Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:12 AM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Bradley M Webb)
2. 05:10 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Dan Billingsley)
3. 06:11 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (flier)
4. 06:12 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (flier)
5. 06:17 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (flier)
6. 06:22 AM - SP gross weight (Alan & Linda Daniels)
7. 06:38 AM - Sport Pilot/Sport Plane (Alan & Linda Daniels)
8. 07:02 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jim Crowder)
9. 07:02 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jim Crowder)
10. 07:22 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jimmie Blackwell)
11. 07:28 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (alnanarthur)
12. 08:00 AM - Sport Pilot (Jim Crowder)
13. 08:06 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jim Crowder)
14. 08:46 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Clint Bazzill)
15. 08:46 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (jdmcbean)
16. 08:53 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jim Crowder)
17. 09:28 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (ron schick)
18. 10:05 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (George Wells@adelphia.net)
19. 10:07 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jimmie Blackwell)
20. 10:16 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (jdmcbean)
21. 10:40 AM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Michel Verheughe)
22. 11:09 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jim Crowder)
23. 11:11 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (flier)
24. 11:13 AM - Handling...WAS Kitfox handling problems (Andrew Matthaey)
25. 11:25 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jose M. Toro)
26. 11:38 AM - Re: Sport Pilot (Hank)
27. 12:04 PM - Re: Sport Pilot (Jimmie Blackwell)
28. 12:44 PM - Re: Handling...WAS Kitfox handling problems (Bradley M Webb)
29. 01:54 PM - Re: Sport Pilot & fixed/ground adj prop, Jimmie IS right... (flier)
30. 02:01 PM - Re: Handling (Michel Verheughe)
31. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Sport Pilot & fixed/ground adj prop, Jimmie IS right... (Jimmie Blackwell)
32. 03:10 PM - Re: Sport Pilot (alnanarthur)
33. 04:40 PM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Lowell Fitt)
34. 05:31 PM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Bradley M Webb)
35. 06:20 PM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Randy Daughenbaugh)
36. 07:25 PM - looking for a CFI in michigan (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
37. 07:25 PM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
38. 07:31 PM - Re: Sport Pilot (Dan Billingsley)
39. 07:42 PM - Re: Sport Pilot (Malcolmbru@AOL.COM)
40. 08:12 PM - Re: toe in/toe out (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
41. 08:17 PM - Re: toe in/toe out (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
42. 08:27 PM - Re: Kitfox handling problems (Andrew Matthaey)
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: | Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
cursing.
I'm also curious as to why the spring gear is easier handling than the
bungee set. I've considered the benefits of the spring set, but mine is ok
as-is, so I'm hesitant to ruin a good thing.
Maybe we're all just different flyers who experience the same thing, with
different views.
As an instructor, I do teach rudder usage, as John had said. It can be a
very useful tool, even in a 172. But it's nothing like the 'fox! That'll
teach you rudder in ways a Cessna never dreamed of!
I'll tell you, if there are TD's that are easier than the Kfox, I'd sure
like to experience that.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fox5flyer
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
I agree with Bradley. Basically, IMO the Kitfox is a very docile handling
airplane. I was a total tail dragger novice when I built and flew my Model
2 many years ago. I made the first flight and had few problems landing or
taking off with it. Crosswinds were no problem (within reason) and taxi was
a non event that quickly became second nature. I think the occasionaly gear
geometry misalignment causes more problems for people than anything else.
Makes 'em squirrely.
After that I built, and am still flying, a S5 that is just as docile.
Speaking on that, the S5, although bigger and heavier, will get in and out
of the same tight spots that the Model 2 did.
Anyway, my point is that I don't agree that the Kitfox is a handful. If
anyone is having problems with unpredictability make sure you check your
gear alignment first thing, because there's a good chance that it may be
contributing to your problems. My opinion is that with the airplane in
level attitude, the gear should be nutral to slightly toed out. Toe in just
exacerbates swerves.
Deke
NE Michigan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 7:29 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Just bought my first Kitfox
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> Marco has it right, takeoff is a little quick, owing to the power of the
> 582. But I roll mine on a little slowly (!), since my runway is 6000'.
>
> I've heard from a few that the 'fox is demanding. I don't have a lot of
> tailwheel time, granted. But I hadn't flown a TD for at least two years,
and
> then only to get the sign-off. I'm about the least TD qualified person I
can
> think of. And mine is rather docile. It will hop if I miss the 3 point,
but
> laterally it really doesn't seem to require much from the rudder. It will
> set down just as pretty as you please, and doesn't wander much at all. It
is
> far more demanding in-flight than on the ground. In the air, it's always
> rolling off to one side, or the other. But I understand this to be the
> nature of the Model 2, and why they went to a larger rudder. It's ok, just
> not Cessna stabile...thank you very much.
>
> Maybe set-ups are different? I have a pronounced wheel toe-in and camber
on
> my bungee gear, and the solid tail-wheel and HD aluminum bar. My chains
are
> relatively tight. It will taxi feet-off in calm wind. My first taxi was in
> 12 knot dead crosswind, and still kept it on the center line, no problem.
> Like I said, once it sets, it's there. Not too much dance. At least no
more
> than the Champ took. I rode a couple times in a Mustang 2, and that thing
> will KILL you. Never straight, one or the other. Real PITA.
>
> Mike, too bad you're in the UK. I'd let you learn in mine. I'm a CFI, so I
> can even sign it off for you.
>
> To be honest, I have the Kitfox book, and it will do you more good than
me.
> It is great before that first flight, but then you figure it all out in
the
> air. How much of a pain is it to send to the UK?
>
> Bradley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Matthaey
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:41 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Just bought my first Kitfox
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
> <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I have a KF3 w/582 as well...The KF was the first tailwheel I ever flew.
> Actually I did all my own tailwheel training at home on MS Flight
Simulator
> in the Cub, then went up with an instructor for 40 minutes and 7 landings.
>
> Bradley gave you some good advice, but in my opinion the KF is a very
> demanding tailwheel. I've flown several (Champ, C170, Waco), and the
Kitfox
> with the Bungee gear is by far the touchiest - I've also flown the steel
> spring and found it to be much more tame. I haven't groundlooped her, but
> have come awfully close. When you do go fly for the first time, just
expect
> to be flying her from the second you start up to the second you shut down.
> Ground handling, especially on t/o and landing roll will be a constant
dance
>
> on the pedals.
>
> You, though, have much more experience than me! Best of luck, and I hope
you
>
> find, as I have, that the Kitfox is the most enjoyable aircraft there is
:-)
>
> Andrew
> KF3 582
> Nashua, NH U.S. of A.
