-235 will allow you to turn a
> prop
> that will give far more thrust than could ever be achieved by a 912s (yes
> I
> do mean relative to the weight). I think part of the problem is that most
> (if not all) of the kitfoxes flying today with the direct drive engines
> (I0-240, 0-235, 0-200) DON'T have the best prop for a kitfox. They all
> have
> a prop that is either a big compromise, or is more geared for cruise than
> take-off. This includes my prop. So I don't think anyone has ever seen
> what
> a lightly built kitfox 5 with 0-235 can really do when equipped with the
> RIGHT prop!!
>
> The reality is that most people don't do extreme short field op's so these
> props are just fine. For most of my flying, even the extensive short field
> ops that I mostly do, my current prop is fine. But I would really like to
> have a true short field prop, I think the improvement in take-off
> performance would be significant. A 912s is not capable of turning a large
> diameter broad bladed prop like the Lycoming is. When comparing two model
> 5
> kitfoxes on floats, one with the 912s and one with the 0-235, both very
> lightly built, it will be very close when lightly loaded. But as soon as
> you
> load the plane up with fuel, passenger and cargo, I believe the Lycoming
> will win by good margin. But this is just my opinion.
>
> A few more points on this topic...the wing on the model 5 and later is a
> wing designed for the model 4, a 1200# gross weight plane. This is one
> reason that weight is so critical on the model 5. If I ever get the
> chance,
> I would like build a model 5 with a larger, higher lift wing.
> Also, one reason Kitfoxes are not able to see full benefit of the extra HP
> of the 0-235 is the wings' "angle of incidence". When sitting in the 3
> point
> attitude, the wings' angle of attack is several degrees BELOW it's
> critical
> angle (stall). This is mainly because the landing gear we use is too
> short.
> If the kitfox had taller gear, taller tires, vg's or slats, and/or the
> wing
> set at a higher angle, the extra power of an 0-235 would be much more
> "usable" and the difference in take-off performance much more dramatic.
> Now
> throw in a new wing and you truly have the ultimate bush plane.
> Cliff
>
>
>
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: Gear attach points |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "*" <caseclosed66@hotmail.com>
My fox had the gear attach brackets removed and I had a decent job of
welding new ones in place in order to mount floats. These birds will
probibly live longer than us and hopefully end up on floats someday.
greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Gear attach points
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
>
> I would strongly recommend NOT REMOVING those gear attach brackets. One
> day
> you (or a new owner?) might want to install floats, or skis as you
> suggested. The little bit of weight and drag you will lose by removing
> those brackets would probably not even be measurable. Plus, should you
> ever
> decide to sell you airplane, it could kill the deal if it was someone like
> me that would want to use the Kitfoxes extraordinary ability to handle any
> kind of gear (floats, skis, or either kind of landing gear system, bungees
> or spring). A fox without the brackets would have no value to me as it
> would be limited to just a spring landing gear. No options for anything
> else.
>
> Just my advice...
>
> Paul Seehafer
> Wisconsin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zimmermans" <jezim@pro-ns.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Gear attach points
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Zimmermans" <jezim@pro-ns.net>
>>
>> I am building a Series 5 with the Grove gear. Anyone know of a reason not
>> to remove the bungee gear attachment points from the fuselage? Anyone
>> one
>> on skis use the rear attachment for the rear ski cable? Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Paul,
It is an FAA program. If I have it right, it stands for Pilot and Aircraft
Courtesy Evaluation. It is usually at a fly-in and is voluntary. They go
over your paper work (you and the plane) and inspect the airplane. There is
little risk to you if they do find problems. If they do find violations or
inadequacies, they do not ground you unless of course it is something that
presents an immediate safety risk. So you can fly home and fix the problem
later. - Again unless it is simply not safe to fly.
My questions revolve around the logs that I am keeping for my Fox.
