---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 06/26/06: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:34 AM - SV: The "Claw" tie down (Michel Verheughe) 2. 03:32 AM - Re: kitfox spar damage (Dave G.) 3. 03:42 AM - Re: kitfox spar damage (Dave G.) 4. 03:55 AM - Re: kitfox spar damage (Dave) 5. 03:55 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Fox5flyer) 6. 04:41 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Rex) 7. 05:33 AM - Re: Volkswagon Conversion (Paul Seehafer) 8. 06:06 AM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Larry Huntley) 9. 08:55 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. (kurt schrader) 10. 09:48 AM - Re: Warp drive hub. () 11. 09:52 AM - Archive List (Howard) 12. 11:35 AM - Re: Volkswagon Conversion (Clint Bazzill) 13. 12:39 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Lowell Fitt) 14. 12:47 PM - Re: Volkswagon Conversion (Michel Verheughe) 15. 02:12 PM - Volkswagon Conversion (jeff puls) 16. 02:45 PM - Re: Volkswagon Conversion (John Anderson) 17. 03:37 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Fox5flyer) 18. 04:37 PM - Lock Haven Fly-in (Daniel Aller) 19. 05:29 PM - Re: Re: Camera Mount (Torgeir Mortensen) 20. 05:30 PM - Re: Lock Haven Fly-in (Larry Huntley) 21. 05:31 PM - 582 Warp Prop Diameter (Guy Buchanan) 22. 05:44 PM - Re: Re: Camera Mount (Aerobatics@aol.com) 23. 05:53 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Guy Buchanan) 24. 06:36 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Larry Huntley) 25. 06:41 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Randy Daughenbaugh) 26. 07:13 PM - Re: Warp drive hub. (Randy Daughenbaugh) 27. 07:15 PM - re- Lock Haven Fly-in (David McCormick) 28. 07:35 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Rexster) 29. 08:23 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (kurt schrader) 30. 08:27 PM - Re: Volkswagon Conversion/redrive (ron schick) 31. 08:37 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (Dan Billingsley) 32. 10:18 PM - Re: The "Claw" tie down (clemwehner) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:34:53 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: SV: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down > From: Lowell Fitt [lcfitt@sbcglobal.net] > What I didn't like about the claw is that the spikes are driven toward the > center of the circle. Here is a thought, guys: A sailor knows that he has to pay out anchor chain ten times his depth. By increasing the angle of the tie-down, you increase its holding in the ground ... to a certain point, of course. I have the screw type (sold as dog's tie-down in pet shops) and I always extend them outward, nearly to the end of the wings. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:32:31 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: kitfox spar damage --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." Thanks to all for the replies. I had talked to Sportplane about the repair a couple of weeks ago, when I thought only one spar needed replacing, and we had determined that the chance of sucessfylly reusing the insert was poor. I didn't want the spliced rear spar but posted the pictures because I didn't definitively know that it wouldn't work. I am still curious about the other rear spar. I will take another, clearer, picture when it stops raining. I expect you could get by with this for some time, if the wing had not been uncovered it would not be noticable except for the deformation of the mounting tabs. Since the wings are both without fabric at this time, it makes sense to replace it. I expect I'll have the technique of removing the spar after the other wing is done. Just because the epoxy removal is a slow and difficult job, I asked Sportplane about a whole wing kit. I'll decide how much to order when I have this spar out. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:42:05 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: kitfox spar damage --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 11:23 PM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > I was amazed at the number of holes drilled through the spars etc. - big > holes. I sure like the kitfox - avid design. > > Lowell > The original builder put a couple of holes in the rear spars in this case. He had routed the wiring for the strobes/navs and the tube for the A/S pitot through the spar. I doubt I would have done it without specific instructions but it seems to have worked out fine. Indeed he may well have had the okay from Denney, there is a huge amount of correspondence from the build. It's all from the days before Emails so there are pages of information back and forth. Just in case someone might know the builder, the aircraft was built by Glen McGuigan of Nackawic New Brunswick 1992. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 03:55:05 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: kitfox spar damage --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave" Dave, I agree that entire wings would be best most likely. Tubing is all standard but when you buy it comes in 20 foot lengths. Shipping can be abusive to alum sheeting and tube. Dented materials is not an option. Ribs - you might need a few when you are done and I would ask Sportplane what cost is for Ribs etc. depeneds on what your hours are worth to you. Actually more like days or weeks to get apart. And like i said before, I wold find a experienced builder to come look over this plane as after seeing those repairs, well who knows else was messed up. When all said and done you want a plane that you can feel safe in. Dave ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:29 AM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." > > Thanks to all for the replies. I had talked to Sportplane about the repair > a couple of weeks ago, when I thought only one spar needed replacing, and > we had determined that the chance of sucessfylly reusing the insert was > poor. I didn't want the spliced rear spar but posted the pictures because > I didn't definitively know that it wouldn't work. > > I am still curious about the other rear spar. I will take another, > clearer, picture when it stops raining. I expect you could get by with > this for some time, if the wing had not been uncovered it would not be > noticable except for the deformation of the mounting tabs. Since the wings > are both without fabric at this time, it makes sense to replace it. I > expect I'll have the technique of removing the spar after the other wing > is done. > > Just