>
>
> >From: Michael Laundy <mikelaundy@yahoo.co.uk>
> >To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Just bought my first Kitfox
> >Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:05:19 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Laundy
<mikelaundy@yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> >Many thanks for your advice guys. I will post my first impressions when
I
> >fly it for the first time in a couple of weeks.
> >
> > The airframe is 10 years old, I have had it checked by a couple of
> >engineer buddies, and it will have a new Permit to Fly, so that should
> >highlight any issues about SIs being complied with.
> >
> > Does anyone out there know where I can get a copy of Ed Downs' book on
> >how to fly a Kitfox.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >Marco Menezes <msm_9949@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes
> >
> >Hi Mike.
> >
> >Sound advice from Bradley. I'm presently learning about those SI's myself
> >in regard to my old C gearbox. Only proviso I would add to Bradley's
> >comment about "things happening a little slower. . ." is that this
doesn't
> >apply to take offs. When you put the power to 'er, she's off right now so
> >be ready to fly.
> >
> >You probably won't find an instructor with Kitfox time to check you out
so,
>
> >if you can find one, get a copy of the book by Ed Downs on how to fly a
> >kitfox. I found it very helpful.
> >
> >
> >
> >Bradley M Webb wrote:
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb"
> >
> >Mike,
> >How old is the airframe?
> >
> >Let me say I've read the books, but I have never been around a Kfox
before.
> >My tail-dragger time was a whole 2 hours in a Champ for my sign-off. I've
> >got a lot of time, but all in certified planes. Sounds kind of like your
> >situation.
> >
> >My airplane was in sad shape, systems-wise. But that's my forte, and
> >electrical and fuel can be fixed cheaply and easily. Airframe issues are
> >another matter. My basic airframe was sound, and the fabric was good
(save
> >for a couple places).
> >
> >The first thing I would look at is corrosion. My Model 2 was built in 91,
> >and there was the smallest bit of corrosion where the coolant had leaked,
> >and not taken care of.
> >
> >Check the control rods under the seat, as my seat rested right on them. I
> >can give you a fix if you find a problem. Also spend time replacing the
> >wing
> >bolts and the control system bolts. Cheap insurance.
> >
> >Check to make sure that all SB's and SI's are complied with. If not,
decide
> >whether you can do it yourself, or why it wasn't done. Mine were
> >selectively
> >ignored. Some work involved, but nothing major.
> >
> >If you wish, you can give me a call on the Rotax. Like you, I have lots
of
> >time, but none behind the 582. It was a learning experience, but I'm
> >getting
> >used to it. It is a little different, both in caring and flying. To start
> >it, pull the choke, light the ignition, and hit the start. It should fire
> >up
> >in a second or so. Mine sat for 4 months, and fired right up. Basic fuel
> >and
> >air stuff. Keep the temps within Rotax limits, and pay attention to the
> >details. It will be fine.
> >
> >I have found the KFox to be the most forgiving and easy landing airplane
> >I've been in. Take-off's are easy, and landings, both three-point and
> >wheel,
> >are non-events. Things happen a little slower in it, so you've got extra
> >brain-bytes to work the details.
> >
> >I did ground-loop it once. I got cocky, and was playing a little. It
> >started
> >bouncing and I let it get sideways. Like any tail-dragger, once it goes,
> >it's gone. No damage, save my ego. Those who have, and those who will...
> >
> >If I can help further, let me know. If you've never had a Kfox before,
> >you're really going to enjoy it.
> >Bradley
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Laundy
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:04 AM
> >To: Kitfox
> >Subject: Kitfox-List: Just bought my first Kitfox
> >
> >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Laundy
> >
> >I have just purchased a Kitfox 3 with Rotax 582, the aircraft has done
600
> >hours and the engine 400 hours. I will be collecting it in a couple of
> >weeks, and the owner will give me a check out.
> >
> >I would greatly appreciate any tips you guys can give me about any
> >weaknesses to look for in the airframe or engine. Also I would like to
know
> >of any handling vices anyone has experienced. In particular are there any
> >handling problems with the flaperons? I have not flown such a system
> >before.
> >I will most likely be operating into fairly short farm strips, so the
slow
> >speed handling techniques are of particular interest.
> >
> >Also I have not used a Rotax 582 before, any tips out there as to best
way
> >to start it, and to operate it for maximum longevity.
> >
> >I have a fair bit of flying under my belt (15000hrs) but much of it was
in
> >the RAF and then on Boeings. Light aircraft around 900 hrs mostly tail
> >draggers.
> >
> >You are the guys with the real experience of the Kitfox, and I will
> >greatly appreciate any advice.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Mike Laundy
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Marco Menezes
> >Model 2 582 N99KX
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
AOPA certainly has clout, however, the bottom line is you need to get past the
FAA. I am currently in the process of re-registering my Kitfox IV (still kit)
. I purchased the kit from a previous owner who had already registered it outside
of the LSA rules. I asked as I was on the phone with the FAA and she made
it very clear that since this plane/kit had already been registered, they would
not permit me to register it LSA. There it is...straight from the horses mouth.
I'm sure some might still want to beat this dead horse though. <g>
Dan B
www.azshowersolutions.com/Kitfox1.html
Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
At 09:31 PM 3/8/2006, you wrote:
>I do not know if AOPA is in correct, but I do know that for an
>airplane to be qualified for Sport Pilot it must have been
>originally certified and continually maintained at a maximum gross
>weight of 1320 lbs. and other criteria such as a fixed pitch or
>ground adjustable prop. For example, if a Kitfox ever had an
>inflight adjustable prop it can never be legally flown by someone
>flying under sport pilot rules. I know it does not make sense, but
>that is the rule. Let's be glad that the rule is there, though it
>is not perfect.
>
> Jimmie
I know that this is what I have always read on the Kitfox List, but
AOPA says as manufacturer you can change it. Here is the link to
their Web site. It's in the membership section, so it may not work
for non members but give it a try. It's a long piece and is near the
bottom. It says at the bottom of the page it was updated today. I
have no idea what they updated. Surely AOPA has something to base
this on. As we all know, it does make sense.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_faq.html
Jim Crowder
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: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Dan,
What makes it non-compliant for flight by a Sport
Pilot? Why do you want it registered as an LSA?
It seems there must be confusion over having
a 'registered' LSA and what type of aircraft a Sport
Pilot can fly.