I have a couple of friends who have gone through this and highly recommend
it.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Seehafer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" <av8rps@tznet.com>
Randy,
Please tell us what the "Pace Program" is. I never heard of it until now.
Paul S
From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
> I have been looking for an opportunity to take advantage of the PACE
> program. I think all my paper work is correct, but...
>
> Randy -- way under gross most of the time - and always within CG range!
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Puls
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Puls" <pulsair@mindspring.com>
>
> They only do the weight, balance and CG computations after the crash. Jeff
> Ohio
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Don Pearsall <donpearsall@comcast.net>
>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Date: 10/30/2005 11:29:39 AM
>> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Pearsall"
> <donpearsall@comcast.net>
>>
>> Randy,
>> I don't know anything about the penalties, but how would over gross be
>> discovered on a ramp check? Just think of the length the FAA would have
>> to
>> go through to find out. They would have to bring in scales, guys to help
> get
>> the plane on scales, etc. Most of the time, a ramp check is to find out
>> if
>> you, the pilot and the plane has the proper documents and equipment. It
>> is
>> not really for determining airworthiness, especially for experimental
>> like
>> the Kitfox.
>>
>> Don Pearsall
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
>> Daughenbaugh
>> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Ramp Check
>>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh"
>> <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
>>
>>
>> What is the penalty for being over gross at a ramp check?
>>
>> Randy - Just curious.
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: 0-200 vs 912 performance |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Good story Paul, no doubt that I have much to learn about how a plane
performs on floats. I agree that it's just hard to beat light wing loading.
Now what would happen if the 701 and Supercub in the contest each loaded up
with 500 lbs of fuel, passenger and cargo. Who would win that contest?
How about two models 5's loaded like this, one with 912s and one with 0-235?
I really don't know for sure. Now, once off the water which one will be able
to climb at a steeper angle and clear the trees at the lake edge? In my
experience, the 0-235 will have a better chance of clearing the trees.
Here's something to consider.... what if your friend with the model 4 and
Lyc 0-235 would set the plane on the floats so that the wing sat a higher
angle of incidence and then he installed VG's? Or better yet, leading edge
slats.
The raw thrust that this engine is capable of would likely make this work.
Oh, one other thing, does he really have enough elevator authority to rotate
the plane far enough at a low enough speed? Most kitfoxes with a heavy
engine don't really have enough elevator authority, especially when lightly
loaded. On floats perhaps the wing doesn't need to have a high angle of
incidence if the elevator authority is such that it can artifiicially create
it by rotating the plane at a slow speed. I'm sorry if all this is moot in
relation to floats, I really don't know the physics involved.
What are the numbers on his prop (length and pitch) and what static rpm can
it turn?
Cliff
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
The test should work like Mike says. If there is a very small amount of
water in the gas (less than 1%?) the addition of alcohol will pull the water
into the gas so that there are not two liquid phases. BUT, if there is
enough water there to make a separate layer, the alcohol will go with the
water thus making it appear that there is more water there.
There may be other gas additives that would go with the water, but I can't
think of any right off hand. Other than other alcohols, Propyl, isopropyl,
methyl, but I suspect that they are all too expensive to be added to
gasoline.
I don't know if there is any reason to worry about the Fox fuel tanks.
Randy
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Unternaehrer
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Fuel
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
I think it's viable. I have a alcohol tester tube that works exactly the
same way. I actually haven't used it lately, but I thought the water level
would go down with the absorbtion of water by the ethanol. Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chaney" <mdps_mc@swoca.net>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
>
> I have been using auto fuel from a local Shell station since 1996 and have
> tested for alcohol every tank and have never found any indication of
> alcohol.
>
> To test I place about an inch of water in a tube, mark this level, and
fill
> the rest of the tube with the fuel. I shake the contents up and let it
> settle. The assumption I am working under is that if there is alcohol in
> the fuel it will mix with the water thus giving the appearance that the
> water level has risen above the mark.