because the epoxy removal is a slow and difficult job, I asked > Sportplane about a whole wing kit. I'll decide how much to order when I > have this spar out. > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:55:16 AM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" Lowell, I agree. I've thought about this a lot and it just doesn't seem like it grabs much dirt by angling the spikes inward. What I've been thinking about coming up with is something quite different. First, it's early and I've just started my coffee so I don't know how coherent this will be, but here goes. Materials: I think a simple triangular 5052 aluminum plate about 8X6X1/4 inches with three 9/16" holes in a row on one side about 3" apart and a large 1" hole in the opposite corner. The three 9/16" holes would be for the driving rods and the large hole would be for the rope. Next I'd need three 18X7/16" 5052 aluminum rods pointed at one end. Placement: Now, the tiedown plate would be placed directly under the tiedown ring, but about 3 feet laterally outward toward the wing tip and the stakes driven into the ground at about a 45 degree angle toward the fuselage with the outward stakes driven at a 20 degree outward angle from the center stake. By using these angles and all facing relatively toward the fuselage, it seems to me that the maximum holding power would be available and all stakes would have equal holding power. The angles I'm visualizing here are only approximate and may need some tweaking for maximum strength. Some sort of method for removing the stakes and also for capping them so they won't slip through the holes in the plate would be necessary, but those are simple details that could easily be solved. 5052 is very strong, but also very light so the entire package would weigh very little and could be wrapped in a towel or something while stored in the baggage area. Obviously these stakes would be good for dirt only, not asphalt or rocks. I'll try to whip up a drawing or something if this isn't making any sense. Comments? Deke ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:36 PM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > > What I didn't like about the claw is that the spikes are driven toward the > center of the circle. It seemed to me that heavy enough lifting could > simply lift a cone of earth out. I would likd the design better if the > spikes were driven outward, increasing the circumference of the spiked area. > > Loewll > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 5:20 PM > > > The two that I saw looked like these. They were ripped completely out of the > ground. Larry Huntley > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rexster > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:57 PM > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down > > > Hi Guys, > > I have one of the ones that Spruce sells and it's worked well for me in > some of Oshkosh's nasty storms. It sure is a heavy package though. Is this > the same Claw that three of seven damaged aircraft were using or is it a > different one? > > Rex Phelps in Michigan > > -- Dan Billingsley wrote: > > > Kirk, > I thought that was the case when I heard "claw" ...I was mistaken. This is > the one that Spruce sells. > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/claw.php > The EAA one as you mentioned is what I am going to make... > http://www.vintageaircraft.org/magazine/aircraft_tiedown.pdf > > > For more info this is what EAA has to say about tie downs: > http://www.airventure.org/2006/planning/tying_down.html > Dan > > kirk hull wrote: > when you say " Claw " is that the one that the EAA has plans for one > the osh websight? it is kind of a flat plate with a U bolt in the middle > and 3 holes to drive stakes through. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David McCormick > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 1:17 PM > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down > > > On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, > Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were > around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes > that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that > was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the > ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in > type tie downs. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > 6/23/2006 > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 04:41:55 AM PST US From: Rex Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex There can be problems with any temporary anchoring system if improperly used. The condition of the soil is going to be a major factor on how well it can hold an anchor. I would guess that as it rained the soil lost much of it's holding ability. Michel's suggestion of length is wise due to the angle of tension for the type of anchor he uses. I don't think it would work well for a Claw. I would also expect the soil conditions to vary from site to site. So some planes may have been lucky that they were over better holding ground. Still, a thunderstorm is going to be very tough on any achoring system. Reports of real world experiences such as this can be very useful as long as you can factor in all the details. Rex Florida/Colorado > > > The two that I saw looked like these. They were ripped completely out > of the ground. Larry Huntley ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:33:29 AM PST US From: "Paul Seehafer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" All, I find the 370 lbs of static thrust very interesting. That is the same number my buddy with his 100 hp 912s got when testing his sensinech prop setup on his airplane. Assuming both of their testing information is accurate, that is a pretty impressive static thrust number for a VW. I've generally been a naysayer of a VW on a STOL airplane, as without a redrive they just can't turn a big diameter prop efficiently (their high rpms cause supersonic tip speeds, and prop inefficiency). But with a redrive, I think there is a strong possibility that a VW just might work on our planes? So I am very interested in following Ron's performance information once he gets his redrive VW Fox in the air. I agree with Clint's previous post stating that the 912 engines work very well in our aircraft, and if you want a sure bet, buy one of those (as I have). But I really do believe the VW with a redrive stands a good chance to become a viable alternative that could become at least a less expensive secondary choice. A few years