--- Original Message ---
From: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley
<dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
>AOPA certainly has clout, however, the bottom line
is you need to get past the FAA. I am currently in
the process of re-registering my Kitfox IV (still
kit) . I purchased the kit from a previous owner who
had already registered it outside of the LSA rules.
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: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Jimmie,
Any prop change is a major that usually requires a
new test phase as well as new airworthiness
documentation. I can't imagine that going through
that process and having a legal airworthy aircraft
that meets the limitations of a Sport Pilot rating
could NOT be flown by a Sport Pilot?? Where is that
documented?
Thanks,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
<jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I do not know if AOPA is in correct, but I do know
that for an airplane to be qualified for Sport Pilot
it must have been originally certified and
continually maintained at a maximum gross weight of
1320 lbs. and other criteria such as a fixed pitch or
ground adjustable prop. For example, if a Kitfox
ever had an inflight adjustable prop it can never be
legally flown by someone flying under sport pilot
rules. I know it does not make sense, but that is
the rule. Let's be glad that the rule is there,
though it is not perfect.
>
> Jimmie
>
>Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
>AOPA Says:
>>* You can modify your aircraft (if you're the
manufacturer) to
>>meet the definition of LSA.
>
>This seems pretty clear to me. Is AOPA incorrect?
>
>Jim Crowder
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Here's the rule if anyone really wants to research.
http://www.sportpilot.org/sportpilot_rule.pdf
You don't have to register an Experimental as an LSA
unless you want to limit the aircraft to LSA rules.
A Sport Pilot can fly anything that complies with LSA
definitions -- it doesn't have to be registered LSA.
--- Original Message ---
From: Aerobatics@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 3/8/2006 9:20:56 P.M. Central
Standard Time,
>spaghettiohead@hotmail.com writes:
>
>I was under the impression that a Sport Pilot could
fly any aircraft that
>meets the SP requirements...
>
>Andrew
>
>I believe if the KF designed for a MAX wt of 950 and
since it was flown off
>at that it complies...
>
>If it was originally designed at over the max
weight, you can not build it
>to and test fly it to a lower wt to comply....
>
>I know certain Luscombe comply and some dont.
However, no matter what you
>cant take stuff off one to make it comply..... I
believe the Luscombes with
>full electric dont?
>
>That's my take......
>
>Im sure a FISDO can quickly clarify for ya
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I am a technical counselor for the EAA. I just now - two minutes ago -
called EAA for clarification. They said that FAR part 1 Definition of a
Light Sport Aircraft says that the airplane must have been continually
operated at or below 1320 pounds maximum gross weight limit. The builder
can change the maximum gross weight, but if it has ever had a maximum
gross weight limit over 1320 it does not qualify for a sport pilot.They
have not been able to get that changed, and they have not been able to
change the problem about if you have been denied a medical you are not
qualified until you get a waver. It is stupid, it does defy the intent
of the rule, it makes no sense, but it is the FAA. I am not saying that
I agree with it, but you should know what they are going to say before
you go to all the work and expense just to be told it does not qualify.
You are the only one with the W&B and I could imagine that a Data plate
could get lost and have to be replaced. Don't know of it ever happening,
but I sure as heck would not make it exactly 1320 and I sure would not
tell anyone.
>
>
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: | Sport Pilot/Sport Plane |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
The is a huge difference between Sport pilot and Sport Plane. A Sport
pilot does not have to fly a Sport Plane, it just has to meet the
requirements. What you want is an experimental that meets the SP
requirements, not a Sport Plane. Sport Plane is a entirely different set
of rules for the plane, and mainly for the new manufactures. You as the
builder can set any gross weight you want on your plane, and if it does
not have its airworthness certification yet, you are in good shape.It is
not an airplane until the FAA signs it off, and then and after it must
continually operate within the requirements of FAR part 1 Definition or
a Light Sport Aircraft. Just make sure that have your plane meet all the
requirements for a Sport PILOT. The FAA is correct in that you can not
make your kit a SPORT PLANE, but you do not care. You want an
EXPERIMENTAL certificate, and then you can fly it with a Sport License,
and then you can work on it yourself also. Light Sport Aircraft is a
certified aircraft, with all or most of the BS.
Dan Billingsley wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
>AOPA certainly has clout, however, the bottom line is you need to get past the
FAA. I am currently in the process of re-registering my Kitfox IV (still kit)
. I purchased the kit from a previous owner who had already registered it outside
of the LSA rules. I asked as I was on the phone with the FAA and she made
it very clear that since this plane/kit had already been registered, they would
not permit me to register it LSA. There it is...straight from the horses
mouth. I'm sure some might still want to beat this dead horse though. <g>
> Dan B
> www.azshowersolutions.com/Kitfox1.html
>
>
>
>
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: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
At 06:08 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>AOPA certainly has clout, however, the bottom line is you need to
>get past the FAA. I am currently in the process of re-registering my
>Kitfox IV (still kit) . I purchased the kit from a previous owner
>who had already registered it outside of the LSA rules. I asked as I
>was on the phone with the FAA and she made it very clear that since
>this plane/kit had already been registered, they would not permit me
>to register it LSA. There it is...straight from the horses mouth.
>I'm sure some might still want to beat this dead horse though. <g>
> Dan B
That is correct. What AOPA and the regs say is that it does not need
to be registered as a LSA--just fall within the limits for an
LSA. If it does, you can fly it with LSA privileges. I as the
manufacturer, I would need to modify it by changing to a fixed pitch
or ground adjustable prop and lower my weight limit to 1320. The
plane does not need to be an LSA, just meet the same requirements.
Jim Crowder
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
At 07:08 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>Dan,
>
>What makes it non-compliant for flight by a Sport
>Pilot? Why do you want it registered as an LSA?
>
>It seems there must be confusion over having
>a 'registered' LSA and what type of aircraft a Sport
>Pilot can fly.
Correct.
Jim Crowder
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: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
It is documented in Part 1 of the Sport Pilot ruling under Definitions and Abbreviations.
The definition says in part, "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than
a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued
to meet the following: (7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if
a powered aircraft other than a glider".
I certainly agree that one should be able to change an in-flight adjustable prop
to a fixed pitch prop on a Model IV and fly it under sport pilot rules. However,
the above rule is pretty clear and my conversations with AOPA and EAA
indicate that the FAA has no intention of backing off.
I think the important thing for anyone considering buying an airplane that they
think is ok for a sport pilot to fly should check the history to make sure
as to how the plane was originally certified.
Hope this helps.
Jimmie
flier <FLIER@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
Jimmie,
Any prop change is a major that usually requires a
new test phase as well as new airworthiness
documentation. I can't imagine that going through
that process and having a legal airworthy aircraft
that meets the limitations of a Sport Pilot rating
could NOT be flown by a Sport Pilot?? Where is that
documented?