>
> This last batch of fuel now shows there is alcohol in the fuel and they
> claim there is none. Can other additatives in the fuel cause this?
>
> I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. This test may be absolutely
> unreliable. Should I even worry about the alcohol in the wing tanks of a
> 1996 kitfox?
>
> Mike Chaney
>
>
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: Kitfox - Georgia MoGas |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Bob and everyone else,
I used airnav and navzilla so far. They have me going
100-200 nm out of direct line distance to get mogas.
That pretty much negates any $ saved. Some of their
info is old too. Airnav doesn't plan for a KAJR stop
though it lists them as having mogas??? That is right
on my route. The KAJR phone # listed by airnav
doesn't work either. (Grump)
I ordered TCP just in case I can't find mogas nearer
my route, but would still like to find a mogas source
if available. Trying to fly the distance all in one
day. Haven't flown with 100LL yet.
If Peachtree was just a little closer to my route, I'd
like to visit. :-) Anyone else along the way???
Kurt S.
--- Bob Unternaehrer <shilocom@mcmsys.com> wrote:
> Try www.airnav.com
__________________________________
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ramp CheckRamp Check |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Don sez:
>...but how would over gross be discovered on a ramp check? Just
>think of the length the FAA would have to go through to find out.
>They would have to bring in scales, guys to help get the plane on
>scales, etc.
That's not how the FAA thinks, Don. As you mentioned, they look at
paperwork--it wouldn't take long to examine your weight and balance
(required to be aboard at all times), add up your passenger, yourself
and a fuel load and come to a determination of your gross weight.
They determine your gross weight the same way you would, which is the
same way the insurance company will after an accident.
Mike G.
N728KF
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: | Homebuilders Special tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose" <toolowterrain@gmail.com>
Hello everyone,
I have a brand new Homebuilders Special tailwheel available for sale.
Please contact me off list if interested.
Thanks,
Len Shorethose Barfbag@Verizon.net
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
<Paul Seehafer sez:
ps - I agree 100% that the Kitfox gear should be lengthened. Check out the
Just Aircraft Highlander on my buddies website (www.cornellaeroworks.com) to
see how much higher that gear is. The airplane is essentially the same as
our Foxes, yet no one knows that when they first walk up to the plane
because it sits higher and looks bigger. So besides improving STOL ops, it
makes the airplane look more significant.>
The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much taller than the Grove, but was
discontinued sometime in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I have it (tall
gear) on mine and before I had the airplane built I was a little concerned that
it might be too high, especially for those trying to slide their glutes onto
the seat. However, it proved to be no problem and for over 5 years now has
given me great service, especially on landing/takeoff owing to the high incidence.
I've never been able to find out who manufactured the gear. Anybody know
who?
Deke
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: Homebuilders Special tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose" <toolowterrain@gmail.com>
Correction....I have the entire tailwheel assembly for sale...not just the
tire.
Sorry,
Len Shorethose
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Len Shorethose" <toolowterrain@gmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Homebuilders Special tailwheel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Len Shorethose"
> <toolowterrain@gmail.com>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a brand new Homebuilders Special tailwheel available for sale.
> Please contact me off list if interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Len Shorethose Barfbag@Verizon.net
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Getting a taller custom gear is not a problem... Although, I can argue the a
taller gear does not improve STOL. But that one is better discussed over a
beer and a campfire in the backcountry.
I think the reason the taller gear was discontinued was forward visibility
and then later on with the Series 6 the convertibility. Might look good
with a rake... but I don't think it would be good on the prop...
Fly Safe !!