back I saw a one-off Super Stol design powered by a VW (with redrive) do some astonishing takeoffs and landings at Oshkosh. That pretty much proved to me the engine has potential on STOL airplanes like ours. I'd been hoping someone would try one on an Avid or Kitfox one day. The non-redrive VW's will work well on fast aircraft like the Sonex as they are utilizing shorter propellors so they don't get supersonic tip speeds rendering them inefficient. Commonly, fast aircraft use shorter props. So they work well in that environment. Unfortunately our aircraft operate more efficiently with longer props, so until now, VW's (without redrives) have provided only marginal performance. Just like a 912 or 582 would if you removed the redrive. So Ron, please do keep us updated on your flight testing. It will be very interesting to follow. Paul Seehafer Central Wisconsin 912ul Model IV-1200 on Aerocet Amphibs ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:53 PM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" > > > Ken I'm waiting for AW inspection so no results other than static thrust > 370 lbs. 1915cc VW, 1.6:1 redrive, 72" Ivo. Where Are you located? Ron > NB Ore > > >>From: "Ken Arnold" >>To: >>Subject: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion >>Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:11:42 -0400 >> >>Dear Listers, >>I am looking at Kitfox Classic IV 1200 project with VW engine. What think >>you about using VW engine for this plane? I have no experience and scant >>knowledge of this power plant. >>Many thanks, >>Ken > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:06:52 AM PST US From: "Larry Huntley" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" The ground was soft and wet at Sentimental Journey. I use screw stakes(like dog screws ,but longer and larger dia.). They were screwed in ALL the way. Dog screws are too light and have a flat spot where the ring is fastened that just breaks off if you put too much force on them. The ropes were pulled TIGHT and locked w/ 2 half hitches. In the worst of the storm,it was not even wiggling. I saw one bird that had torn screws loose,but it had been tied w/ a strap w/ only one lpass over the strut,instead of wrapping it around so it could not slide down. Of course,it slid down the strut,the wind lifted the wing and w/ all the leverage,the screw tore loose. Saw many bouncing up and down on ropes that were tied too loosely. Screw them down til the ring is at dirt level,lash the ropes tight(my old instructor used to say,"two half hitches will hold the devil".),run the rope over the strut and then through the ring if there is one,or twice around the strut top. Ring does a good job of holding the rope from sliding down the strut,but they have been known to break off if the forces get too high. There probably is no perfect system,but if there is it probably comes from hurricane country. If it has worked there,it will probably work anywhere. In 40 yrs from Florida to Alaska,I have never had a problem. (Shouldn't aughta say that,eh?) Larry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:38 AM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex > > There can be problems with any temporary anchoring system if improperly > used. The condition of the soil is going to be a major factor on how well > it can hold an anchor. I would guess that as it rained the soil lost much > of it's holding ability. Michel's suggestion of length is wise due to the > angle of tension for the type of anchor he uses. I don't think it would > work well for a Claw. I would also expect the soil conditions to vary from > site to site. So some planes may have been lucky that they were over > better holding ground. Still, a thunderstorm is going to be very tough on > any achoring system. > Reports of real world experiences such as this can be very useful as long > as you can factor in all the details. > Rex > Florida/Colorado > > >> >> >> The two that I saw looked like these. They were ripped completely out of >> the ground. Larry Huntley > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:30 AM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Deke, Had me worried for a minute... :-) Thought you had the John Deere GB. Mine is 2.23 to 1 for the little turbo and I think I would have liked it closer to 2:1. Your GB seems to do well for the normal engine. As far as I know, Warp has had an excellent reputation after some initial issues with cracking hubs that they fixed. (Warp, not NSI hubs) The blades are very strong and seem to do well. John McB.... What is going to be standard prop on the new Fox's? Kurt S. --- Fox5flyer wrote: > MessageMy apologies. I just checked mine and it is > indeed 2:34. > Thanks for the correction. > Deke __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:01 AM PST US From: Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: The ratio is 2.41:1 ---- wingsdown wrote: > Correction 2:X:1 not 3, gezzzz old is bad. There was a lot of playing > around with ration way back. Best to start with the original suggested > recommendation with the given prop combination. > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:19 AM > > > Hi Guy, can anyone tell me if a 68inch Warp Drive 3 blade prop will > match up with an NSI gear box. Im not sure about the gear ratio of the > NSI but I have been told they are 2.5 to 1 for the EA81 engine. I was > going to purchase a Bolly carbon fibre prop but the Warp Drive was > offered to me for half price so its a good deal if it fits OK. If > someone with could tell me which way to go it would be appreciated. > Thanks in advance. > > Regards > Graeme > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:16 AM PST US From: "Howard" Subject: Kitfox-List: Archive List When I try to open this message, I get a blank page with a note in the top corner," Can't open Archive".. How do I read these messages. Howard ?LISTNAME=Kitfox?