Thanks,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
>
>I do not know if AOPA is in correct, but I do know
that for an airplane to be qualified for Sport Pilot
it must have been originally certified and
continually maintained at a maximum gross weight of
1320 lbs. and other criteria such as a fixed pitch or
ground adjustable prop. For example, if a Kitfox
ever had an inflight adjustable prop it can never be
legally flown by someone flying under sport pilot
rules. I know it does not make sense, but that is
the rule. Let's be glad that the rule is there,
though it is not perfect.
>
> Jimmie
>
>Jim Crowder wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
>AOPA Says:
>>* You can modify your aircraft (if you're the
manufacturer) to
>>meet the definition of LSA.
>
>This seems pretty clear to me. Is AOPA incorrect?
>
>Jim Crowder
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
Jim,
You might talk to your local Flight Standards Office about de-
registering the aircraft and using it for parts to build a completely
different experimental aircraft.
Allan & Nancy Arthur (Sport pilots)
Kitfox 5, N40AA (1232# Gross wt,)
Rotax 912s, Warpdrive 3 blade
Byron Airport (C83) Hanger C8
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
Yes. It will never be a light sport aircraft. It doesn't need to
be. And yes, I will probably need to start a new fly off as set by
the inspector approving the changes. But, I will be able to fly it
under sport pilot privileges just as I could a Piper J-3 listed below
which also will never be a light sport aircraft. I will do more
checking, but as of now I plan to go for it. The following are
quotes from the AOPA Web page and all reference FAA regs. I plan to
call my previous inspector and discuss the changes and make sure he
will allow me as manufacturer to make them. If he says no, I will
try another inspector.
Jim Crowder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The aircraft remains an experimental amateur-built aircraft. You
cannot change the aircraft airworthiness certificate to SLSA or ELSA.
* You can modify your aircraft (if you're the manufacturer) to
meet the definition of LSA.
You may operate as pilot in command of the aircraft as a light sport
aircraft if you hold a sport pilot certificate or are exercising
sport pilot privileges.
....................
What types of airplanes can I fly?
There are currently more than 21,000 certified airplanes in the
standard airworthiness category from seven manufacturers that qualify
as light sport aircraft. Standard category airplanes you can fly
include, but are not limited to:
* Piper J-2 and J-3
* Aeronca Champ
* Luscombe 8, 8A, 8B, and 8C
* Taylorcraft BC, BCS, and BC-65
* Ercoupe 415C and 415 CD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
At 08:27 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>Jim,
>
>You might talk to your local Flight Standards Office about de-
>registering the aircraft and using it for parts to build a completely
>different experimental aircraft.
This was my previous plan. It now appears unnecessary.
Jim Crowder
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: "Clint Bazzill" <clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
I think that an inflight adjustable prop is ok, keep the switch in the
engine compartment. Clint
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
<jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
It is documented in Part 1 of the Sport Pilot ruling under Definitions and
Abbreviations.
The definition says in part, "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft,
other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following: (7) A fixed or
ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a glider".
I certainly agree that one should be able to change an in-flight
adjustable prop to a fixed pitch prop on a Model IV and fly it under sport
pilot rules. However, the above rule is pretty clear and my conversations
with AOPA and EAA indicate that the FAA has no intention of backing off.
I think the important thing for anyone considering buying an airplane
that they think is ok for a sport pilot to fly should check the history to
make sure as to how the plane was originally certified.
Hope this helps.
Jimmie
flier <FLIER@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
Jimmie,
Any prop change is a major that usually requires a
new test phase as well as new airworthiness
documentation. I can't imagine that going through
that process and having a legal airworthy aircraft
that meets the limitations of a Sport Pilot rating
could NOT be flown by a Sport Pilot?? Where is that
documented?
Thanks,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
>
>I do not know if AOPA is in correct, but I do know
that for an airplane to be qualified for Sport Pilot
it must have been originally certified and
continually maintained at a maximum gross weight of
1320 lbs. and other criteria such as a fixed pitch or
ground adjustable prop. For example, if a Kitfox
ever had an inflight adjustable prop it can never be
legally flown by someone flying under sport pilot
rules. I know it does not make sense, but that is
the rule. Let's be glad that the rule is there,
though it is not perfect.
>
> Jimmie
>
>Jim Crowder wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
>AOPA Says:
>>* You can modify your aircraft (if you're the
manufacturer) to
>>meet the definition of LSA.
>
>This seems pretty clear to me. Is AOPA incorrect?
>
>Jim Crowder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
This can be a heated discussion as I have had my fare share of discussion
about this...
Lets make sure that we do not confuse:
Sport Pilot is the persons license and has nothing to do with aircraft.
Other then you can fly one.
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is the Aircrafts license (Certificate Category)
Under this category is: LSA
ELSA
SLSA
If you are building an aircraft that qualifies as AB I would not recommend
registering in any of the above categories. Keep it in the Experimental AB
category. As long as it meets the definition of what a Sport Pilot can fly
then it can be flown by a Sport Pilot or above.
As for the Gross weight... If you are flying a Model IV or earlier model
then it's not an issue... If you are flying a Model 5 or newer that has been
registered at a higher then 1320 Gross then it's up for discussion..
Personally... I feel it can be done and without too much headache. A little
hoop jumping maybe... and this is where it gets heated..
Fly Safe !!
John McBean
www.sportplanellc.com
"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
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: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
At 09:44 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>I think that an inflight adjustable prop is ok, keep the switch in the
>engine compartment. Clint
I thought the same thing, but I think I will change it, lower my
actual aircraft empty weight, and use that and the resulting lower
performance as my excuse as manufacturer for lowering my gross weight
to 1320 lbs.
Jim Crowder
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: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Agreed! I registered N117AF ELSA and regret it. Even though I am a PPL I
can never fly it at night, over town, or for aerobatics, etc... Ron NB
Ore
>From: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:42:31 -0700
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
>
>This can be a heated discussion as I have had my fare share of discussion
>about this...
>
>Lets make sure that we do not confuse:
>
>Sport Pilot is the persons license and has nothing to do with aircraft.
>Other then you can fly one.
>
>Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) is the Aircrafts license (Certificate Category)
> Under this category is: LSA
> ELSA
> SLSA
>
>If you are building an aircraft that qualifies as AB I would not recommend
>registering in any of the above categories. Keep it in the Experimental AB
>category. As long as it meets the definition of what a Sport Pilot can fly
>then it can be flown by a Sport Pilot or above.