John & Debra McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tall gear
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
<Paul Seehafer sez:
ps - I agree 100% that the Kitfox gear should be lengthened. Check out the
Just Aircraft Highlander on my buddies website (www.cornellaeroworks.com) to
see how much higher that gear is. The airplane is essentially the same as
our Foxes, yet no one knows that when they first walk up to the plane
because it sits higher and looks bigger. So besides improving STOL ops, it
makes the airplane look more significant.>
The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much taller than the Grove,
but was discontinued sometime in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I have
it (tall gear) on mine and before I had the airplane built I was a little
concerned that it might be too high, especially for those trying to slide
their glutes onto the seat. However, it proved to be no problem and for
over 5 years now has given me great service, especially on landing/takeoff
owing to the high incidence. I've never been able to find out who
manufactured the gear. Anybody know who?
Deke
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Deke,
The problem with making the spring gear tall is the shear forces. Not a
problem for normal ops. But if you start landing on gravel bars, rough
fields etc, the mounting points of the gear are just too close together (the
fore to aft mounting bolt distance). It would be too easy to shear the gear
right off if you hit and obstacle. What I want is a set of Super Cub type
extended gear with bungies or struts. Nice wide mounting points and light
weight chromoly tubing. Also, I would move the axle aft about an inch or two
or three; this would make it easier to lift the tail of the airplane while
standing still with the brakes locked. Starting the take-off roll with the
tail up would shorten the take-off roll.
Cliff
>
> The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much taller than the Grove,
> but was discontinued sometime in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I have
> it (tall gear) on mine and before I had the airplane built I was a little
> concerned that it might be too high, especially for those trying to slide
> their glutes onto the seat. However, it proved to be no problem and for
> over 5 years now has given me great service, especially on landing/takeoff
> owing to the high incidence. I've never been able to find out who
> manufactured the gear. Anybody know who?
> Deke
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Would that tall gear from Just fit a Model IV?
--- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> <Paul Seehafer sez:
> ps - I agree 100% that the Kitfox gear should be
> lengthened. Check out the
> Just Aircraft Highlander on my buddies website
> (www.cornellaeroworks.com) to
> see how much higher that gear is. The airplane is
> essentially the same as
> our Foxes, yet no one knows that when they first
> walk up to the plane
> because it sits higher and looks bigger. So
> besides improving STOL ops, it
> makes the airplane look more significant.>
>
> The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much
> taller than the Grove, but was discontinued sometime
> in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I have it
> (tall gear) on mine and before I had the airplane
> built I was a little concerned that it might be too
> high, especially for those trying to slide their
> glutes onto the seat. However, it proved to be no
> problem and for over 5 years now has given me great
> service, especially on landing/takeoff owing to the
> high incidence. I've never been able to find out
> who manufactured the gear. Anybody know who?
> Deke
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
__________________________________
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
Alcohol in fuel.
I called the owner of the gas station I purchased the fuel from and he
indicated that Shell just began adding ethanol to their fuel in our area.
So the testing method I desrcibed in an earlier note does work.
So now my big question is, what do I do now? I've looked back in the
archives and really didn't find what I was looking for concerning fuel and
the coating in my tanks. I do remember seeing something in the past.
I would like to continue to use auto fuel but I think Shell was the last
non-alcohol station in the area. How can I really be sure that the coating
inside my wing tanks will be damaged by the alcohol in the gas?
Mike Chaney
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Jose, I don't believe the tall gear was ever produced for the model IV,
however I can't say that it wouldn't fit.
Deke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tall gear
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Would that tall gear from Just fit a Model IV?
>
> --- Fox5flyer <morid@northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> > <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> >
> > <Paul Seehafer sez:
> > ps - I agree 100% that the Kitfox gear should be
> > lengthened. Check out the
> > Just Aircraft Highlander on my buddies website
> > (www.cornellaeroworks.com) to
> > see how much higher that gear is. The airplane is
> > essentially the same as
> > our Foxes, yet no one knows that when they first
> > walk up to the plane
> > because it sits higher and looks bigger. So
> > besides improving STOL ops, it
> > makes the airplane look more significant.>
> >
> > The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much
> > taller than the Grove, but was discontinued sometime
> > in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I have it
> > (tall gear) on mine and before I had the airplane
> > built I was a little concerned that it might be too
> > high, especially for those trying to slide their
> > glutes onto the seat. However, it proved to be no
> > problem and for over 5 years now has given me great
> > service, especially on landing/takeoff owing to the
> > high incidence. I've never been able to find out
> > who manufactured the gear. Anybody know who?