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=09460127648?SHOWBUTTONS=YES"> Re: 2001 Kitfox 4 - 1200 with 912 UL For sale ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:58 AM PST US From: "Clint Bazzill" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:22 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" Deke, During our Idaho fly-outs we talk of tiedown methods all the time. Our problem is that we are only occasionally in meadow like conditions where the screw type would be ideal. One of the guys at the Utah fly-in had the titanium ones and they are very nice. The diameter is not great - about 3", but they are very light weight and come with a short piece of titanium to use as a wrench so the last one is as easy to get into the ground as the first two. Other times - actually very frequently - the ground is rocky and hard and the screw type are very difficult to get in. Of course once in, they will hold like a buried anvil. One of the guys had an interesting idea where two rods - actually the long, about 12" construction nails - are driven into the ground at an angle within a single link of chain and the tiedown rope looped inder the two heads and the chain link I think this is similar to your idea. My version uses a short piece of 5/8" X 1" aluminum bar with divergent holes drilled through so the nails are held at about a 60 or 70 degree angle. I think this is something like your idea. I can drive these in anywhere and the ridgidly held angled spikes have to move a lot of dirt to come out. For removal, I ground the claws on a small hammer to accept the heads of the large nails and using the hammer as a large handle they are easily removed. The whole thing including hammer and bag weighs just under three pounds. I think if you angled the holes so the spikes would be held at the angles and placed them so the aluminum triagle is parallel with the wing, it would have 30% more holding power than mine and if you could find titanium spikes it should be a sure winner. Lowell ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:55 AM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > Lowell, I agree. I've thought about this a lot and it just doesn't seem > like it grabs much dirt by angling the spikes inward. What I've been > thinking about coming up with is something quite different. > First, it's early and I've just started my coffee so I don't know how > coherent this will be, but here goes. > > Materials: I think a simple triangular 5052 aluminum plate about 8X6X1/4 > inches with three 9/16" holes in a row on one side about 3" apart and a > large 1" hole in the opposite corner. The three 9/16" holes would be for > the driving rods and the large hole would be for the rope. Next I'd need > three 18X7/16" 5052 aluminum rods pointed at one end. > > Placement: Now, the tiedown plate would be placed directly under the > tiedown ring, but about 3 feet laterally outward toward the wing tip and > the > stakes driven into the ground at about a 45 degree angle toward the > fuselage > with the outward stakes driven at a 20 degree outward angle from the > center > stake. By using these angles and all facing relatively toward the > fuselage, > it seems to me that the maximum holding power would be available and all > stakes would have equal holding power. The angles I'm visualizing here > are > only approximate and may need some tweaking for maximum strength. > > Some sort of method for removing the stakes and also for capping them so > they won't slip through the holes in the plate would be necessary, but > those > are simple details that could easily be solved. 5052 is very strong, but > also very light so the entire package would weigh very little and could be > wrapped in a towel or something while stored in the baggage area. > Obviously these stakes would be good for dirt only, not asphalt or rocks. > I'll try to whip up a drawing or something if this isn't making any sense. > Comments? > Deke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:36 PM > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" >> >> What I didn't like about the claw is that the spikes are driven toward >> the >> center of the circle. It seemed to me that heavy enough lifting could >> simply lift a cone of earth out. I would likd the design better if the >> spikes were driven outward, increasing the circumference of the spiked > area. >> >> Loewll >> ----- Original Message ----- >> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 5:20 PM >> >> >> The two that I saw looked like these. They were ripped completely out of > the >> ground. Larry Huntley >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rexster >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:57 PM >> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down >> >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> I have one of the ones that Spruce sells and it's worked well for me > in >> some of Oshkosh's nasty storms. It sure is a heavy package though. Is >> this >> the same Claw that three of seven damaged aircraft were using or is it a >> different one? >> >> Rex Phelps in Michigan >> >> -- Dan Billingsley wrote: >> >> >> Kirk, >> I thought that was the case when I heard "claw" ...I was mistaken. This > is >> the one that Spruce sells. >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/claw.php >> The EAA one as you mentioned is what I am going to make... >> http://www.vintageaircraft.org/magazine/aircraft_tiedown.pdf >> >> >> For more info this is what EAA has to say about tie downs: >> http://www.airventure.org/2006/planning/tying_down.html >> Dan >> >> kirk hull wrote: >> when you say " Claw " is that the one that the EAA has plans for one >> the osh websight? it is kind of a flat plate with a U bolt in the middle >> and 3 holes to drive stakes through. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David > McCormick >> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 1:17 PM >> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down >> >> >> On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, >> Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there > were >> around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes >> that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms > that >> was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the >> ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in >> type tie downs. >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> 6/23/2006 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 12:47:26 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe On Jun 26, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Clint Bazzill wrote: > the Jabiru was faster, and the 582 out climbed the 2200. Yep, I went from 582 to 2200 and I can confirm that. Mind you, with a finer pitch prop, I would probably climb better than the 582 but I would loose the edge at cruise speed. So, an in-flight variable pitch would be nice but, unfortunately, that's exactly the only think the Jabiru can't have because of its direct drive. > I found that both engines were very noisy electrictly and > mechanically. ... say again! ... can't hear you, say again, please! :-) Seriously, the Jabiru can have (mine has) electrical noise but I can live with it. Otherwise, mechanically, the Jabiru is very smooth running, especially compared to the 582. But ... mechanical noise ... from the engine or the prop? Isn't a two-bladed prop always more noisy than a three-bladed? > I suggest you spend some time before you make this HUGH investment in > cost and time. Yes, preparing the installation of an engine should be quality time. Read, ask, compare, it's part of the fun of home-building aircraft. I think both Rotax and Jabiru engines are fine engines, each with their own up and down sides. I don't know about Volkswagen but I have a friend with a motor-glider and he is very pleased with his VW Limbach. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:20 PM PST US From: "jeff puls" Subject: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion I would love to trade my 912UL in for one of John Monnett's Aero Vee engines. Imagine, one carburetor with a low RPM cruise!!! Jeff Classic IV ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:45:27 PM PST US From: "John Anderson" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:37:47 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" inbedded comments below... > Deke, > During our Idaho fly-outs we talk of tiedown methods all the time. Our > problem is that we are only occasionally in meadow like conditions where the > screw type would be ideal. One of the guys at the Utah fly-in had the > titanium ones and they are very nice. The diameter is not great - about 3", > but they are very light weight and come with a short piece of titanium to > use as a wrench so the last one is as easy to get into the ground as the > first two. I did a little research and those titanium screw-ins are very nice. They're stronger and lighter than my steel screws, but they're also up to $80 now. I think I can come up with a better solution than that. > > Other times - actually very frequently - the ground is rocky and hard and > the screw type are very difficult to get in. Of course once in, they will > hold like a buried anvil. Correct. In rockey ground, or even very dry hard clay, they can be a bear to work with, but once they're in... Spikes can handle pretty much anything other than large rocks. > > One of the guys had an interesting idea where two rods - actually the long, > about 12" construction nails - are driven into the ground at an angle within > a single link of chain and the tiedown rope looped inder the two heads and > the chain link I think this is similar to your idea. My version uses a > short piece of 5/8" X 1" aluminum bar with divergent holes drilled through > so the nails are held at about a 60 or 70 degree angle. I think this is > something like your idea. I can drive these in anywhere and the ridgidly > held angled spikes have to move a lot of dirt to come out. Hmmmmm. That link of chain adds a twist to this. Maybe even two or three links, each with it's own spike and one link for the rope? Even more simple yet. I think 12" isn't really long enough as they wouldn't do much in soft ground. 18" will really get down there. I'm still thinking about the 5052 aluminum rod rather than nails. > > For removal, I ground the claws on a small hammer to accept the heads of the > large nails and using the hammer as a large handle they are easily removed. > The whole thing including hammer and bag weighs just under three pounds. > > I think if you angled the holes so the spikes would be held at the angles > and placed them so the aluminum triagle is parallel with the wing, it would > have 30% more holding power than mine and if you could find titanium spikes > it should be a sure winner. > Lowell I really do think the crux of this whole thing isn't so much as whether it's screw-in or spikes, but the angle of the rope to the wing and the angle of the spikes. If the angle of the rope is about 45 degrees from the wing to the ground and the spikes are at about 60 degrees (inward toward fuselage) to the rope, I don't think you could get much stronger. Deke Deke > > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:55 AM > > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" > > > > Lowell, I agree. I've thought about this a lot and it just doesn't seem > > like it grabs much dirt by angling the spikes inward. What I've been > > thinking about coming up with is something quite different. > > First, it's early and I've just started my coffee so I don't know how > > coherent this will be, but here goes. > > > > Materials: I think a simple triangular 5052 aluminum plate about 8X6X1/4 > > inches with three 9/16" holes in a row on one side about 3" apart and a > > large 1" hole in the opposite corner. The three 9/16" holes would be for > > the driving rods and the large hole would be for the rope. Next I'd need > > three 18X7/16" 5052 aluminum rods pointed at one end. > > > > Placement: Now, the tiedown plate would be placed directly under the > > tiedown ring, but about 3 feet laterally outward toward the wing tip and > > the > > stakes driven into the ground at about a 45 degree angle toward the > > fuselage > > with the outward stakes driven at a 20 degree outward angle from the > > center > > stake. By using these angles and all facing relatively toward the > > fuselage, > > it seems to me that the maximum holding power would be available and all > > stakes would have equal holding power. The angles I'm visualizing here > > are > > only approximate and may need some tweaking for maximum strength. > > > > Some sort of method for removing the stakes and also for capping them so > > they won't slip through the holes in the plate would be necessary, but > > those > > are simple details that could easily be solved. 