>
>As for the Gross weight... If you are flying a Model IV or earlier model
>then it's not an issue... If you are flying a Model 5 or newer that has
>been
>registered at a higher then 1320 Gross then it's up for discussion..
>Personally... I feel it can be done and without too much headache. A little
>hoop jumping maybe... and this is where it gets heated..
>
>
>Fly Safe !!
>John McBean
>www.sportplanellc.com
>"The Sky is not the Limit... It's a Playground"
>
>
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: "George Wells@adelphia.net" <georgewells@adelphia.net>
According to my FSDO -- You can put any gross wgt you want on an experimental aircraft
(not a certifed plane)
My mod 5 has a 1550 Gross and all I have to do is put a new plate on it listing
a 1320 gross.
But like the FSDO said don't exceed the 1320 then because you will be illegal.
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: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
I do not want to beat this horse to much, but I went down that road and the bottom
line is that a Kitfox that has or had an in-flight adjustable prop can never
be legally flown by someone operating under sport pilot rules. I don't like
the rule either.
Before you move the switch suggest you talk to Joe Norris at EAA.
Jimmie
Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
At 09:44 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>I think that an inflight adjustable prop is ok, keep the switch in the
>engine compartment. Clint
I thought the same thing, but I think I will change it, lower my
actual aircraft empty weight, and use that and the resulting lower
performance as my excuse as manufacturer for lowering my gross weight
to 1320 lbs.
Jim Crowder
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: "jdmcbean" <jdmcbean@cableone.net>
Loose the term in-flight adjustable... electric adjustable.
Fly Safe !!
John 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 Clint Bazzill
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clint Bazzill"
<clint_bazzill@hotmail.com>
I think that an inflight adjustable prop is ok, keep the switch in the
engine compartment. Clint
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
<jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
It is documented in Part 1 of the Sport Pilot ruling under Definitions and
Abbreviations.
The definition says in part, "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft,
other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following: (7) A fixed or
ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a glider".
I certainly agree that one should be able to change an in-flight
adjustable prop to a fixed pitch prop on a Model IV and fly it under sport
pilot rules. However, the above rule is pretty clear and my conversations
with AOPA and EAA indicate that the FAA has no intention of backing off.
I think the important thing for anyone considering buying an airplane
that they think is ok for a sport pilot to fly should check the history to
make sure as to how the plane was originally certified.
Hope this helps.
Jimmie
flier <FLIER@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
Jimmie,
Any prop change is a major that usually requires a
new test phase as well as new airworthiness
documentation. I can't imagine that going through
that process and having a legal airworthy aircraft
that meets the limitations of a Sport Pilot rating
could NOT be flown by a Sport Pilot?? Where is that
documented?
Thanks,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
>
>I do not know if AOPA is in correct, but I do know
that for an airplane to be qualified for Sport Pilot
it must have been originally certified and
continually maintained at a maximum gross weight of
1320 lbs. and other criteria such as a fixed pitch or
ground adjustable prop. For example, if a Kitfox
ever had an inflight adjustable prop it can never be
legally flown by someone flying under sport pilot
rules. I know it does not make sense, but that is
the rule. Let's be glad that the rule is there,
though it is not perfect.
>
> Jimmie
>
>Jim Crowder wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
>AOPA Says:
>>* You can modify your aircraft (if you're the
manufacturer) to
>>meet the definition of LSA.
>
>This seems pretty clear to me. Is AOPA incorrect?
>
>Jim Crowder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:14 AM, Fox5flyer wrote:
> I agree with Bradley. Basically, IMO the Kitfox is a very docile
> handling
> airplane.
So do I. But then, the Kitfox is the only aircraft I ever flew! Lots of
people told me it was not a beginner's plane and it took me a while to
learn it but, once done, I wouldn't fly anything else. One need to be
awake and swift when landing but ... isn't that all the fun of flying?
If I want to fly easy ... I sit in an airliner! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
At 11:13 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>Loose the term in-flight adjustable... electric adjustable.
>
>Fly Safe !!
>John McBean
What are the ramifications of this?
Jim Crowder
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: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
Jimmie,
IMHO that's not correct. An experimental AB aircraft
with an approved airworthy fixed pitch or ground
adjustable can be flown by a Sport Pilot regardless
of its history.
The aircraft cannot become registered as an LSA but a
Sport Pilot can fly it.
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
<jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I do not want to beat this horse to much, but I went
down that road and the bottom line is that a Kitfox
that has or had an in-flight adjustable prop can
never be legally flown by someone operating under
sport pilot rules. I don't like the rule either.
>
> Before you move the switch suggest you talk to
Joe Norris at EAA.
>
> Jimmie
>
>Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
>At 09:44 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>>I think that an inflight adjustable prop is ok,
keep the switch in the
>>engine compartment. Clint
>
>I thought the same thing, but I think I will change
it, lower my
>actual aircraft empty weight, and use that and the
resulting lower
>performance as my excuse as manufacturer for
lowering my gross weight
>to 1320 lbs.
>
>Jim Crowder
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Handling...WAS Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
I for one would like to depart with the term "handling problems" when
speaking about our kitfox's! Sure they may not be a great beginners plane,
but like Michel said, that is part of their allure, is it not?! ;-)
Andrew
>From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:38:51 +0100
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:14 AM, Fox5flyer wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bradley. Basically, IMO the Kitfox is a very docile
> > handling
> > airplane.
>
>So do I. But then, the Kitfox is the only aircraft I ever flew! Lots of
>people told me it was not a beginner's plane and it took me a while to
>learn it but, once done, I wouldn't fly anything else. One need to be
>awake and swift when landing but ... isn't that all the fun of flying?
>If I want to fly easy ... I sit in an airliner! :-)
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
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: "Jose M. Toro" <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
This is valid before the aircraft is certified. Once
certified, there is no reverse, i.e., if if was
certified at 1550 Gross, it can't be changed.
Jose
--- "George Wells@adelphia.net"
<georgewells@adelphia.net> wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "George
> Wells@adelphia.net" <georgewells@adelphia.net>
>
> According to my FSDO -- You can put any gross wgt
> you want on an experimental aircraft (not a certifed
> plane)
> My mod 5 has a 1550 Gross and all I have to do is
> put a new plate on it listing a 1320 gross.
> But like the FSDO said don't exceed the 1320 then
> because you will be illegal.
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jose M. Toro, P.E.
Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
"A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
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: Hank <hank@hankseidel.com>
Aren't there STC kits for the installation of larger engines in
production aircraft that allow for an increase in GW. Isn't that
possible with a homebuilt?