> > Deke
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Jose M. Toro, P.E.
> Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
> "A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
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: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Cliff,
I can understand your concern about shearing off the gear, and with extreme
use, your concern probably has merit. Personally, I feel a big reason the
Super Cubs don't use spring gear is because of the weight penalty. However,
my landing/takeoffs are about 90 percent rough field as I'm based at my own
strip down the middle of a hay field. It was never graded or plowed, only a
strip down the middle was mowed with the dips and hollows remaining. That
aluminum tall gear soaks it up nicely and always has with the standard
6.00x6 tires and wheel pants. IMO, one advantage of the tall gear is that
it's more flexible and can handle the rough stuff a little better by being
able to bend (give) more readily when hitting a small obstacle. Admittedly
I haven't had to drive over any 8 inch bolders or tree stumps, but I'm
convinced the tall gear is a better choice. Sure, the airplane sits up
higher in the front and visibility forward is crap, but I've also owned a S5
with the Continental cowling and low gear that was only marginally better.
Back to my original question. Anybody know who produced my gear?
Deke
> Deke,
> The problem with making the spring gear tall is the shear forces. Not a
> problem for normal ops. But if you start landing on gravel bars, rough
> fields etc, the mounting points of the gear are just too close together
(the
> fore to aft mounting bolt distance). It would be too easy to shear the
gear
> right off if you hit and obstacle. What I want is a set of Super Cub type
> extended gear with bungies or struts. Nice wide mounting points and light
> weight chromoly tubing. Also, I would move the axle aft about an inch or
two
> or three; this would make it easier to lift the tail of the airplane while
> standing still with the brakes locked. Starting the take-off roll with the
> tail up would shorten the take-off roll.
> Cliff
> >
> > The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much taller than the
Grove,
> > but was discontinued sometime in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I
have
> > it (tall gear) on mine and before I had the airplane built I was a
little
> > concerned that it might be too high, especially for those trying to
slide
> > their glutes onto the seat. However, it proved to be no problem and for
> > over 5 years now has given me great service, especially on
landing/takeoff
> > owing to the high incidence. I've never been able to find out who
> > manufactured the gear. Anybody know who?
> > Deke
> >
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Mike its not the coating but the lack there of. Its the fiberglass that
weakens when exposed to alcohol. If it was manufactured before 94 you most
likey should not use ethanol.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Chaney
Subject: Kitfox-List: fuel
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
Alcohol in fuel.
I called the owner of the gas station I purchased the fuel from and he
indicated that Shell just began adding ethanol to their fuel in our area.
So the testing method I desrcibed in an earlier note does work.
So now my big question is, what do I do now? I've looked back in the
archives and really didn't find what I was looking for concerning fuel and
the coating in my tanks. I do remember seeing something in the past.
I would like to continue to use auto fuel but I think Shell was the last
non-alcohol station in the area. How can I really be sure that the coating
inside my wing tanks will be damaged by the alcohol in the gas?
Mike Chaney
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless@barefootpilot.com>
Deke,
Right, the big stuff is what I'm talking about, a choppy field is not the
issue. And I agree that taller is better, I've been touting the virtues of
taller gear in other posts for some time.
Who, other than Grove and Hammerhead, ever made spring gear for the Kitfox?
When the tall gear was made, I don't think Hammerhead was in existence.
Musta been Grove.
Cliff
> Cliff,
> I can understand your concern about shearing off the gear, and with
> extreme
> use, your concern probably has merit. Personally, I feel a big reason the
> Super Cubs don't use spring gear is because of the weight penalty.