5052 is very strong, but > > also very light so the entire package would weigh very little and could be > > wrapped in a towel or something while stored in the baggage area. > > Obviously these stakes would be good for dirt only, not asphalt or rocks. > > I'll try to whip up a drawing or something if this isn't making any sense. > > Comments? > > Deke > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:36 PM > > > > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" > >> > >> What I didn't like about the claw is that the spikes are driven toward > >> the > >> center of the circle. It seemed to me that heavy enough lifting could > >> simply lift a cone of earth out. I would likd the design better if the > >> spikes were driven outward, increasing the circumference of the spiked > > area. > >> > >> Loewll ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:22 PM PST US From: "Daniel Aller" Subject: Kitfox-List: Lock Haven Fly-in David McCormick and Larry Huntley, How many Foxes were at the Lock Haven Fly-in counting you two? I live in PA ( KVVS ) 135 miles SW of LockHaven ( LHV ) , but couldn't make it this year. David I would to fly up to ( N13 ) soon to meet you if I knew when you were around the Airport. Larry, where are you based and what model Fox do you have? I would like to meet you and see your Kitfox. Dan Aller Classic IV 912s 239DA Phone # 724 858 9981 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 05:29:52 PM PST US From: Torgeir Mortensen Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Camera Mount --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Well done Dave, calling someones project "horrible" is pretty callousness, I'll say, -you should know better!! Lowells solution to his problem is a piece of art that not anyone can copy. This is his solution to a problem he could not solve with use of "electronics", -think about that! OK., -dealing with "high" torque motors and feedback is not for anybody to solve, as it can be "very" difficult! On this list there's lot of people representing all kind of tech. Who am I, well -work with aviation electronics, and with those gyro stabilized (and non stabilized) camera platforms hanging under a helicopter, or installed into an ordinary aircraft.. (This one made me angry.) Sorry. Torgeir. Do not archive On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:02:09 EDT, wrote: > > In a message dated 6/25/2006 9:44:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > lcfitt@sbcglobal.net writes: > > Thanks for the "horrible" report, but you really don't know what you are > talking about and the only way you will change my mind is to make one, > shoot > some video and let me see it. > > Actually, I have experimented with servos and with the budget I have and > what is out there - they don't work. I talked to a guy over the weekend > that is working on a still camera system and for that they will work > fine, > for video, even with 5 pole digital servos you will see the pulse of the > step movement in a slow pan. I guess you can essentially filter this > out > with stabilizing gyros, but then you are talking some bucks. > > Being always willing to learn something new - do prove me wrong. If you > work for the government on secret weapons systems all bets are off, but > if > you can prove me wrong with common off the shelf servos, I am all ears - > eyes. > > Lowell > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 12:40 AM > > > Actually that's what I do for a living....radio control... here are a > few > ideas. > > Do not use pole motor servos, use coreless, and a quality one at that. > For > camera panning, I would think torque is better than speed. At least > 150 inch > ounces. You can now get servos well over 300 inch ounces. If you choose > Hitec, buy the programmer and set dead band to min. Another thing, try > not get a > huge amount of sweep of camera, but set max throws on servos. This is a > very > common mistake. Set throws to 150% each way. This alone will make a > dramatic > difference. > > Having never done it, I still think it can work. > Friction is a big no no. That will make the panning sticky..... > > Call me if you need some help > > Dave -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 05:30:01 PM PST US From: "Larry Huntley" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Lock Haven Fly-in Hi Dan, I am between Dundee and Hammondsport,NY on a farm strip about 12 nm south of PEO(PennYan). I have a 4-1200 Subaru Kitfox,but I had a Cub at Lock Haven. I only saw 2 Kitfoxes there,but there may have been more. Be happy to have you(or any other Kitfox driver stop in. Need to call first. I live about 1/2 mile from the strip. 607 292 6318 Larry Huntley ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Aller To: kitfox-list Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:35 PM Subject: Kitfox-List: Lock Haven Fly-in David McCormick and Larry Huntley, How many Foxes were at the Lock Haven Fly-in counting you two? I live in PA ( KVVS ) 135 miles SW of LockHaven ( LHV ) , but couldn't make it this year. David I would to fly up to ( N13 ) soon to meet you if I knew when you were around the Airport. Larry, where are you based and what model Fox do you have? I would like to meet you and see your Kitfox. Dan Aller Classic IV 912s 239DA Phone # 724 858 9981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- No virus found in this incoming message. 6/25/2006 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 05:31:32 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 Warp Prop Diameter --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan Hi guys, I was just putting my paperwork together for the DAR, when I discovered that I have a 70" 3 blade Warp prop. Skystar recommended a 68" prop for the 582. (I've got a 582 with a 3:1 C box and APC clutch.) I've got an email into Warp to see if I can cut an inch off, but I'm wondering if the 70" is better from a performance standpoint. I've checked the tip speed and it's quite slow. (591 fps, .53 mach at 85 knots and 5800 rpm.) My other problem is I require documentation proving the combo is acceptable. How about it John? Do you have any documentation for K-IV/582/70" Warp 3-blade combinations? Thanks, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:57 PM PST US From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Camera Mount I never said horrible? Anyway that camera mount is brilliant. A good friend of mine is a software engineer for a company that makes those ball cameras that get mounted on helicopters and such. I got some insight how they work. It is very sophisticated. Physics play a huge role to deal with the basics, getting the CG and pivot points correct, the rest is electronic compensation using very high gain solid state gyros and servo motors. I think its really cool someone is trying to make one for average photography. Dave ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:53:09 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 06:05 AM 6/26/2006, you wrote: >run the rope >over the strut and then through the ring if there is one,or twice around the >strut top. Yikes! Are you side-loading the outboard strut end? VERY SCARY, if so. You could easily bend the threaded rod inboard of the rod end. Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:37 PM PST US From: "Larry Huntley" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" It doesn't sideload it as much as you might think. If it goes through a hurricane,I'll replace the strut ends rather than the whole airplane. This probably applies more to other strut systems( like the Avid and others)than the Fox. You have a good point,but I will continue as I have. Next time at the hangar I will look it over . Larry ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:51 PM > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan > > At 06:05 AM 6/26/2006, you wrote: >>run the rope >>over the strut and then through the ring if there is one,or twice around >>the >>strut top. > > Yikes! Are you side-loading the outboard strut end? VERY SCARY, if so. You > could easily bend the threaded rod inboard of the rod end. > > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:51 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down David, (Or others), The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw? If there were three, the failure rate was 100%. If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good! If over half the planes there were using the "Claw", the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%. Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it. Can anybody provide some insight here? My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good. But I think I like Lowell's design better. Sorry to be so late coming to this thread. Randy . _____ [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type tie downs. ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:15 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Warp drive hub. Clem said: "It goes without saying that anything you gain on climb, you lose on cruise, and vice-versa." Clem, I know my comment here does not exactly address your statement above, but I think it is pertinent. When I shortened my Powerfin to 70" based on their recommendation, I was able to put more pitch in and got 6 or 7 MPH faster cruise AND a much shorter take off run than with the original 72". I was amazed that 1" on the radius could make that much difference an improve both ends of performance. Randy . _____ [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clem Nichols Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:24 PM Graeme: I know nothing about the model number. My plane has a 70 inch Ward Drive Prop which has been shortened about 1/2" because of a ground-strike I was careless enough to make. I would first quote Tony Bingelis, the guru who has written several books on experimental building, when he says "Use as long a prop as you can for as long as you can". Having said that, you can always put enough pirch into the prop to keep the engine from over-revving. I cannot say what effect that would have on your climb rate or your cruise speed, however. It goes without saying that anything you gain on climb, you lose on cruise, and vice-versa. I wish I could tell you more, but this is the sum total of my knowledge about props. Clem Nichols Do Not Post Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:38 PM Unfortunately the manual I have for this gear box does not state the gear ratio but the model number is NSI A12/A30 or at least thats what the cover says. If this is the model you are referring to Clem, do you feel the 68 inch Warp Drive would be OK. Kirk has been advised that this is the correct size for his Status EA81 but he didnt say what gear box he is running. I will be interested to hear how his first flight went. Regards Graeme Toft Queensland Safety Solutions Ph: 07 49397011 Mob: 0411476527 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:45 AM It's my understanding that if the builder did not specify otherwise, the standard prop reduction ratio was 2.34 to 1 with the NSI EA81 non-turbo engine. Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:17 AM Correction 2:X:1 not 3, gezzzz old is bad. There was a lot of playing around with ration way back. Best to start with the original suggested recommendation with the given prop combination. Rick -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of QSS Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:19 AM Hi Guy, can anyone tell me if a 68inch Warp Drive 3 blade prop will match up with an NSI gear box. Im not sure about the gear ratio of the NSI but I have been told they are 2.5 to 1 for the EA81 engine. I was going to purchase a Bolly carbon fibre prop but the Warp Drive was offered to me for half price so its a good deal if it fits OK. If someone with could tell me which way to go it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Regards Graeme _____ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Date: 21/06/2006 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 07:15:34 PM PST US From: "David McCormick" Subject: Kitfox-List: re- Lock Haven Fly-in Dan, I am based at JerseyShore ( P96 ) 9 miles east of LHV and am at the airport most weekends, I am flying a Classic IV powered by a 2200 Jabiru. I belong EAA 769 at Danville,Pa ( 8N8 ) and we have 5 Foxes in our chapter. We get together at 8N8 on the first Saturday morning of the month, and also are having a fly-in breakfast July 23rd. David McCormick N195CL 570-547-1134 ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:48 PM PST US From: "Rexster" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down Randy, I'm not sure how new the Claw system is. I bought mine two years ago a nd had seen it at Oshkosh for at least a couple years before that. I see m to be the Lone Ranger here, but I like mine. Once I have it set up, I can't picture it ever coming out because of winds. Rex in Michigan -- "Randy Daughenbaugh" wrote: David, (Or others), The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down wi th the Claw? If there were three, the failure rate was 100%. If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good! If over half the planes there were using the =93Claw=94, the failure rate drops to a muc h more reasonable 3%. Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were us ing it. Can anybody provide some insight here? My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good. But I think I like Lowell =92s design better. Sorry to be so late coming to this thread. Randy =2E erver@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that h ad damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that wa s holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the g round. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type tie downs.