On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Jose M. Toro wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> This is valid before the aircraft is certified. Once
> certified, there is no reverse, i.e., if if was
> certified at 1550 Gross, it can't be changed.
>
> Jose
>
> --- "George Wells@adelphia.net"
> <georgewells@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "George
>> Wells@adelphia.net" <georgewells@adelphia.net>
>>
>> According to my FSDO -- You can put any gross wgt
>> you want on an experimental aircraft (not a certifed
>> plane)
>> My mod 5 has a 1550 Gross and all I have to do is
>> put a new plate on it listing a 1320 gross.
>> But like the FSDO said don't exceed the 1320 then
>> because you will be illegal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Jose M. Toro, P.E.
> Kitfox II/582->Jabiru 2200
> "A slow flight in the Caribbean..."
>
>
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: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
I respect your opinion. I do ask that you please understand that I thoroughly researched
this subject months ago. My biggest concern is that someone will be
misled into thinking that they can take an in-flight adjustable prop off a kitfox
and replace it with a ground adjustable and make it a legal machine to be
flown by someone operating under sport pilot rules. Remember, when an aircraft
is certified, the certification record shows the type prop and this is a matter
of record with the FAA.
Please do not take my word for this. Call EAA and ask.
I will not comment any further on this subject on the list. If anyone wishes
to discuss my research on this matter please call me at 512 258-7020. Would
be happy to hear from you.
Jimmie
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
Jimmie,
IMHO that's not correct. An experimental AB aircraft
with an approved airworthy fixed pitch or ground
adjustable can be flown by a Sport Pilot regardless
of its history.
The aircraft cannot become registered as an LSA but a
Sport Pilot can fly it.
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
>
>I do not want to beat this horse to much, but I went
down that road and the bottom line is that a Kitfox
that has or had an in-flight adjustable prop can
never be legally flown by someone operating under
sport pilot rules. I don't like the rule either.
>
> Before you move the switch suggest you talk to
Joe Norris at EAA.
>
> Jimmie
>
>Jim Crowder wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
>At 09:44 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>>I think that an inflight adjustable prop is ok,
keep the switch in the
>>engine compartment. Clint
>
>I thought the same thing, but I think I will change
it, lower my
>actual aircraft empty weight, and use that and the
resulting lower
>performance as my excuse as manufacturer for
lowering my gross weight
>to 1320 lbs.
>
>Jim Crowder
>
>
>_-
======================================================
======
browse
Subscriptions page,
FAQ,
List
>_-
======================================================
======
Admin.
>_-
======================================================
======
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Handling...WAS Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
True, no "problems", just differences. I've had tremendous fun flying around
since I got mine, and I now see the allure that has sold so many of these.
I've wanted one for many years, but I always seem to have an excuse not to.
I just decided now is the time, better or worse.
It would be neat to fly around to the different owners, and sample the
handling of the different airframes. That way, maybe we could form some
useful suggestions to improve those that feel the need for it.
Maybe there is some collective mis-information out there that is causing
some to feel it is not as docile as I feel mine is. That would be neat to
learn. For example, my gear is toed-in, and maybe that's wrong. But if
there's something else that overcomes that set-up and settles it down, I
sure would like to know what it is.
Just some random thoughts,
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Matthaey
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handling...WAS Kitfox handling problems
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey"
<spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
I for one would like to depart with the term "handling problems" when
speaking about our kitfox's! Sure they may not be a great beginners plane,
but like Michel said, that is part of their allure, is it not?! ;-)
Andrew
>From: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:38:51 +0100
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:14 AM, Fox5flyer wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bradley. Basically, IMO the Kitfox is a very docile
> > handling
> > airplane.
>
>So do I. But then, the Kitfox is the only aircraft I ever flew! Lots of
>people told me it was not a beginner's plane and it took me a while to
>learn it but, once done, I wouldn't fly anything else. One need to be
>awake and swift when landing but ... isn't that all the fun of flying?
>If I want to fly easy ... I sit in an airliner! :-)
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot & fixed/ground adj prop, Jimmie IS right... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" <FLIER@sbcglobal.net>
I took Jimmie up on his challenge! :
)
This issue is an unintended victim of the FAA's wish
to keep out modifications of aircraft (140s,
Ercoupes, etc) via STCs or other methods to meet LSA
definition.
Even if you go back through the Airworthiness
certification process with a fixed pitch prop on a
plane that was originally certificated with an
inflight adjustable, the FAA says it doesn't meet the
para 1.1 definition that includes the
statement 'since its original certification'. So, as
Jimmie points out, if the original airworthiness
documentation references an inflight adjustable prop
(by manufacturer/type/SN) then the aircraft cannot be
operated by a Sport Pilot no matter whether the prop
has been changed out, is no longer variable pitch
operational, or cannot be manipulated in-flight.
I beg your pardon Jimmie.
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
<jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I respect your opinion. I do ask that you please
understand that I thoroughly researched this subject
months ago. My biggest concern is that someone will
be misled into thinking that they can take an in-
flight adjustable prop off a kitfox and replace it
with a ground adjustable and make it a legal machine
to be flown by someone operating under sport pilot
rules. Remember, when an aircraft is certified, the
certification record shows the type prop and this is
a matter of record with the FAA.
>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Bradley M Webb wrote:
> For example, my gear is toed-in, and maybe that's wrong.
During the three years I have been on the list, there has been a lot of
talking about toe-in, toe-out, Bradley. I don't know anything about it
and my memory is fading away. But, somehow, I think someone said that
it should be slightly toed-in, when empty, because then, at MTOW, it
becomes parallel, or slightly toed-out.
Does that ring a bell to anybody?
Cheers,
Michel
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot & fixed/ground adj prop, Jimmie IS right... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell <jimmieblackwell@sbcglobal.net>
Thank you Ted. The most important thing is that we got the issue sorted out.
That is what makes this list such a super source of information and idea sharing.
Jimmie
flier <FLIER@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier"
I took Jimmie up on his challenge! :
)
This issue is an unintended victim of the FAA's wish
to keep out modifications of aircraft (140s,
Ercoupes, etc) via STCs or other methods to meet LSA
definition.
Even if you go back through the Airworthiness
certification process with a fixed pitch prop on a
plane that was originally certificated with an
inflight adjustable, the FAA says it doesn't meet the
para 1.1 definition that includes the
statement 'since its original certification'. So, as
Jimmie points out, if the original airworthiness
documentation references an inflight adjustable prop
(by manufacturer/type/SN) then the aircraft cannot be
operated by a Sport Pilot no matter whether the prop
has been changed out, is no longer variable pitch
operational, or cannot be manipulated in-flight.