> However,
> my landing/takeoffs are about 90 percent rough field as I'm based at my
> own
> strip down the middle of a hay field. It was never graded or plowed, only
> a
> strip down the middle was mowed with the dips and hollows remaining. That
> aluminum tall gear soaks it up nicely and always has with the standard
> 6.00x6 tires and wheel pants. IMO, one advantage of the tall gear is that
> it's more flexible and can handle the rough stuff a little better by being
> able to bend (give) more readily when hitting a small obstacle.
> Admittedly
> I haven't had to drive over any 8 inch bolders or tree stumps, but I'm
> convinced the tall gear is a better choice. Sure, the airplane sits up
> higher in the front and visibility forward is crap, but I've also owned a
> S5
> with the Continental cowling and low gear that was only marginally better.
> Back to my original question. Anybody know who produced my gear?
> Deke
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Hammerhead?? Rings a bell butthink they are out of bus or bought by Grove??
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tall gear
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Cliff,
I can understand your concern about shearing off the gear, and with extreme
use, your concern probably has merit. Personally, I feel a big reason the
Super Cubs don't use spring gear is because of the weight penalty. However,
my landing/takeoffs are about 90 percent rough field as I'm based at my own
strip down the middle of a hay field. It was never graded or plowed, only a
strip down the middle was mowed with the dips and hollows remaining. That
aluminum tall gear soaks it up nicely and always has with the standard
6.00x6 tires and wheel pants. IMO, one advantage of the tall gear is that
it's more flexible and can handle the rough stuff a little better by being
able to bend (give) more readily when hitting a small obstacle. Admittedly
I haven't had to drive over any 8 inch bolders or tree stumps, but I'm
convinced the tall gear is a better choice. Sure, the airplane sits up
higher in the front and visibility forward is crap, but I've also owned a S5
with the Continental cowling and low gear that was only marginally better.
Back to my original question. Anybody know who produced my gear?
Deke
>Deke,
>The problem with making the spring gear tall is the shear forces. Not a
>problem for normal ops. But if you start landing on gravel bars, rough
>fields etc, the mounting points of the gear are just too close together
(the
>fore to aft mounting bolt distance). It would be too easy to shear the
gear
>right off if you hit and obstacle. What I want is a set of Super Cub type
>extended gear with bungies or struts. Nice wide mounting points and light
>weight chromoly tubing. Also, I would move the axle aft about an inch or
two
>or three; this would make it easier to lift the tail of the airplane while
>standing still with the brakes locked. Starting the take-off roll with the
>tail up would shorten the take-off roll.
>Cliff
> >
> > The early Series 5 had a spring gear that was much taller than the
Grove,
> > but was discontinued sometime in the late 90s; I have no idea why. I
have
> > it (tall gear) on mine and before I had the airplane built I was a
little
> > concerned that it might be too high, especially for those trying to
slide
> > their glutes onto the seat. However, it proved to be no problem and for
> > over 5 years now has given me great service, especially on
landing/takeoff
> > owing to the high incidence. I've never been able to find out who
> > manufactured the gear. Anybody know who?
> > Deke
> >
>
>
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
Rick
I completed my plane in the Fall of 96 and received the kit in the Spring of
95. The tanks do have a coating.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fuel
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Mike its not the coating but the lack there of. Its the fiberglass that
weakens when exposed to alcohol. If it was manufactured before 94 you most
likey should not use ethanol.
Rick
Alcohol in fuel.
I would like to continue to use auto fuel but I think Shell was the last
non-alcohol station in the area. How can I really be sure that the coating
inside my wing tanks will be damaged by the alcohol in the gas?
Mike Chaney
############################################################################
####
This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at
SWOCA.
############################################################################
####
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Then your good to go.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Chaney
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fuel
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
Rick
I completed my plane in the Fall of 96 and received the kit in the Spring of
95. The tanks do have a coating.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: fuel
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Mike its not the coating but the lack there of. Its the fiberglass that
weakens when exposed to alcohol. If it was manufactured before 94 you most
likey should not use ethanol.