Randy,

  I'm not sure how new the Claw system is. I bought mine two yea rs ago and had seen it at Oshkosh for at least a couple years before tha t. I seem to be the Lone Ranger here, but I like mine. Once I have it se t up, I can't picture it ever coming out because of winds.

Rex in Michigan

-- "Randy  Daughenbaugh" & lt;rjdaugh@rapidnet.com> wrote:

David,  (Or others),

The data point th at is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  ; If there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the p lanes there were using the =93Claw=94, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%.

 

Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can anybody provide some insight here?  My first impression of the cla w, based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Low ell=92s design better.

 

Sorry to be so la te coming to this thread.

 

Randy

 

.           

 

From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitf ox-list-server@matronics.com] On Be half Of David McCormick
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down

 

On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly- In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and a t the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield . 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other ca lw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie downs.

________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:01 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader One thing to remember is to use a rope or strap of sufficient strenght when pulling at an angle. A 45 degree angle reduces the strength of the rope in the verticle plane by 30%. You need to use a rope 30% stronger to achieve the same verticle tie down strength. But I agree with the application. How strong a rope are you all using? That chain link idea with spikes thru it sounds kind'a neat to me too. Are there any tent or camping spikes strong enough to work? Or are they all too small? Just learning from you all this time.... Usefull subject to everyone. :-) Kurt S. > Hmmmmm. That link of chain adds a twist to > this. Maybe even two or three links, each with > it's own spike and one link for the rope? ................... > > I think if you angled the holes so the spikes > would be held at the angles and placed them so the > aluminum triagle is parallel with the wing, it > would have 30% more holding power than mine and if > you could find titanium spikes it should be a sure > winner. > > Lowell __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:32 PM PST US From: "ron schick" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion/redrive --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" The Redrive is made by Valley Engineering llc (Culver Props) and also marketed by Great Plains. It was probably Gene Smith at Oshgosh you saw flying the VW redrive. They have a video on their website if you can find it. Valley Engineering llc, Culver Props, etc. etc. If you find the right home page there are prop tip speed calculators and the works. There is also one of their short field videos on Lazair's kitfox page. See you at Arlington!!! Ron NB Ore >From: "Paul Seehafer" >To: >Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Volkswagon Conversion >Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:31:45 -0500 > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Seehafer" > >All, > >I find the 370 lbs of static thrust very interesting. That is the same >number my buddy with his 100 hp 912s got when testing his sensinech prop >setup on his airplane. Assuming both of their testing information is >accurate, that is a pretty impressive static thrust number for a VW. >A few years back I saw a one-off Super Stol design powered by a VW (with >redrive) do some astonishing takeoffs and landings at Oshkosh. That pretty >much proved to me the engine has potential on STOL airplanes like ours. >I'd been hoping someone would try one on an Avid or Kitfox one day. > >Paul Seehafer >Central Wi______________________________________________________ >>Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! >>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ >> >> >> >> >>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List >>http://wiki.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List >http://wiki.matronics.com > > _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:19 PM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down Randy, The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part. Dan Randy Daughenbaugh wrote: David, (Or others), The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw? If there were three, the failure rate was 100%. If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good! If over half the planes there were using the Claw, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%. Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it. Can anybody provide some insight here? My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good. But I think I like Lowells design better. Sorry to be so late coming to this thread. Randy . --------------------------------- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type tie downs. ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:51 PM PST US From: "clemwehner" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: The "Claw" tie down Here's something to think about. Consider how much lift our wings can produce. In a 40 mph wind the wings can easily generate 600 lbs of lift, likely a lot more if the angle of attack is high, or the winds are higher. I remember when I was a USAF C-141 pilot (4-engine jet transport). At our base here in Oklahoma with storms coming with expected straight line winds of 85-90 mph, maintenance tied down each aircraft with six 10,000 lb strength tie-down chains, thinking that should do it. The winds came and some of the aircraft snapped all the chains and got moved around the ramp. In retrospect, the C-141 rotates at 90 knots and lifts off at a little over 100. At that speed it can lift 160,000 lbs of it's own weight and almost 200,000 lbs of cargo. So 60,000 lbs of chain strength wasn't even close to enough. If the wind direction is from the aircraft's front, the wings can generate an enormous amount of lift, even in a Kitfox. Imagine how much lift could be generated with 60-70 MPH winds across the wings at the high angle of attack presented to the wind when the tail is on the ground. Might take a LOT of stakes in the ground and some hefty rope! Clem Lawton, OK KFIV-912 -----Original Message----- RE: The Claw tiedown system " Once I have it set up, I can't picture it ever coming out because of winds. "