I beg your pardon Jimmie.
Regards,
Ted
--- Original Message ---
From: Jimmie Blackwell
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Sport Pilot
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jimmie Blackwell
>
>I respect your opinion. I do ask that you please
understand that I thoroughly researched this subject
months ago. My biggest concern is that someone will
be misled into thinking that they can take an in-
flight adjustable prop off a kitfox and replace it
with a ground adjustable and make it a legal machine
to be flown by someone operating under sport pilot
rules. Remember, when an aircraft is certified, the
certification record shows the type prop and this is
a matter of record with the FAA.
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
Hi again Jim,
If , when you applied for your original Special Airworthiness
Certificate (Experimental) you stated that you had an in-flight
adjustable propeller and/or a gross weight greater than 1320#, "
you're screwed".
You referenced the AOPA web site info which I copied and pasted here:
Can I change the weight of an experimental amateur-built that I
have built so it meets the 1,320-pound limit for light sport aircraft?
As the builder of a home-built airplane that has yet to receive its
experimental airworthiness certificate, you may decrease or increase
the weight as necessary to have the airplane meet the definition of
light sport aircraft, which is defined as having a maximum gross
weight of 1,320 pounds. However, once a weight limit has been set as
part of the airplane's experimental amateur-built certification
process, the original builder, future owners, and repairmen are
prohibited from making any modifications to the weight for the
purpose of meeting the definition of light sport aircraft.
Updated Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:47:15 AM
On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Jim Crowder wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
>
> At 08:27 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> You might talk to your local Flight Standards Office about de-
>> registering the aircraft and using it for parts to build a completely
>> different experimental aircraft.
>
> This was my previous plan. It now appears unnecessary.
>
> Jim Crowder
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Bradley,
I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
> know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
> cursing.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
I don't have a number, but I can get one. It is noticeable. Maybe when my
fat butt is in there, it toes-out. I would think the geometry wouldn't
change, but I've not thought about it.
I haven't had to remove the wheels yet, so I'm not sure how to check the
angle, save a lot of work with alignment tools. Any ideas?
Toe out makes sense, as when loading the outside wheel, it would track away
from centerline, bringing the load to the other wheel; self-centering, so to
speak.
But I've had no problems as of yet the way it is.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Bradley,
I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
> know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
> cursing.
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" <rjdaugh@rapidnet.com>
Bradley,
If you have a laser level with a magnetic base, simply stick it to the disc
brake disc and make a mark on the floor close to the wheel and another mark
about 20 feet away. Repeat on the other side and compare the distance
between the marks close to your tire and 20 feet away. A little trig and
you can covert to degrees of toe in or out.
Randy - another believer that the only bad alignment is Toe-in!
.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bradley M Webb
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
I don't have a number, but I can get one. It is noticeable. Maybe when my
fat butt is in there, it toes-out. I would think the geometry wouldn't
change, but I've not thought about it.
I haven't had to remove the wheels yet, so I'm not sure how to check the
angle, save a lot of work with alignment tools. Any ideas?
Toe out makes sense, as when loading the outside wheel, it would track away
from centerline, bringing the load to the other wheel; self-centering, so to
speak.
But I've had no problems as of yet the way it is.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lowell Fitt
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Bradley,
I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
> Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
> know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
> cursing.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | looking for a CFI in michigan |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
I lost track of a CFI in Michigan that also had a kit fox on the west
side of the state I would like to here from you if you are out there mal
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
I have a KF2 and haven't flown it yet. I have almost 500 HR in two kolbs.
I have flown a cgs hawk and a Golden Circle T. Bird all tail draggers but
non have what I would call having a tendency to ground loop. I saw a guy turn
off an asphalt runway so hard and abrupt he blew the tire on a kolb and it
just kept turning fine. I put 11-22 tires w/ 8 in rims on the kit fox and am
a little worried about bouncing on landing. I herd 3 point is the best. I
often landed the kolb tail wheel first. Really dragging it in.
An old cub pilot told me to make sure you shake the plane from side to
side to take the load off the gear as a post flight inspection this helps
save the bungies and sometimes you can see it go from toe out to toe in.
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Geeze, I just got home and checked the e-mails.You guys not only beat the dead
horse...you turned it into hamburger! ha
Good discussion though. Just to clarify, I wasn't really looking to register
as anything other than experimental. I simply asked the question (about LSA)
out of curiosity and got the no way Hosea answer. Funny though, (and this was
brought up earlier), the plane IS still a kit and has never been issued an airworthyness
cert. so, if I were nutz and wanted to pursue the red tape monster
a little more...I suppose I could press the issue. Not a chance though because
I do have an adjustable prop I will be installing in front of the 912s.
Cheers,
Dan
www.azshowersolutions.com/Kitfox1.html
alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur
Hi again Jim,
If , when you applied for your original Special Airworthiness
Certificate (Experimental) you stated that you had an in-flight
adjustable propeller and/or a gross weight greater than 1320#, "
you're screwed".
You referenced the AOPA web site info which I copied and pasted here:
Can I change the weight of an experimental amateur-built that I
have built so it meets the 1,320-pound limit for light sport aircraft?
As the builder of a home-built airplane that has yet to receive its
experimental airworthiness certificate, you may decrease or increase
the weight as necessary to have the airplane meet the definition of
light sport aircraft, which is defined as having a maximum gross
weight of 1,320 pounds. However, once a weight limit has been set as
part of the airplane's experimental amateur-built certification
process, the original builder, future owners, and repairmen are
prohibited from making any modifications to the weight for the
purpose of meeting the definition of light sport aircraft.
Updated Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:47:15 AM
On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Jim Crowder wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder
>
> At 08:27 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> You might talk to your local Flight Standards Office about de-
>> registering the aircraft and using it for parts to build a completely
>> different experimental aircraft.
>
> This was my previous plan. It now appears unnecessary.