Rick
Alcohol in fuel.
I would like to continue to use auto fuel but I think Shell was the last
non-alcohol station in the area. How can I really be sure that the coating
inside my wing tanks will be damaged by the alcohol in the gas?
Mike Chaney
############################################################################
####
This message has been scanned for Viruses and cleared by MailMarshal at
SWOCA.
############################################################################
####
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: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
It wasn't Grove Cliff, or maybe I should say that I was told it wasn't
Grove. I've been told that by Skystar and Robbie Grove himself. I once
heard who it was, but it was a long time ago and I have trouble remembering
what I did this morning let alone years ago. I believe a lot of the early
Fox 5s were produced with that gear, but as John M. said, it was too tall
for nose-gear airplanes and I think that Skystar just wanted one type of
gear to deal with.
Deke
> Deke,
> Right, the big stuff is what I'm talking about, a choppy field is not the
> issue. And I agree that taller is better, I've been touting the virtues of
> taller gear in other posts for some time.
> Who, other than Grove and Hammerhead, ever made spring gear for the
Kitfox?
> When the tall gear was made, I don't think Hammerhead was in existence.
> Musta been Grove.
> Cliff
>
> > Cliff,
> > I can understand your concern about shearing off the gear, and with
> > extreme
> > use, your concern probably has merit. Personally, I feel a big reason
the
> > Super Cubs don't use spring gear is because of the weight penalty.
> > However,
> > my landing/takeoffs are about 90 percent rough field as I'm based at my
> > own
> > strip down the middle of a hay field. It was never graded or plowed,
only
> > a
> > strip down the middle was mowed with the dips and hollows remaining.
That
> > aluminum tall gear soaks it up nicely and always has with the standard
> > 6.00x6 tires and wheel pants. IMO, one advantage of the tall gear is
that
> > it's more flexible and can handle the rough stuff a little better by
being
> > able to bend (give) more readily when hitting a small obstacle.
> > Admittedly
> > I haven't had to drive over any 8 inch bolders or tree stumps, but I'm
> > convinced the tall gear is a better choice. Sure, the airplane sits up
> > higher in the front and visibility forward is crap, but I've also owned
a
> > S5
> > with the Continental cowling and low gear that was only marginally
better.
> > Back to my original question. Anybody know who produced my gear?
> > Deke
> >
>
>
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: | Certified Rotax 912F3 |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
Guys:
If I build a Kitfox powered by a certified Rotax
912F3, will I be subject to different rules in
comparison with using the 912UL.
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
__________________________________
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
Your test is good. Sometimes it is added by mistake. The station manager
can look at the load paper work. It should be listed if put in.
Dwight model ll
At 07:36 AM 10/31/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Mike Chaney <mdps_mc@SWOCA.NET>
>
>I have been using auto fuel from a local Shell station since 1996 and have
>tested for alcohol every tank and have never found any indication of
>alcohol.
>
>To test I place about an inch of water in a tube, mark this level, and fill
>the rest of the tube with the fuel. I shake the contents up and let it
>settle. The assumption I am working under is that if there is alcohol in
>the fuel it will mix with the water thus giving the appearance that the
>water level has risen above the mark.
>
>This last batch of fuel now shows there is alcohol in the fuel and they
>claim there is none. Can other additatives in the fuel cause this?
>
>I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. This test may be absolutely
>unreliable. Should I even worry about the alcohol in the wing tanks of a
>1996 kitfox?
>
>Mike Chaney
>
>
>--
--
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: | Electric Attitude |
Ted bryant <bbaviation@olg.com>
Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: jareds <jareds@verizon.net>
My Electric Attitude indicator suddenly began to lean to the right and
upward rather than indicating level no matter how many times i "cage" it
level.
Any way to adjust the unit back to center?
Jared
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! --
|