>
> Jim Crowder
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
Dan unless you are very confident your medical condition will out live this
airplane I would lean toward qualifying for sport pilot. It may be worth
more money being a little heaver with more options but you may need to sell it
if you loose your medical. mal
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: toe in/toe out |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
one more thing to keep the discussion going. Camber = toe in while in the three
point position, true?
when I am moving the plane around, into to the hangar etc, rolling backward causes
the wheels to spread....toe out rolling backward. Rolling forward causes
the wheels to move in tight against the frame....toe out rolling forward. When
I am in the plane landing, taxing etc, I don't get any sense of "darting" one
way or the other and I often touch down with one wheel then the other.
on the sight picture for straight ahead, my CFI/Cropduster couldn't get it right
until I made a mark up by the appropriate "rocker arm" blister for alignment,
then there were no more chirps on touch down..
any thoughts.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
>
> Bradley,
> I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
> achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bradley M Webb"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
>
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb"
> >
> > Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
> > know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
> > cursing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
one more thing to keep the discussion going. Camber = toe in while in the three
point position, true?
when I am moving the plane around, into to the hangar etc, rolling backward causes
the wheels to spread....toe out rolling backward. Rolling forward causes the
wheels to move in tight against the frame....toe out rolling forward. When
I am in the plane landing, taxing etc, I don't get any sense of "darting" one
way or the other and I often touch down with one wheel then the other.
on the sight picture for straight ahead, my CFI/Cropduster couldn't get it right
until I made a mark up by the appropriate "rocker arm" blister for alignment,
then there were no more chirps on touch down..
any thoughts.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lowell Fitt" lcfitt@sbcglobal.net
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <LCFITT@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Bradley,
I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb" <BMWEBB@COX.NET>
To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <BMWEBB@COX.NET>
Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending,
grunting, and
cursing.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: toe in/toe out |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
Correction "toe in rolling forward"
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
>
> one more thing to keep the discussion going. Camber = toe in while in the
> three point position, true?
>
> when I am moving the plane around, into to the hangar etc, rolling backward
> causes the wheels to spread....toe out rolling backward. Rolling forward causes
> the wheels to move in tight against the frame....toe out rolling forward. When
> I am in the plane landing, taxing etc, I don't get any sense of "darting" one
> way or the other and I often touch down with one wheel then the other.
>
> on the sight picture for straight ahead, my CFI/Cropduster couldn't get it right
> until I made a mark up by the appropriate "rocker arm" blister for alignment,
> then there were no more chirps on touch down..
>
> any thoughts.
>
> John Kerr
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Lowell Fitt"
>
> > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
> >
> > Bradley,
> > I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
> > achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
> >
> > Lowell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bradley M Webb"
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
> >
> >
> > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb"
> > >
> > > Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
> > > know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
> > > cursing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> one more thing to keep the discussion going. Camber = toe in while in the three
> point position, true?
>
> when I am moving the plane around, into to the hangar etc, rolling backward
> causes the wheels to spread....toe out rolling backward. Rolling forward causes
> the wheels to move in tight against the frame....toe out rolling forward. When
I
> am in the plane landing, taxing etc, I don't get any sense of "darting" one way
> or the other and I often touch down with one wheel then the other.
>
> on the sight picture for straight ahead, my CFI/Cropduster couldn't get it right
> until I made a mark up by the appropriate "rocker arm" blister for alignment,
> then there were no more chirps on touch down..
>
> any thoughts.
>
> John Kerr
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Lowell Fitt" lcfitt@sbcglobal.net
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
>
> Bradley,
> I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
> achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bradley M Webb"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
>
>
> -- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb"
>
> Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
> know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending,
> grunting, and
> cursing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Correction "toe in rolling forward"
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: kerrjohna@comcast.net
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
one more thing to keep the discussion going. Camber = toe in while in the
three point position, true?
when I am moving the plane around, into to the hangar etc, rolling backward
causes the wheels to spread....toe out rolling backward. Rolling forward causes
the wheels to move in tight against the frame....toe out rolling forward. When
I am in the plane landing, taxing etc, I don't get any sense of "darting" one
way or the other and I often touch down with one wheel then the other.
on the sight picture for straight ahead, my CFI/Cropduster couldn't get it right
until I made a mark up by the appropriate "rocker arm" blister for alignmen
t,
then there were no more chirps on touch down..
any thoughts.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lowell Fitt" <LCFITT@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt"
Bradley,
I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb"
Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logic in toe-out. I don't
&g
t; know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending, grunting, and
cursing.
one more thing to keep the discussion going. Camber = toe in while in the three
point position, true?
when I am moving the plane around, into to the hangar etc, rolling backward
causes the wheels to spread....toe out rolling backward. Rolling forward causes
the wheels to move in tight against the frame....toe out rolling forward. When
I
am in the plane landing, taxing etc, I don't get any sense of "darting" one way
or the other and I often touch down with one wheel then the other.
on the sight picture for straight ahead, my CFI/Cropduster couldn't get it right
until I made a mark
up by the appropriate "rocker arm" blister for alignment,
then there were no more chirps on touch down..
any thoughts.
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lowell Fitt" lcfitt@sbcglobal.net
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <LCFITT@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Bradley,
I am a strong advocate of toe out (slight) if perfectly parallel can't be
achieved. I am curious as to the degree of toe in you have?
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley M Webb" <BMWEBB@COX.NET>
To: <KITFOX-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
-- Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <BMWEBB@COX.NET>
Interesting. Mine is toed in, and I can see the logi
c in toe-out. I don't
know how hard it is to change. I imagine lots of bending,
grunting, and
cursing.
n
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox handling problems |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Andrew Matthaey" <spaghettiohead@hotmail.com>
Haven't heard that shaking the plane thing...sounds like some good advice
though?
Far as the landings go, my .02:
On grass or other soft surface, three-point her down.
On the asphalt, ESPECIALLY in a x-wind, make a wheelie - you have more
control authority because of the higher-speed, and you have much better
over-the-nose visibility, giving you a better idea of where your tail wants
to swing...Just be very sure to hold that tail off as long as possible. If
you prematurely lower the tail in a x-wind, the upwind wing WILL come up on
you!
Good luck!
Andrew
>From: Malcolmbru@aol.com
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Kitfox handling problems
>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:14:08 EST
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Malcolmbru@aol.com
>
>I have a KF2 and haven't flown it yet. I have almost 500 HR in two kolbs.
>I have flown a cgs hawk and a Golden Circle T. Bird all tail draggers
>but
>non have what I would call having a tendency to ground loop. I saw a guy
>turn
>off an asphalt runway so hard and abrupt he blew the tire on a kolb and it
>just kept turning fine. I put 11-22 tires w/ 8 in rims on the kit fox and
> am
>a little worried about bouncing on landing. I herd 3 point is the best. I
>often landed the kolb tail wheel first. Really dragging it in.
> An old cub pilot told me to make sure you shake the plane from side
>to
>side to take the load off the gear as a post flight inspection this helps
>save the bungies and sometimes you can see it go from toe out to toe in.
>
>
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! --
|